Talk:Goth subculture/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PR for the article

Once Adrift*'s issues are dealt with to everyone's satisfaction, I think we'll have a pretty stable and rather good article here. It may not yet meet the high criteria for featured article status, but I think it'll deserve a bit of PR on Wikipedia. Any ideas? I'm thinking of nominating it for "good article" status not too far in the future. I am a bit worried about the ideology, etc., section, not because I'm still concerned about the word "ideology". But it does seem very thin on references to support some of the claims such as those that Adrift* highlighted. Metamagician3000 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find any easier way to deal with the contentious portions of the subheading but to delete them. I might be in the wrong for that and feel that maybe the sentence tieing into the themes of Romance and Neoromance, specifically, could have been dealt with in another way. I have no problems with other editors either reverting or reediting the sections i've deleted, but feel there's need for discussion before doing so. At any rate, I agree with Metamagician3000 that, at this point, this is a fairly stable article and deserves at least "good article" status. We really need more citations, and that's something i think i can work on a bit in the future.--Adrift* 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Things to maybe change

The pictures don't bring much to the article and are kind of lacking. We need some pictures of contemporary goths; elder or mallgoths or whatever. This was attempted before but fell short, though i'm still unsatisfied with the current choice of pictures.

This article needs to be re-organized. I don't know how many would agree, but I think the order should be History/Origin, Idealology, popular intolerance, cultural influences, music... then the other three should be combined into the other sections.

This article is good except that it's very messy. We're not trying to write a book; a lot of things seem superflous and defiant of NPOV. It needs to be more uniform and easy to browse.

Whatcanuexpect 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The photos that are there now were added because the previous photos were disastrously bad representations of the Goth scene. I think the photos that are there with the exception of maybe the seemingly random Naked and the Dead photo fit the article just fine, but I also agree that more photos of regular non-rock star Goths should be added to the article as well. I may be adding some personal photos eventually if nothing decent comes up. As far as the order goes, I don't really see any problems with it. I'm not whole heartedly objecting to a reshuffle, but I don't really think its absolutely necessary. I do think that everything below the Ideology section seems sort of tacked on, but it always seemed to me that those sections just needed to be filled out a bit (possibly group some of the bottom sections together). Just out of curiousity, what parts do you find "defiant of NPOV"?--Adrift* 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to rely less on Hodkinson whose book is written to fit the English goth scene. What about the continental goth scene? What about the goth-metal scene? I also agree with the bad choice of pictures. They fit to history part as a description of the first generation of goths.

The Goth metal scene is a goth metal scene, not a goth scene. btw: Why do you think that this goth metal thing is a continental european phenomenon? --~Menorrhea 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Religious Elements

I'm wondering about the need for this line at the end of the Religious subheading: and so on, creating a demand for religious goth arts and literature, as illustrated by such websites as GothicChristianity.com and GothsForJesus.com. Now, I'm a Christian, but seems to me that 2 links to Christian only sites is a bit um... I don't know, it feels a bit biased maybe? There used to be a Jewishgothic.com webpage, but looks like it doesn't exist anymore. Furthermore, I'm not sure what it means that there's a "demand for religious goth arts and literature...". Most traditional gothic art and literature is heavily religious anyways... The only thing i can see this refering to is faith based musicians. I'd like to either trim the second link or get rid of this whole half sentence altogether. Seems to me there's no reason these links couldn't just be linked further down as Externals as the point is already loud and clear in the rest of the heading.--Adrift* 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I dunno. Why not just remove the second link and see how it looks? It probably doesn't need two examples to make the point, but having an example here gives a sense of documenting what the article refers to. Anyway, that would be the cautious approach. I'll go and do this. See how it strikes you when you see it. Metamagician3000 04:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah good point about using at least one for documenting. I wouldn't mind seeing another example other than the Christian one, but so far there's not much out there for other faith oriented websites. I also went ahead and removed the section that went on about a demand for religious art and literature.--Adrift* 05:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Much, perhaps most, of the religious imagery used by goths is actually satirical or ironic. Just like most uses of symbols of authority such as military dress or aristocratic dress. If there is any demand by a religious group to set up a religious goth website it is probably motivated by the fact that most goths are opposed to formally organized religion. Goths do not actually yearn for a return to the dark ages. It is something of a social commentary. This same kind of thing can be seen in romantic poetry and gothic fiction.

I am going to change the wording "adhere" in relation to religions to something else. The source does not use the word "adhere". The article currently misstates the original source text "Atheism, Agnosticism, the New Age, Gnosticism, Shamanism, Wicca, other Neopagan traditions, and other minority faith groups are represented more frequently than in the general population."

The term "represented" is far different from "adhere". "Represented" merely refers to the fact that an individual is nominally a member of that group. It does not express a specific degree of faith or adherance. "adhere" clearly suggests a high level of compliance.

I have been in the goth scene actively for 14 years and I can say that I've never known a more ecclectic bunch of heathens. Their beliefs are all over the scale, but one salient commonality. Very very few ADHERE to the dogma of their religions. Most have highly personalized beliefs and religious intolerance is very very rare. In the mean time however I am merely going to change the article to reflect the source we are citing. In my opinion they state the facts accurately.TheDarknessVisible 22:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Ok. its protected... so I can't edit. I would like to change the sentences:

Many goths adhere to major religious groups such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Others see traditional religions as limiting, and so follow New Age approaches to spirituality or secularism. A large number of goths adhere to atheism or agnosticism. The subculture shows greater interest than the general population in Wicca, Neopaganism, spiritualism, and the occult. Though only some goths are Satanists or Luciferians, the public sometimes stereotypes all goths as such. There is no one common religious tie that binds together the goth movement.

to the following:

Many Goths reflect the religious trends of popular culture and are probably nominal or devout christians. Atheism, Agnosticism, the New Age, Gnosticism, Shamanism, Wicca, other neopaganism traditions, and other minority faith groups are generally represented more frequently amongst goths than in the general population. Though only a few Satanists or Luciferians are goth, and this is rare, there is a public perception that goth is frequently associated with satanism from an incorrect association between Marilyn Manson, his fans, and the goth movement. There is no one common religious tie that binds together the goth movement.

The reason I want to make the change is because the current text goes wide off from the source, includes original research, does not explain the public perception of satanism, and includes new research not mentioned in the source. Specifically a connection to Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. I dont dispute that there are jewish or muslim goths. But I dispute claiming this comes from www.religioustolerance.org.

With that said islam is under-represented amongst goths and the only jewish goth I've ever known in 14 years was an atheist. I've never heard of an orthodox jewish goth. So unless we are going to find a source for associating these religions we need to adhere to the source reference. I believe the text "reflect the religious trends of popular culture" is enough to capture the minority of goths who are bhuddist, jewish, hindu or muslim.

Lastly the current paragraph is defective in that it suggests that goths either ADHERE to a major religion, or ADHERE to atheism or agnosticism, "follow" new age approaches, or "show interest" in the occult and paganism. There is a big difference between "ADHERING" and "showing interest". The article suggests that there are more muslim fundamentalist goths than pagans. It also wrongly uses the word "adhere" with atheism and agnosticism when neither of these are religions with any rules or practices of worship one can adhere to.

The new paragraph is a paraphrase of what the cited source actually says about goths and religion. And I agree with it based on 14 years of personal experience active in the goth subculture.TheDarknessVisible 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected Go ahead. John Reaves (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the change. I also added a sentence which explains why goths wear religious symbols. (previously it stated it but gave no justification). I also removed the 'citation needed' and stuck in the actual reference, because this all is reported in religioustolerance.org. I felt the reason 'why' was important because the public and the general reader is very interested in the religious situation, or lack, behind goth. More so than they generally care about gothic music or having big hair. anyway.. I hope it meets with consensus... check it out. TheDarknessVisible 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cyber link

I vote for the removal of the link to Cyber (Subculture). The article blatantly says that Cyber and Goth are two different things, and that members of both often dislike being associated with the other. 68.38.192.116 07:54, April 4, 2006

i strongly disagree. cybergoth is a large part of the uk scene. --MilkMiruku 08:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As much as hate to admit it, I also strongly disagree. Even if it is just Techno Rave dressed in black latex there are probably enough tangible links to the traditional scene to make it stick.--Adrift* 09:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also Disagree. Liks to exist to goth culture, and although the links may not be set in the blackest of obsidian stone, they are there. Perhaps put a section of links "Related" to goth culture separate from "Directly related links" Darkpowder 17:42, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

Disagree. And maybe I've missed it, but where does it say they are two different things? It says that cybergoth grew out of goth, hence they are related at least on that note. Mdwh 22:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree. Being a Goth myself, and maybe one of the few that can admit it without tongue in check, I see Cyber as just another form of a vastly diverse group. There are also many forms of Cyber-brethern, such as Gravers and Neo-Goths. While I do not instist that Cyber is in any way a Gothic convention of solely the younger members of the Goth scene, I do insist that even the offshoots of Cyber can not be denied as Goth in and of themselves. Cyber may very well have developed as an afterthought of fashions brought to the attention of the masses in movies such as Bladerunner, and while most Gothic fasions borrow from time periods of the past, Cyber Goth fashions "borrow" from the future. --Inten Rael 04:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"gothic" taste

That sounds very vague. Specially in the article that is trying to define goth.

What part of the article are you referring to specifically?--Adrift* 08:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

The Punk article I started is in a wretched state, but, if you take a look at it, there are some ideas which I think may be helpful to the Goth article, especially in the the structure of the "Culture" section and the content of the "Lifestyle and community" section of the Punk article. A clear outline of goth culture would do wonders for this article, and a description of the prevalence and structure of goth as a community would also be a major improvement. Also, it seems strange to have a section entitled "English usage" and another "Current use of the term 'goth'". That seems redundant. Those sections should be merged or differentiated. Ecto 09:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The "English usage" and "Current use ..." sections are doing different jobs (one is talking about the actual meaning in contemporary parlannce, the other warning against solecisms such as "a gothic", which is a quite different issue), but I agree that more thought needs to go into how they are related in the article, so as to avoid any confusion.

Also, the lead is currently rather weak. It is only one para, and says very little. We really need a lead of three paras which gives a good summary of the total article. The lack of a good lead is the main weakness that I see at the moment if the article were submitted to the Good Article process (or the Featured Article process), except the continuing need for a whole lot more detail in references. Metamagician3000 10:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They are different issues, but they both pertain to goth as a word, and I think that warrants them being put into one section. But then again, I am not sure if we we even need the "English usage" section at all. In its current state, it belongs in a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia. Ecto 14:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's a point I made back in Feb. [1], but nothing came of it.--Adrift* 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It all seems like good information to me. I see it as a presentational issue. Metamagician3000 23:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a choice of several options here:

• Change the "Current use of the term 'goth'" so that it is not based on goth as a word. Basing it on goth as a word is not neccessary to the content, is it? I think this option would be the best choice.
• Move the content of "English usage" to the Wiktionary. I think this option should be done in conjunction with the first.
• Leave it as is. This option would not really satisfy me at all.
• Merge the content of "Current use of the term 'goth'" into "Engish usage". I could live with this choice.
• Merge the content of "Engish usage" into "Current use of the term 'goth'". This option would leave the "Engish usage" content out of place.

Are there any other options? Ecto 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote for option 1. The bit called "Current use of the term 'goth'" isn't really about the word "goth" at all. Not in substance. It is about who is or is not commonly, or correctly, considered part of the subculture. Put another way, it is about the subculture's boundaries. Metamagician3000 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There are some long, learned digressions that don't seem to do much to advance the article. I'm deleting some of them, in the spirit of being bold. For example, I've just deleted this: The word "gothic" in the literary sense is a broad term. It is hard to predict which direction gothic literature will take in the twenty-first century, but there is interest in many to adapt the old gothic influences and renew them. Gothic fiction before Edgar Allan Poe, Algernon Blackwood, and H. P. Lovecraft was not generally seen as frightening, particularly by today's gothic standards, though there were major authors who showed gothic sensibilities, such as Charles Dickens with his ghost story "A Christmas Carol."

It's all very interesting, but it belongs in an article about gothic literature. This article does not need so much peripheral detail about the literature (actually, I'm not convinced that everything here is even true; I suspect that some of the early gothic literature was intended to be frightening). Metamagician3000 04:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I've just deleted this: One reason "gothic" is such a broad term is because its content and themes can vary greatly. For example, as aforementioned, some gothic writers like Brite and Rice utilize erotic themes while other writers, such as Rod Serling, do not use an erotic undercurrent at all. Works that vastly differ from one another in these and many more ways still share the category of gothic literature, such as Serling's Night Gallery, Macey Baggett Wuesthoff's Sacrifice, Washington Irving's "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" and Joseph Armstead's Darkness Fears and Moon-Chosen series. Once again, it's all interesting, but no actual connection is made to the subculture. As the article stands, it is just a distraction. Metamagician3000 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just done a ruthless restructure of the article. I think the material is now in a better logical order. If you don't like this structure, could you please try to improve it rather than just reverting. I'm certain it's an improvement on the old structure, even if it's not perfect. Metamagician3000 04:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Leave the references to HP Lovecraft out and you risk your sanity! Keeping past reference in (especially references to cinema and the goth pioneers) with dearly loved authors is something essential to this article. Darkpowder 17:46, 11 April 2006 (GMT)

By all means put in something about Lovecraft or how Lovecraft is regarded in the goth subculture. But the sentences I removed don't really do that. They just make tangential and dubious points about when gothic literature's possible future, when it became scary, etc. I'm sure you could improve on what was there. Metamagician3000 23:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job changing the "Current use of the term 'goth'" section! So, what are we to do with the "English usage" section? I'm tempted to delete it. The more I think about it, the less it works for me. Ecto 18:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing

.... was recently nominated to be promoted to good article status, but has unfortunately failed. Reasons for failing GA:

• Intro
  • "prevalent" should be replaced with widespread/popular/common
  • "around the globe".. are they tiny goth people? This paints a somewhat confusing picture, do 3rd world nations have goths?
  • " traces its origins to the United Kingdom of the early 1980s" should be reworded to "in the early 1980s", unless you have a time machine :P
  • Prose 2nd paragraph for generalities, remember this is an intro; keep it BROOAD.
  • Move 3rd paragraph to the end of the first.
  • General clean up and prosing paragraphs
  • Swap image from "Origins and influences" with the one in the intro, it gives a better view of the style

• English usage
  • Move Wikitonary link to External links
  • Remove the examples.. please
  • List what it IS used for, not what it ISN'T
  • Move this further down the article, this isn't the most important thing about goths is it?

• Origins and influences
  • Add a introduction before going into subheaders, or simply remove the first subheader
  • "group or movement" Be Bold and choose one!
  • "in July 1982 might be seen as" Be Bold!
  • No brackets!
  • Don't leave random web links in parapgraphs, see WP:CITE on how to reference articles

(Apply the above points to the WHOLE article, that's the idea of it)

• Other points
  • Improve prose in the 2nd half of "Etymology and Gothic horror literature"
  • Summarise and/or make "Early influences from Gothic literature and cinema" its own section
  • Avoid brackets
  • "Local scenes also contributed to this variation." = incomplete sentence-merge
  • " Melbourne playwright Sai Ho is " should be "Melbourne playwright, Sai Ho, is..."
  • Merge "Elder goths", "Corporate goths" and mentioning of "baby goths" to its own section
  • "Image:The Hunger film poster.jpg" requires sourcing
  • Add a photo of a goth band
  • Summarise, prose and cleanup the music section

• References
  • Cut down "See Also"
  • Read WP:CITE to find out about how to reference
  • Clean up External links, leaving professional sites only

A good start, but needs cleanup. Asking for a copyedit from an admin would be useful, good luck Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like we have some work to do. (jeez in the time it took him to write this up he could have cleaned up the article for us lol).--Adrift* 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, this is a useful outside opinion, so it has my thanks. IMHO the nomination was premature. Compared to the articles I've recently nominated or passed, such as Stregheria and Hong Kong action cinema (which make nice examples of the standard to aim at), Goth is still at least a few weeks away from meeting the GA standard, I think. Hopefully, Highway's comments will help.

I've made a couple of small changes this morning: linking the poster for The Hunger directly to the main image, which has all the details; and adding a few extra words about the movie, in case there's any doubt as to whether we provide sufficient discussion to justify illustrating it. I'm not sure if that really satisfies the point that was made, but it seems to me to strengthen the case for using the image. Metamagician3000 23:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, reasons 1, 2, 3, 5 for the intro were introduced by an edit just a couple of hours before your edit, and after the GA nomination! I've reverted it back now.Mdwh 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it now on purpose. Goth is such an important sociological development of the past 25 years, that I thought if a kindly critical eye took a look at the article at this stage, then it would help the process of the current editors polishing up this very good diamond in the rough by allowing an outsider's viewpoint. - Davodd 04:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. The outcome of the process has prompted me to do some quite ruthless pruning and restructuring. Hopefully the others here will also have bold responses. Metamagician3000 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments, I've received a slightly less than warm welcome from other articles (I'm still hiding from the Queen editors. :P) It is a good article, it just needs some fixing with the grammar and the wording, which is much easier to fix compared to other nominees such as Perfect Dark, which has about 12 copyvio images, and Scarlett Johansson which has a section about her chest :S. If you need any of the notes expanded, or you need any help just leave a message, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 19:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

About the introduction...

Goth is not a modern subculture. Modern subcultures are subcultures that started between the World Wars. Goth is a post-War subculture. And it’s still around. So goth is a contemporary subculture.

I pointed this next thing out in my original edit summary in case this would happen. Goth is not widespread, popular, or common. Goth is not pop culture. If it was, it wouldn’t be a subculture. It is widespread, popular, and common ‘’enough’’ to sometimes be reflected in pop culture. That’s what ‘’prevalent’’ means: “common enough to be encountered, but not ubiquitous”. In this case, the goth subculture is common enough to be encountered by pop culture, which is Wikipedia’s ideal audience. Is there some reason for changing this word?

Geography is important. The introduction should answer the question, “’’Where’’ is the goth subculture?” “Many countries around the globe” is an accurate answer. There are goth scenes in North America, South America (Brazil), Europe, Australia, Africa (South Africa), and Asia (Japan and Russia). Something that spans two hemispheres of the planet is “around the globe”. There are goth scenes in all four hemispheres. And yes, there are goths in some third world countries, such as Mexico and Russia, and they are about the same size as regular goths. The article should cover the subculture’s geography in a paragraph. The introduction should cover it in a sentence.

The sentence “The Goth subculture has associated "gothic" tastes in music and fashion” should be kept as close to a description of those tastes as possible.

This introduction is worthless without a brief description of gothic music. That’s the basis of the entire subculture.

If anyone thinks there are any problems with my edits to the introduction, please go ahead and make changes. Reverting my edits wholesale is fine with me, just as long as it doesn’t negate obvious improvements along with what is viewed as wrong. Thank you. Ecto 16:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I was mostly teasing, I agree with Meta that Highway, rightly, brought to our attention some very rough spots. And I also agree with Davodd that this article is highly deserving of the attention we're giving it. Looks like Meta did some intensive reediting.... excellent. I haven't gotten around to reading all of the reedits, but i'll voice my opinion and do some follow up edits (if there's need for them) as soon as I have the time.--Adrift* 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There's still a lot to do, most of it beyond my expertise, but I hope there is now a cleaner, clearer base to work from. I haven't necessarily handled everything in the way Highway suggested, but it did prompt me to restructure the article in a way that made better sense to me, rework a lot of the relationships between sections (which meant rethinking what they were really about), prune away peripheral material and just plain wordiness, and generally clean up all the prose as best I could. I'll now hand it back to Adrift* and others. The main thing the article currently needs is a whole lot of references. There are many claims in the article that need to be substantiated, but I'm not qualified to do that - I've more or less taken all the factual claims on faith. Metamagician3000 00:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

do 3rd world nations have goths? yes, they have. --Eltitoskate 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

while it is obvius that you guys seem to concernd on the material that these pages have, have you ever even considerd to add to subject the sort of discrimination that these subculters get from the general world, also how each culter gets along with another. not to menchon the stages they had gone thru. i read on a post a while back about the stages that goths had gone thrue due to theis hate, and id love to add the site.. had i rememberd it. ^_^ nonetheless reserching this info may help and contribute to the sort of info given. a lot of info you had writen on hear is good and all the while sistanable but what about our current times. did you know that there are three types of goths, i dont know wether or not this issu had yet bin dealt with but id love to get a feed back on this. thank you.. sincerly black fire.

Recent University of Glasgow study

This study investigates the high proportion of goths who admit having self-harmed or attempted suicide - but BEFORE they became goths! It suggests that identifying with a tolerant, distinctive subculture is of real psychological benefit to children/teens with emotional or social problems. I think that a sentence or two on it would fit well into the second paragraph of the 'Ideology' section, but I'm new to Wikipedia and would really appreciate some advice on how to word it. I know, I know, BE BOLD and all that, but it's such a sensitive subject and I don't want to unintentionally be offensive or POV. Bottlegreen roses 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

i read about that, but check some of the number crunching here. --MilkMiruku 23:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm yeah ok point taken. A sample of 25 people isn't really much of a study, is it? Thanks for pointing that out! Bottlegreen roses 23:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the study does not indicate something that I thought stuck out like a sore thumb: Isn't it possible that the percentages are equal amongst all sections of our culture, but that my Gothic community is less redisent about reporting it? I believe that all groups and sub-cultures have this... problem, shall we say, but because the Goth community is so much more open about pretty much everything, we are the only ones comfortable enough to admit it in mass numbers. "Mass" being loose term, based on the sample size. It could also be that some people, trying to fit in (especially those of a lesser age), will attempt anything, even SI. --Inten Rael 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary gothic literature

I see that someone has deleted the material on Poppy Z. Brite. Someone has also added a block of material which now reads (after some copyediting:

"Then within the newer developments in the gothic literary medium one will see authors named Macey Wuesthoff, who call to mind the works of Stephen King with her novel Sacrifice along with the vampire novel written by Joseph Armstead named Darkness Fears which takes an accurate look at a goth nightclub. Their works depict the more brutal side of the gothic subculture, which shows its kinship with dark metal. Gothic films such as Psycho, inspired by the Robert Bloch novel of the same name, bring to mind the aspects of the gothic being more psychological. Richard Matheson's novel, I Am Legend is about vampires spawned from the apocalypse. Followers of Matheson include authors Terry Lloyd Vinson and Nicholas Grabowsky. Their works will have more in common thematically with bands Iced Earth and AC/DC; nonetheless, a gothic element is evident."

I don't know whether I'm in agreement with these edits, and I am not clear what relationship is claimed between these various works and the goth subculture, but I have not tampered with the para beyond copyediting it. (I'll do some more of this, as some of it still needs fixing.) Nor have I reinstated any of the Brite material. I'd be interested in responses from other editors here. Metamagician3000 09:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I would reinstate a reference to Brite, but only a small one: she no longer identifies with the subculture, and was never universally popular within it, though she did create a few goth characters in her earlier novels and is popular in some circles. I didn't notice this paragraph about Wuesthoff in the main article, but I'd suggest that if it's still there it be removed: it smacks of self-promotion and I don't believe she is a writer deeply associated with the subculture, except in her own mind (nor have I heard of the "followers" mentioned in that paragraph). Both Brite and Caitlin R. Kiernan are, along with a few others. And the goth scene didn't have much "kinship" with dark metal until pretty recently (past wearing black clothing); many goths consider metal fans a different breed and don't want to be lumped in with them. Some goths do like some metal, though. 4.225.130.185 09:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

English usage

I am being bold and deleting this section for the following reasons:

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
• The usage of the word goth is not the most important thing about the subculture, yet the section dealing with it is at the top of the article. Simply moving this section anywhere else in the article would only make it more obvious how out of place its content is in an encyclopedia. It cannot stay where it is, and it cannot be moved, so it should be deleted.
• This content delays the reader from reading about the things which actually make goth interesting. Putting the most boring thing first is not good writing. Keeping boring things out if you can is.
• Anyone who reads through the rest of the articles sans "English usage" should have just as good an idea of how to use the word as someone who read that section, only they would have learned how to use the word in a much more lively, natural way.
• The examples of usage kind of make me cringe for some reason.
• Goth is a slang term, so there is really no standardized usage to begin with, and I do not agree with the entirety of the description given. From the looks of things, neither do some of the other editors, as...
• The usage of the word within the rest of the article itself contradicts the "English usage" section several times. It’s fine by me to refer to the goth subculture simply as the noun ‘’goth’’.

If you disagree with me, please feel free to restore the section, but please also respond with your reasons for doing so. Ecto 21:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't restored the section, though I'm tempted to do so, as I find it quite interesting. This might be a matter of taste. I find discussions of word usage and so on more interesting than a lot of other stuff in the article, like the long lists of bands, some of them seemingly not even notable, and all the detail about elder goths, etc. Whether the section gets restored depends on whether people really make the sorts of errors that the section warns against. I'm not sure they do. Without that knowledge, I can't make a strong case for it. I'd like to see some comment on that. In the absence of such comment, I'll go along with the deletion of the section.

But do you really think it's okay to refer to the subculture that one might belong to as "goth" ... as in, "She's a member of goth"? I don't see where the article does that. What I'd agree is that it's okay to refer to a style, or a social phenomenon, as "goth" ... as in , "Goth has gone from strength to strength over the past twenty years." I would have thought that that is what the article does. Metamagician3000 00:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I still think that what is holding back this article is referencing. Almost nothing is properly referenced. Metamagician3000 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I find the discussion of word usage interesting, too, but that is the purpose of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. I come to Wikipedia for encyclopedia entries, and I got to Wiktionary for dictionary entries. Since goth is a subculture, it is also a community, and, as such, a group of people. I have no problem with someone saying "She is a member of goth" beyond the fact that "She is goth" is more terse. I have heard the former in conversation and it has never crossed my mind to "correct" it. Since goth is slang, there is no real standard behind its usage. Some people capitalize the word as Goth when referring to the community, and keep it uncapitalized when referring to goth as cultural phenomena. Some even go so far as to use the word gothdom or Gothdom to refer to goth as a group of people. Some always capitalize it, others always leave it in lowercase. You cannot lay down any hard and fast rules. ‘’Goth’’ is not the spawn of a single source in academia, but rather informal slang, so it is impossible to justify placing it in such a certain usage. The only thing you can do is choose the usage you prefer, use the term that way in your own writing, and keep its usage consistent throughout the article. Even if saying “She is a member of goth” is illogical, well, language does not always follow logic, now does it? It seems that my deletion of the section in question was viewed as “vandalism” and reverted, so if you really want to keep the section I am not going to go against your opinion and delete it again. Please tell me if you still want to keep it. And yes, I agree that a lack of referencing is this article's main problem, but the 'English usage' section does not help, in my opinion. Ecto 16:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't me who reverted it, and nor did I consider what you did vandalism, especially as you gave your reasons here. Whether the section stays or goes is best settled by discussion. Speaking for myself, I think what you're saying makes sense, though I'd like to see some more opinions. Metamagician3000 11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it again. I think the majority of us agree its unnecassary.--Adrift* 16:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't think it was you. Ecto 01:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's keep it like that, then - at least until such a time as someone gives a good reason to the contrary. I'll join in the consensus, at least for now, because Ecto's reasons did make a lot of sense. Metamagician3000 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason "She is a member of goth" is inappropriate is that "goth" is not a noun referring to an official group, or an unofficial one. "goth" is an abbreviated adjective (short for "gothic"). Thus, if you want to say that someone is a member, you say that they are "a member of the goth/gothic subculture" or that someone "is goth." If you use "goth" as a noun, it solely refers to a person, not a group. Got it? Parts of speech. "Gothdom" is someone being clever and is understood in the scene as a vaguely witty way to refer to the subculture.

As I said below, a LOT of terminology related to the subculture was coined on alt.gothic sometime in or before the mid-1990s; some of the rest of it was in use in the UK before that, and popularized via alt.gothic (as many of the most prominent early posters, like Pete Scathe and Sexbat, were British goths who have been involved in the scene since the 1980s).

Ecto's initial reasons may have made a lot of sense, but the more recent ones (at 16:59 on 9th May) do not, and are not correct at all w/r/t common usage of the terminology by literate and informed people (people saying "X is a member of goth" are usually either not one or not the other, and you can tell if they're literate by reading the rest of what they've written).

4.225.130.185 09:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

sentances that possibly need altering or deletion

Here are some sentances I personally have problems with, and was wondering if we could see some discussion on.

From the top of the article: Its imagery and cultural proclivities show influences from nineteenth century Gothic literature, mainly by way of horror movies (particularly cinematic depictions of vampires).

I more or less agree with this statement, except the part in parenthesis. When I think of Peter Murphy, Robert Smith, Siouxsie, Nick Fiend, Captain Sensible, Johnny Slut, Rozz Williams, etc. where the Goth LOOK undeniably came from, I never think vampire.

Goth after post-punk The 2003 Victoria and Albert Museum Gothic exhibition in London furthered a tenuous connection between modern goth and the medieval gothic period.

It did? How? why?

Over time, the gothic subculture has developed its own "goth slang", with regional variations.

It has? If it has, its not nearly as prevalent as hip hop slang...

Yes, it has. In fact, a book of subcultural slang for writers called Talk the Talk was recently published, and goth was one of the subcultures included. Unfortunately, many of the definitions given by the author, Luc Reid, are at least slightly incorrect. It appears that he only used a handful of forums for research.

The fact that "goth slang" hasn't been appropriated in mass culture doesn't mean it doesn't exist: "babygoth/babybat," "eldergoth," "mopeygoth," "graver," "doom cookie," etc. Another thing is that, although it's technically slang, it's probably immediately apparent what most of it means. Most of these things were originally coinages on alt.gothic.

And there are indeed regional variations: see the Australian terms, and think of things like "PonyGoth" - which meant a goth, usually female, who had multicolor hair extensions, like a My Little Pony doll! This originated in the UK in the early 1990s and does not seem to have caught on extensively in the US, though it was used on some forums for a while when the look itself started to catch on here. I think it eventually merged into "cybergoth," since that was the fashion identification of many of the American girls who adopted the hairstyle.

4.225.130.185 08:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PS, I believe I may be able to put you in touch with the person who actually coined the term "babygoth" (now sometimes seen as "baby bat" - as "goth" and "bat" are sometimes interchangeable when used as suffixes on descriptive terms). It did not originally mean "someone with potential" (to grow into a valuable scene member). The goth scene proper - the music/dance/fashion scene - is VERY club/bar/pub-centric, and most clubs are age-restricted due to their drinking licenses, and many adult goths do not like all-ages clubs or club nights. (Anecdotal? Use Google News to read as much of alt.gothic from about ten to twelve years ago as you can. It's documented there. I can't stress enough that SO MUCH of what we know as goth today is related to or documented by alt.gothic in the early-to-mid-1990s.) A babygoth or babybat was simply a goth too young to go into a regular club or pub night, or many concerts (usually under 18 or under 21), and thus unable to participate completely in the scene. One reason it was coined was that many of the events at the earliest Convergence goth conventions were age-restricted, leaving some high school and college students who were able to go to the con barred from some of its events. A few took it upon themselves to create their own events specifically for the younger set and referred to them as "babygoth events". 09:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Current boundaries of the subculture Sai Ho, a Melbourne playwright, is particularly scathing about what he terms baby goths.

Who is he, why should we care, and so what?

The original Goths and gothic horror Certain elements in the dark, atmospheric music and dress of the post punk scene were clearly "gothic" in this sense, exemplified by the names of such post punk bands as UK Decay and Southern Death Cult.

I think this is contestable. The name UK Decay strikes me as having more to do with the political nature of UK Decay, even the song UK Decay is more about politics than about anything "gothic", and Ian Astbury labeled Sexgang Children's fans goths, it doesn't appear Southern Death Cult was influenced by gothic literature when naming their own band.

Influence on the subculture In particular, the imagery surrounding male and female vampires, witches, sorcerers, and spies, had a significant influence on the evolution of gothic fashion.

Spies? the rest makes goth style seem like it was influenced by Lord of the Rings or something.

A newer development in the gothic literature is the author Macey Wuesthoff, whose novel Sacrifice calls to mind the fiction of Stephen King. A vampire novel written by Joseph Armstead, Darkness Fears, takes an accurate look at a goth nightclub. These works depict the more brutal side of the gothic subculture, showing its kinship with dark metal.Gothic films such as Psycho, inspired by the Robert Bloch novel of the same name, bring to mind the aspects of the gothic being more psychological. Followers of Matheson include the authors Terry Lloyd Vinson and Nicholas Grabowsky. Their works have more in common thematically with bands Iced Earth and AC/DC; nonetheless, a gothic element is evident.

Some of these books and films seem to have a tenuous connection to the goth scene if any. I've never read Darkness Fears, but even if it does take and accurate look at the goth nightclub how accurate is it if it shows a "brutal side of the gothic subculture", what brutal side? And where praytell is the kinship to dark metal? lol. When did Psycho become a gothic film? Maybe it is, but why drop it in this article? Why not drop in every horror film since film began? Why not Night of the Living Dead, surely that movie has more to do with the scene than Psycho. And I've never read Vinson, or Grabowsky, but if their works have more to do with Iced Earth and AC/DC how is that gothic? I think this section would be far more accurate if we just delete this whole paragraph.

Popular intolerance and media characterizations as well as another school shooting that took place at the hands of Red Lake, MN teenager Jeff Weise, who was obsessed with a dark form of hip-hop music called horrorcore.

I've personally never heard of this shooting, and have to wonder how relevant it is to the article. I'm not saying it didn't happen of course, simply that I doubt it had as much of an impact in the goth scene as did the Columbine shootings.

Mental Health Issues This whole section is really confusing, from the statistics down to the individuals tested, even the end of the article that sort of counterpoints the statistics doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It either needs a big cleaning up or deletion.

So what do you folks think? --Adrift* 04:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay:

• Vampires - I defer to you on this, though I do tend to think a bit of vampires.
• 2003 exhibition - I have no idea what this is about.
• Goth slang - it's new to me, but what do I know?
• Sai Ho - never heard of him and whoever said this didn't think he was notable enough to create an article.
• UK Decay - what you say sounds plausible.
• Spies - God knows what that is about. The rest doesn't seem wildly implausible to me but I'd defer to your judgment on what should go here.
• Westhueff etc - I have no idea what this is all about.
• Red Lake - no idea. I'm prepared to say not notable.
• Mental health issues - I'd be glad to see it go, much as it's interesting.
• Generally - The more unverifiable or dubious claims bite the dust the better. I was fairly conservative when I did my big layer of revision. I'd be happen for someone more confident in their knowledge of the culture to really clean up some of these dubious claims that have crept in over time.

Metamagician3000 15:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I'm gonna be bold and start editing, I'm also adding some more photos to make the whole article more visually appealing. Go ahead and let me know if you folks have any problems with my edits.--Adrift* 17:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above (before Adrift): Everyone thinks of vampires now and then, but I'm a little nervous to find research using this page. Usually Jeff Hardy (a former WWE superstar) and Bam Margera (a skateboarder that plays pranks on his parents and friends) come to mind to me when the word "goth" is in play by the news media whenever there's a school shooting, or when there's a creepy teenaged character on a teen drama (Joan of Arcadia, Degrassi, etc.). And most recently, my mind added a new word to its vocabulary when "goth" comes to mind: Patrick Flueger (mostly because of his dark and shady character on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit that gave me the creeps on Memorial Day). As a young adult (I'm 20), I don't find goth to be that scary. In fact, most goths (teenagers) can be seen at malls and movie theaters, as I saw two years back. Oh, and I hope you do well in cleaning up this article. I have faith in your ability to succeed. Hope all goes well!

Wow... none of those things has anything to do with goth at all. The only well-handled goth I've seen on a TV drama is Abby on NCIS. Ellie and Ashley on DeGrassi were both, indeed, also goth for a while, albeit teen-goth (when are we going to stop pretending that goth isn't really two different subcultures, one more associated with teenagers and the other more associated with adults?). But pro wrestling is pretty much diametrically opposite to the goth scene, and Bam Margera is a guy who does stunts on MTV. There may be some self-styled teen goths who also like those things, but those things are not elements of their "gothness" - any more than "sushi is goth" because there are plenty of goths who like sushi. It's incidental. 4.225.130.185 08:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Adrift: I don't see anything wrong about this article. You keep doing what you have to do to this page. I highly appreciate your work. Like Metamagician3000, I have faith in your ability to succeed. Once again, hope all goes well!

D.F. Williams 22:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Didn't see this reply till just now, so thank you for that.--Adrift* 06:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos added

As you can see, I added a few new photos. Hopefully I jumped through all the right hoops for fair use of these. I plan on adding a picture of The Batcave night club further up the article, a picture of a modern Darkwave/Goth band like Cruxshadows in the music section, A picture of an "elder" goth and one of a "corporate" goth, as well as maybe some sort of picture for the media characterization section (maybe a picture of the Columbine school or something). I'm sure there will be a bit of shuffling and what not with the pics, feel free to do what you all see fit. I think it really does help bring the page to life when you have good pictures of real goths, and this being such a visable scene its a shame that we haven't done more sooner. Ok let me know what you think, and I'd still like to hear what you folks think about my other edits... I plan on eventually adding more citations to the article too some where down the road and cleaning up the article for Good Article status.--Adrift* 19:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've done fair use rationales for the two images that I introduced to the article - the poster for The Hunger and the Bauhaus promo shot. Someone else might want to have a look at these to ensure that what I have done is about right, and fix it if not. We'll need to have fair use rationales for all images. Metamagician3000 11:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Where would we add that? In the Summary section of the photo? Adding photos to Wiki is such a pain, i wish it was all spelled out better than it is now.--Adrift* 13:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The word on the street, as it were, is that Sunset Blvd. (1950 film) is a good article to imitate in terms of its handling of fair use issues. We should right click on the images in that article, follow the links, and see what happens. You can do the same thing with the two images that I had a go at in this article (which, however, I may not have done especially well). Transhumanism is the only article I've worked on heavily which has received FA status. A couple of other people recently had a go at its images to get it through the process. Metamagician3000 13:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"popular intolerance"?

... Is it just me, or does that phrase reek of POV?

.. And some of the criticism of the goth subculture has some level of validity, like the fact that many who "go goth" do so to set themselves apart from others, but really end up as "mallgoths", which is just another form of conformism.

The term "mallgoth" should probably also be merged with the goth article.

--Rober2 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain how you think "popular intolerance" sounds POV. Would you rather see something like "Public Criticism"? I don't see a problem with changing it to something like that. As far as the conformist issue is concerened, we've had that in and out of the article several times. The problem with previous write ups about that is that it doesn't seem to highlight how conformism is any different in the Goth scene than it is in any other subculture. It seems odd to me that critics of the goth scene always seem to point out the comformity issue, yet you see little discussion of the same issue in the punk article, heavy metal article, hip-hop article, etc. As far as the mallgoth merge goes. We do have a pretty big section that discusses mallgoths/Spooky kids further up the article. Seems redundant to merge it into the article, but I personally don't have Major problems with a merge if its done right.--Adrift* 16:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning

I did some cleaning up today per the Good Article failure and also based on some of the recommendations of other editors. Look it through and tell me what you think. I still think that Elder Goth and Corporate Goth should be combined under a heading like Styles and Variances in the Goth Scene where we could also possibly summarize or merge other sub-goth related articles.--Adrift* 16:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Elder goth

Is this term really in common enough usage to warrant a mention by that name? 82.16.91.162 07:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is used enough to warrant inclusion in Wiki if someone were to push the point. It does seem a bit alien in this article as it stands though. I believe it was merged into the article from it's own entry.--Adrift* 14:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It is common, and describes something important in and to the scene, but this concept should not have its own section. 'Elder goths' and 'Corporate goths' should be merged into one section called 'Types of goths', and the various other goth types could be discussed there as well, perhaps in the context of a 'gothic lifecycle' or something along those amusing lines. Ecto 22:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

agreed -- i think the term would benefit from being nested in a 'types of goths' more linear outline-like structure -- as we know some are distinguished by decade, scene, musical allegiance or values (for example), and a defined grouping like this would show the distinctions and progressions in such a way that the relationships between types would be clearer. a lot of redundancy and exposition could be cut out this way. -- Denstat 05:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The term 'eldergoth' actually relates to why the subculture itself has not died out. Many of the influential 'old-school' goths are entering their mid-thirties and early fourties, and they are still making significant contributions to the culture through organizing clubs, DJing, producing music, etc. The term is used both as a self-deprecating joke and a substitute for 'old-school'. LadyK 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Cosplay/Gothic Lolita from "Current boundaries"

...For the following reasons:

The 'goth look' comprises a significant portion of the cosplay subculture, particulary in Japan where the Gothic Lolita look is very popular.

First, this implies that gothic lolitas are cosplayers, which they are not. People do cosplay gothloli, but it is firstly a serious fashion, not a type of costume. In fact, gothic lolita cosplayers tend to receive a negative stigma from diehard lolita circles, much like "mallgoths" tend to be stigmatized by "real goths". Second, this implies that gothic lolitas are goths, which is debatable. Third, the concept of "gothic lolita" may be popular in the media, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a real one walking down the street in the middle of the day.

This look combines goth, with cute, and often includes exaggerated, cartoonish elements from Victorian and Edwardian culture.

This is misleading to those who are unfamiliar with gothic lolita. It is certainly "cute" on most occassions, but almost never "exaggerated" or "cartoonish", because this would contradict the commonly accepted lolita code of aestheticism. Gothic lolitas are girls in cute dresses, not clowns.

The cosplay aspect of goth subculture focuses almost exclusively on the clothes and makeup, and does not have a large crossover into the musical or social aspects that are common to the mainline goth culture in the west.

I don't deny that there seems to be a large amount of goth interest in the cosplay/anime community. Perhaps someone should re-write a paragraph about this? I'm not a part of it so I can't contribute, but it seems like it would be a useful topic. However, gothic lolita itself was largely inspired by Visual Kei bands in the '90s, and certain concerts still attract crowds of gothic lolitas. (This doesn't necessarily mean that all gothic lolitas like Visual Kei.)

If someone still feels the need to add something about gothic lolita to this article, please try to understand it better first.

--Kuroloki 03:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC

Im glad someone was good enough to post this. Im sick of the gothic lolita style

---

OK, I don't seem to understand what Gothic LOlita is then, If they have Gothic in front of the name itself? I've noticed that there are a few similarities, Lolita is supposed to be some pretty/Cute Style. These Girls & Guys(FEW but yes guys) Are made to look like Porcelain dolls and stuff, Don't get me wrong Malice Mizer was a Good Band and Mana is freaking Awesome(Too bad He's not doing the Rock thing anymore... Wish the band remained together). So, I mean, Goth themselves have trouble Identifying themselves and don't even know what they are(No offense to you Goths) but in Reality I feel that Emo and Goths have some serious Similarities... It's strange, An interesting and very interesting Topic of course but we're all lost, Goth has evolved in many ways and I can somewhat Consider Gothic Lolita to be in the same Category as Goth, I mean Goth Chick out here in the states do not dress like that and if there are that's interesting to know. I see alot of Cosplayers that Imitate the style, I see alot on other sites and it's kinda interesting cause alot do listen to Visual Kei and some are heavy Duty Anime Fans. I understand the Concept of the style and all but it's kinda odd that they call themselves Gothic Lolitas but have nothing to do With Goths. Gothic Lolita Colors are Black and white, Anything not Blank and white would be simply Considered Lolita.... Look, I do not wear No Gothic Lolita clothes nor do I Cosplay at all but I know several people who do and may I congratulate you on this interesting topic as well, Prety cool topic and I think we need some more articles based on this Topic.... BTW I'm a guy too LOL.

...Kanocode...

Emo and goth have nothing to do with each other in terms of the subcultures themselves, even if there are some common elements. Commonality is not causation. Emo did not grow out of goth; emo music is nothing like goth music. The only real connection is common roots in 70s punk, despite the fact that both subcultures can be moody and both seem to like black hairdye. 4.225.130.185 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm a woman, a former goth, and very well-versed in the Gothic Lolita subculture as well. (I was buying Kera before they put out the first GL Bible, and also bought the first Bible when it came out... so I have watched the style develop.)

First of all, many Lolitas (gothic and otherwise) in Japan ARE essentially cosplayers, because they can only wear the clothes on weekends. Lifestyle expectations prohibit them from wearing the clothes during the week (many are still school-age and must wear school uniforms). This is not true of every Lolita, but it is true of many. Not many see this as a contradiction. In other parts of the world, people who identify as Lolita are probably more likely to try to make a daily lifestyle of it, not unlike Momoko from Shimotsuma Monogatari/Kamikaze Girls. "Cosplay" seems to be more looked-down-upon by American Lolitas who do not like to see Lolita style being cosplayed at a convention by someone who doesn't know the finer points of the style any more than goths like to see people who go as "a goth" for Halloween.

(In other words, there has also always been plenty of infighting in the goth scene about who is and isn't "really" goth: there are always people who are elitist and others who are more inclusive. Basing a definition only on the attitudes of the most elitist parties in any communities will lead to trouble, because it makes the definition inappropriately limited. I'd say "not all cosplayers who wear Gothic Lolita clothes are Lolitas, some are just cosplayers; some are simply people who cannot wear their preferred style 24/7, as with a Western goth who must conform to a corporate dress code.")

Also, cosplayers in "goth" clothes are often distinct from cosplayers in "gothic lolita" clothes.

Second, not every Lolita is a Gothic Lolita. There are many different types of Lolita, and only a handful of them look remotely goth.

Kuroloki's comment about "cartoonishness" is correct: that's not the goal, so much as childishness. Most Lolita looks are based around the idea of being a very refined and well-behaved Victorian child, though there is some 18th century influence as well. A relatively recent variation adds traditional Japanese dress elements to the typical Lolita shape. Cartoonishness is never a goal. (Lolita style is even connected to a nascent quasi-feminist mentality in Japan: grown Japanese women are generally subject to certain expectations, which bear some resemblance to 1950s American expectations for women, and some Lolis see their style as simply opting out of growing up, thereby subverting those expectations. Little girls don't have to be the perfect housewife and mother.)

Third, while not every Lolita or Gothic Lolita in any country is a member of the goth subculture, "gothic lolita" IS a recognized look within the goth subculture. The Lolita look has certain "rules," and is very codified, but similar looks existed within the goth subculture before the Lolita look arrived from Japan. (Goths of my acquaintance began to take an interest in Visual Kei around 1997; Elegant Gothic Lolita began to be bandied around as a term circa 2000, when most Gothic Lolita dresses were "maid style" or "Alice style" - the look has diversified quite a bit since then. Prior to that, goth people I knew - and not a ton of them - were interested in Mana as Mana, Who You Won't Believe Is Really A Guy, Because Of His Pretty Dresses, Makeup, and Curls.) There was no name in the gothic subculture for the look prior to the late 1990s, and it was not rigidly codified, but if you asked a girl wearing something similar at the time, she might have described it as "like a Victorian Doll." (I even remember wearing a similar getup to a concert in 1997.)

At any rate, I would consider restoring Gothic Lolita to Current Boundaries, if it hasn't been already - WITH THOSE CAVEATS. The Lolita look has become popular among goths, and some goths have migrated between the two subcultures, but there is a separate Lolita subculture where the rules for the look are more rigid and goths are only a small element. (I wouldn't describe it as a "serious" fashion - but it is a fashion, rather than a costume.) You will see goths wearing outfits they describe as "gothic lolita" that people in the Lolita subculture will decry, because the skirt isn't quite the right shape, or the girl is wearing a skin-tight fishnet top, or etc. So, there is a bit of a separation between "Gothic and other Lolitas" and "Goths in Lolita outfits."

4.225.130.185 08:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Gothic lolita should be removed completely from this entry. it's nothing more than a fashion statement made by otaku fanfreaks, not a legit. subculture

I agree, Japan has a habit of latching onto fringe traits of subcultures and warping it. None of that "japan" stuff has any place on the gothic subculture article. None of that stuff was around in the eighties and it is not an actual part. Har, it reminds me of those japanese "rap" groups that get together. Its just an example of how they often copy it. It is often superficial, contrived, and exagerrated to the point of tastelessness. I have also never seen a japanese band play gothic rock.

'Origins and development' and 'Historical and cultural influences'

It seems to me that these two sections could be combined into a single 'History' section. Any thoughts? Ecto 12:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the two sections need to stay seperate in some fashion. The Origins and Development section is specifically about the origins of the current scene which is truly what the article hangs on, it documents the history of the scene, but only in as much as the term Goth is used today. On the other hand the Historical and Cultural influences is a truly historic look at where the concepts, look, and terms may have come from. It seems to me they are two very different topics that need to stay seperated. However, I wouldnt object to moving the Historical and Cutural Influences above the Gothic Music section, but the Gothic Music section obviously ties into the Origins and Development section, so any move seems sort of counter-productive.

--Adrift* 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The historical discussion touching the late 18th-century revival of interest in gothic architecture and the medieval generally might well mention Victor Hugo and his widely influential novel Notre-Dame de Paris, AKA "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." Decadent Enchantments by Katherine Bergeron details its genesis and social implications. These stem from the French Revolution, the widespread destruction wrought upon citizens' surroundings (the word "vandalism" was coined by a contemporary to describe it), and the consequent bewilderment and demoralization they experienced. Wanting the cathedral repaired and once again cherished, Hugo sought to stimulate popular interest in the building, partly by introducing the public to the fascinating details of this architectural style and to the exotic terminology used to describe it. When his novel's many readers in turn had sufficiently embarrassed the powers-that-be into doing something about its parlous condition, Viollet-Le-Duc was chosen as the supervising architect for the project. Viollet-le-Duc almost invented the concept of "restoration" of an old building-- hitherto architects had seldom tried to work in a bygone style-- yet was sophisticated enough to realize that he would not return it to a state that had ever actually existed, but was inspired by an emerging medievalism, or a contemporary image of the medieval. This complicated idea represented an advance in historical consciousness.

Of course, as a progenitor of today's "goth" subculture, Hugo's novel comes complete with the hunchback as a grotesque and bizarre villain/hero. Paul Emmons 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article already mentions gothic liturature. there is no need to get into each and every single writers biography. Is there any verifiable source which directly ties him to the Goth subculture? TheDarknessVisible 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Psychobilly

I'm not goth, but I like some goth music. On the psychobilly page it mentions that psychobilly is commonly listened to by goths. Why not a mention in the Goth Music Section?

Being goth music and being listened to by goths are two different things, but it could have a mention I guess.

Gothabilly should be mentioned as well

Gothic Music

Should not The Smiths, Morrissey (of The Smiths) and The Cure not also be added into influencing musics?

I would even venture to suggest other groups like Skinny Puppy and Nine Inch Nails as being influential in North America.

I believe all those artists already are mentioned, excep for the Smiths, which aren't related to goth in the slightest. WesleyDodds 12:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not nine inch nails. No. Not in a million years.

Yeah, I was pretty surprised to only find The Cure in some reference description in an overview article over Goth culture. They are only mentioned via post punk bands, not directly it seems

Also the origin of "Gothic" as name of the subculture is not really explain. (I've no reference, but afaik it relates to Victor Hugo's roman "The Hunchback of the Notre Dame", the setting, Notre Dame de Paris being a Gothic cathedral)

80.127.115.114 13:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Find some people who were in the goth scene in the 80s - many used to post on alt.gothic - and ask them about The Cure. They will tell you that they are a good goth-friendly pop band, but not specifically goth (that is, not really a part of the original goth music scene, although they were around at the time). There was a period after Disintegration was released where new 13-year-old goth girls, probably the first mall goths, were coming out of the woodwork, and were almost as mocked at the time as Marilyn Manson fans were in the mid-to-late 1990s.

Many goths love The Cure. Many don't.

(Ditto The Smiths, but because The Smiths never looked goth, the label hasn't stuck as well. These are "bands that many goths might like" rather than "bands that came out of the goth scene.")

4.225.130.185 08:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

I restored the recently removed disambiguation link to Goths. Why? Because I typed in "goth" to the search box looking for the tribes, but got the subculture instead. I'm probably not the only one to do it, and having the link right there is better than having to think "OK, what is THAT article titled". GeoGreg 06:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Types of goths

Since there seems to be a potential edit war - should this stay? I think it should go, unless we can find notable reliable sources for it. It's turning into a list of unsourced non-notable goth-stereotypes, plus we already have a separate article for goth slang.

Having said that, I think the reference to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4828230.stm should remain somewhere, maybe put elsewhere in the article. Mdwh 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should go. It seems to be the unsourced statements of goths, which violate WP:Original Research. CynicalMe 01:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, kind of a short notice alter to the article... Seems to me that the topic headline had some relevance to the overall encyclopedic value to the article. Possibly the article could have been altered in a way that made the topic less subjective, but it's not like there are no "types" of goths... I could probably find several verifiable sources for "types" of goths, starting with http://www.waningmoon.com/corpgoth/and ending with the fairly recent Spin article on "types" of goths.--Adrift* 01:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if its so easy to find verifiable sources, please feel free to rewrite the section. CynicalMe 01:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've got nothing against a version with sources. And yes, there are "types" of goths, but it's not like this is some objective difference, rather, there are slang terms to refer to certain types of goths. I'm not sure anything more objective can be said about the different "types", but if there are reliable sources, then that's fine. Mdwh 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, give me a couple days... still think it was short notice... altering a major part of an article in a day or so, after all the work that's been done to it by previous editors, seems a lack of good faith. I don't think you were necassarily wrong in your edit, but next time maybe think of giving a few more editors a voice before making such drastic changes...--Adrift* 02:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use a mainstream music magazine like Spin as a source for info about goth; they're rarely right about anything. The journalists involved are almost never connected with the subculture, and the research involved is usually half-assed and anecdotal at best. They're good at covering the history of various bands, but not at covering insider scene aspects.

I didn't like The Gothic Bible by Nancy Kilpatrick - it was a little too "oooh we're so special and awesome" and not at all an objective view of the scene - but you can probably find something in there. Or in one of Voltaire's books, which are really tongue-in-cheek. Barnes and Noble tends to carry all these books in their Cultural Studies section.

4.225.130.185 08:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Kilpatrick was a bit off the mark.(OK, a lot off) I believe the types list should be seperate from the slang terms.('graver' in seprate list from 'spot the goth') It can help some people to understand regional references and differences. Example. 'graver' is also a label used by not just goths, but also the public to describe german goths, similar to the term 'vault creatures'. Yet, this has nothing to do with "goth-ravers". The list is actually quite long compared to what wiki has, at least 50 or more terms by 1995. So I amsume that after 12 years it has to have grown. Oh yeah,

Doom Cookie = young immature teen female Mansonite (a 12-14 yr old with a lunchbox, you should know who)

Gloom Cookie = reference to a gloomy or sad looking usually smallish "gothy" female (supposedly beautiful or cute looking)Anapuna 07:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

School shooters and Goth

i don't think that the recent school shooting at dawson college and the shooter kimveer gill should be in the criticism and intolerance section. it's mentioned because of the shooter's espousal of aspects of goth, but without any context -- no evidence has surfaced that shows he suffered for being a goth whatsoever. i think it should come out. -- Denstat 00:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

nobody has responded -- i reworked the sentence to downplay the goth=shooter analogy, but i still think it doesn't belong. actually the whole criticism and intolerance section is weak, needs work. -- Denstat 07:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that was in there...now I'm now toying with the idea of simply deleting it. I kept thinking of how it could be re-worded to make it "fit", but I just kept going blank. Hm. Unless someone else can edit it in such a way that it flows well with the article, or unless I can think of a better way of wording it, I'm gonna get rid of that section. It's not like this is the only other time a black-clad shooter has been claimed to be "gothic" by the media; I really don't see the need for the inclusion of this one particular case. CatZilla 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever; I'm just going to delete it. If anyone wants to add it back in...feel free to do it, as long as you can make it belong. CatZilla 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion of Criticism & intolerance section

User:Deltabeignet deleted this entire section as unsourced. it's been part of the article for some time, so did that express apathy or tacit agreement that the section belonged here? -- Denstat 05:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I just noticed that...should it be put back in? That is a somewhat important section in this article, especially considering that many people who lack knowledge about the goth subculture might come here for info. But were there any citations for it? I can't say that I've read any articles that tackle the particular issue of intolerance of goths, but there should probably be some sort of info on it here, clearing up the whole goth= troubled killer issue. Weren't there Columbine-related sites cited? My memory is a bit fuzzy.-- CatZilla 16:04, 05 October 2006 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Don't put the fucking critism and intolerance section back up again, it was just a load of pure bullshit. Whatever CUNT wrote that and connected it to the Columbine shootings, you have a fucking sick mind. If you bring that page up again I'll just keep deleting it. -The Powerful

Please refrain from making personal attacks. And the connection to the Columbine shootings was made by the media, not a Wikipedia editor. Mdwh 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am deleting that section every time I see it, I will not have people mocking Goths like me. It is not nessecary to compare the Columbine Shootings to a brillant subculture. You fuckers think it's okay to talk shit and make every Goth look like stereotypes. Also, I'd like to add that whoever compared it to satanism is a complete ASSSHOLLEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! I've been pissed off so much from seeing critiques of you wikipedians.

DO NOT AND I REPEA DO NOT PUT THAT SECTION BACK!!!! FOR WHOEVER DOES, I WILL CONTINUE TO DELETE IT.

Take the time to read the section. It does not "mock" goths or tie them to Columbine. Instead, it exonerates them.Theplanetsaturn 04:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Some people may not take it the way YOU may.The Powerful

Which way you do think people may take it? Mdwh 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

@The Powerful: No... This is not about interpretation. Read the paragraph again. Note the qualifier in this relevant sentence: "the false conceptions that goths are evil.". The qualifier is the word "false". Here's another: "inaccurately linked to the goth subculture. " The qualifier this time is the word: "inaccurately". Then there is the closing sentence: "proven to have had no link to the goth subculture." This not about perception. This is about the literal meaning of words. Anyone who takes the criticism section as anything other than information that exonerates the goth subculture is at fault for failing to comprehend the basic structure of the English language. And frankly, if they are that far gone in their ability to comprehend, they are already a lost cause.Theplanetsaturn 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Which way you do think people may take it?" I think some may not read it carefully...I just don't like the fact you even bring up that kind of topic. I'm a Goth, and I find such accusations offensive.

What accusations, exactly? As for "some may not read it carefully", by that logic, we should delete everything on Wikipedia in case they misread and think it says something it doesn't. Mdwh 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

@The Powerful- There are no accusations in the section you keep deleting. In fact, the information in that paragraph is the opposite, explaining why accusations of that nature are false. As for you being a goth... So what? Theplanetsaturn 00:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still deleting the section whenever it comes back.

So you're in favor of deleting information that exonerates the goth subculture, all the while bleating that you're just defending goths? That's just foolish. Delete it, it will be readded easily. You're just a vandal. Theplanetsaturn 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have given up deleting the section, I added some nessecary material, some of the grammer and spelling is not correct. Please do not delete what I wrote, it is not trollish nor offensive. I am defending the subculture in which what I wrote yet did not write any articles in POV.

—- Greetings everyone, I am Holyguyver, also known as Jack Danya Kemplin. I have been editing at wikipedia for around a year or longer but I normally forget to sign in, & thus my edits are marked by IP numbers.
I am the one who originally returned the section Criticism & Intolerance to this article around two months ago (September). I am also the one who almost completely rewrote it an edit later. Thus I am one of the people that The Powerful was calling names.
I Promise The Powerful That this section is not meant to mock the gothic people & does not do so.
I greatly thank both Theplanetsaturn, & Mdwh for defending this section & reverting it, & trying to inform The Powerful to why this section is so important & needs to be in this article. My dearest thanks & gratitude goes out to the two of you.
Furthermore I would like to post here commentary to some of the statements made in this section so that The Powerful & any other user will know why I included each statement in this section.

• "Like many other alternative lifestyles and subcultures, the goth subculture has faced its share of criticism and intolerance." as is common knowledge that many alternative lifestyles (ie. gay, polygamous, fetish) & subcultures have suffered criticisms & intolerances, & the goth subculture also has do to Columbine & humanity' general fears of that which is little known to them.
• "Such intolerance ranges from looks of disgust to assaults." Shortly after the Columbine shootings there were also news reports of Goths being assaulted by people who wanted to avenge the shootings. It is also common knowledge that Goths just as any minority group are looked at by some intolerant people with looks of disgust, & also insulted & assaulted just as many minority groups.
• "The gothic fascination with the macabre has occasionally raised public concerns regarding the well-being of goths." as an earlier section on this talkpage points out many organizations including government, police, schools, medical & psychiatric groups have inquired on the well being of people interested in or claiming to be members of the Gothic subculture. Most of these inquiring instigated by mainstream society's concerns (&/or misunderstandings) over the common known fascination that most Goths have with the macabre & darker side of life. The mainstream people understandingly finding this fascination odd & out of place amongst their culture, thus becoming concerned because this is unfamiliar & strange to them, & something that they can not relate to. So forth they worry for the person or peoples mental health & their safety & that of others, thus they inquiry about it out of genuine concern for that individual, however misunderstood & misguided that concern may be.
• "Popular media has occasionally made reports that have reinforced the false conceptions that goths are evil, or have a connection with Satanism," Popular media (ie. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) has at times(Columbine shootings & so on) made reports that have furthered the false conceptions in the minds of many people & mainstream culture that Goths are evil or Satanists, however these reports turned out to be snap judgments based on misconceptions do to above stated issues & were later retracted because they turned out to be false & inaccurate descriptions of the individuals who were in fact not goth but other things, (ie. Columbine turned out to be troubled youths who was bullied outcasts who had a slight fascination with white supremacy, RedLake turned out to be a troubled youth who was a Native American nu-metalist who was ashamed of his heritage & fascinated with white supremacy, Dyleski turned out to be a troubled youth nu-metalist drug addict, DawnsonCollege turned out to be a disturbed nu-metalist.) thus there is plenty of sources sighting that these reports suggesting a goth connection were misreports.
• "as exemplified by the fallout of the Columbine High School massacre, which was carried out by two students inaccurately linked to the goth subculture. This misreporting of the roots of the massacre caused a widespread public backlash against the North American goth scene; however, investigators of the incident later denied that any such link between the killers and the goth subculture had in fact existed [1]." Stating in the article what I just said in the commentary on this talkpage above & giving a source.
• "Other such false reports of killers having goth affiliation have been the Red Lake High School massacre, the Scott Dyleski killing, the Dawson College Shooting, and others, all of which have been proven to have had no link to the goth subculture." Stating that what applies to Columbine about the misreporting applies to all of these cases as well. Every statement & every referenced tragedy sourced either by my sources attached to the article, by their own wikipedia articles or sources attached to their wikipedia articles, thus every above statement is well sourced & if they wish to research each event more they can go & read the wikipedia article for each one.

Thus my commentary is complete & every thing stated in this section is ether common knowledge &/or well sourced, thus it is fully sourced & stated fact.
I apologize for my ramblings & hope that I was able to help out with anyone's questions. I hope that my reasons for wording it as I did have been made clear, as well as my intent with it.
I once again thank Theplanetsaturn, & Mdwh for their kind words a defense of this section, & hope that I have shown The Powerful that I was not mocking the gothic people , was not trying to say that they were what the misconceptions claim, & was trying to explain to the rest of the readers out their that Goths are not as they might have heard, & why they heard what they might have heard, & to see the sources that show that which they heard was in fact false. I hope this post has explained all reasoning & answered all questions. I am your humble servant Holyguyver 10:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)~

Interview with the Vampire

There is a lot of discussion here, so this may have been addressed: Movies based on her books have been filmed in recent years — notably Interview with the Vampire, which starred Brad Pitt, and the more recent Queen of the Damned, in which goths appear directly and indirectly. The first film, in particular, helped further encourage the spread of Victorian style fashions in the subculture (although period inspired clothing has been a recurrent trend in the gothic subculture).

The trouble is that I don't think that it DID have much to do with encouraging the spread of Victorian (later 19th century) fashions in the subculture, as the only notable "Victorian fashion" moment in the movie is really the part where Claudia and Madeleine are in the matching bustle gowns when they are killed. Much of the rest of the movie's notable fashion is 18th century (the frock coats and cravats on the men prior to and during the adoption of Claudia). There's a big difference - 50 to 100 years, but some people are so poorly versed in history that they assume that anything with a big skirt is "Victorian" (not necessarily here, but in the wider world).

I don't think it's in any way arguable that those two bustle gowns had a huge effect on fashion in the gothic subculture, any more than any other bustle gowns (like Satine's red gown in Moulin Rouge), but the men's 18th century costumes may have had some effect on the more "romantic" end of goth male dress. An 18th century court/aristocracy look is still popular with goth men, but only the ones who are not concerned with looking too foppish. Others would disdain the look as kind of silly or pretentious.

Basically, what I'm really saying is, "Is Victorian really what you meant?"

I don't Believe that anything to do with the vampire chronicles should be included. They aren't really that goth,but i guess no one else sees it my way--Fiyero554 03:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Fiyero554

Just read what you wrote, and...I agree. I changed it so it now says "romantic" instead of "Victorian". I also doubt if the books and movies really had all that much effect in the goth subculture, but I know the books are quite popular amongst many goths. I also know many people who disliked the movie renditions-- especially the Queen of the Damned (which, to me, seemed to give it more of a nu-metal twist). So for now I just altered it slightly, but I think I might edit it so it doesn't take up so much of the 20th cent. influences section in the future. -- CatZilla 16:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I could not speak of the book being particularly relevant to the subculture NOW, but at least in the Berkeley California area in the early eighties, I can vouch for it having had some impact. Judging what is relevant to a subculture that has spanned decades is not a simple task. Theplanetsaturn 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Later media influences" and a proposed addition

I noticed that in this section, Shadowrun is cited as an influence that made goth subculture more popular. As a Shadowrun player, I've never heard of this, and I never got any kind of gothic vibe from Shadowrun. (At least, much less so than, say, SLA Industries.) Should this be removed?

In addition, I propose a brief addition to the music section pointing out that "goth" itself is not a musical genre, offering a comparison to, say, "hippie music" which describes a link to a subculture, but includes bands from multiple genres. (You wouldn't say that The Grateful Dead and The Cowsills are part of the same genre, likewise Bauhaus and The Cruxshadows.) --Halloween jack 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a gamer so I can't really judge "Shadowrun" (I'm assuming it's a game?). I'm extremely confused about what you mean when you say that "goth itself is not a musical genre", though. First of all...yes, it is. There's a decent wiki article, Gothic Rock, which goes into all this. Also, unlike your comparison to "hippy music", "hippy music" can be a rather vague term, because the hippy subculture wasn't as dependent on music as the goth subculture was and is.-- CatZilla 20:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Shadowrun is a roleplaying game, kind of like cyberpunk but with orcs and elves and some sort of crazy fusion of magic and cyberpunk. It really is not "gothic" at all, it was kind of a bad game. Cyberpunk, however, has a very "eighties" vibe but not solely goth. I do not think they could be connected in any way to gothic subculture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.166.222.160 (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Recent Media edit

I would not consider the SNL sketch "Goth Talk" to be a Goth show because it does not apply positively, if it is a stupid parody then it should not be under that catergory. I do not suggest putting that back up. In fact, Invader Zim is more Goth than THAT simple sketch, which should not count as 'television' show. -The Powerful

I'll take your word for it about Goth Talk - but as for Invader Zim, I have no idea why this would be here. You might want to edit its article to explain why, at the moment there is no reference to goth or the goth subculture in there. --Stormie 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to say personally that there is, not that everything Jhonen does should be labeled automatically, but the refrences in the goth culture would be the following things:

• The dark and cynical humour used in the show.
• The charecter of GAZ, not being a bad depiction of the subculture but a flattering remark.
• The fact that so many disturbing and darkly macabre plots are used (example: rise of the zitboy, the halloween episode.)
• If FOAMY THE SQUIRREL is able to be in that catergory, why not Zim?
• Goth Talk is a very cruel and harsh parody that SNL did only to piss ones like me off. Invader Zim has not been cruel to the subculture unlike other Nickeleodoen shows.

Nice. But should we list every single "dark" show with blad-clad characters in the media section? Personally, I think we should really consider what should stay in the media section and what shouldn't. Is this a section for shows/books/movies that are popular amongst goths? Make direct references to goth? Influence the goth subculture? I think we need to set things straight as to what would/could belong.

And as a side note, the Goth Talk was a skit on SNL. SNL is a comedy show-- its skits are supposed to be jabs (light-hearted jabs, mind you, but jabs nonetheless). I don't think this is something most goths view as a personal attack of some sort. But Goth Talk may not something that belongs on the page (though hearing "Bela Lugosi's Dead" in the skit intro DOES get me cracking up each and every time). -- CatZilla 22:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have issue with Zim being included, but regardless of whether or not it hurts The Powerful's feelings (which seem a little defensive to me), Goth Talk was hugely popular with goths when it initially aired. Most thought it was funny, because they had a sense of humor about the subculture. Most adult goths seem to. 4.131.38.195 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you're certainly right about Foamy the Squirrel - I'm not sure why a Flash cartoon got filed under "Television", and I know that if we listed every cartoon or comic on the web with a goth character, the actual article would be buried by the list. I have removed it. --Stormie 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out that we have four separate goth oriented titles listed from Slave Labor Graphics in the literature section. Gloomcookie, Squee, Little Gloomy, Johnny The Homicidal Maniac. These all have a degree of relevance, but maybe it would make more sense to roll them into one blanket listing somehow? Or at least divide the comics and books out of the literature section?Theplanetsaturn 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps more Gothic Literature (such as Edgar Allan Poe, Sheridan Fanu, etc.) should be under literature and put a comics section up.

Gothic Literature and Goth subculture should be kept apart. That they both have the "Gothic" epithet, once used to describe Germanic tribes, is incidental. The Goth subculture stems from a movement of Post-punk, and Gothic literature from a Gothic "revival", starting with a cheesy novel written by Walpole, an architect and son of a British prime minister. They bear no significant relation to each other. Goths claim those novels because they seem slightly more cultured than the horror movies they adore. Furthermore, by grouping comics and 18th and 19th century novels together, you would debase the latter, which are far more distinguished. At best, you could write, "Goths like these novels, and strain their eyes to read the candlelit pages while listening to Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails." You might as well say Byron was an unseen band member of the Cure. Rintrah 05:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, to talk about the subject at hand first-- I agree with you that Gothic Lit should pretty much be kept out. In fact, as I think I may have at least hinted in my previous comment, we need to establish some sort of criteria for what should go in the Media section. In my opinion, only media which has some sort of direct references should be there...and maybe media that had a very strong influence on the goth subculture.

But as someone loves literature and who eats up goth rock like Kobayashi at a hot dog eating contest, it makes me wince to read "Goths like these novels, and strain their eyes to read the candelit pages while listening to Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails". Methinks you may be confusing goths with some other sort of creature.--CatZilla 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and intolerance

I just restored two criticisms to the "Criticism and intolerance" section, where they belong. One is from Maddox (writer), a published author and celebrity who runs one of the most popular sites on the Internet. This criticism was removed because of an assumed lack of notability that a glance at the author's article quickly dispels. The other is from Jhonen Vasquez, a celebrity and prominent figure in alternative comics, animation, and the goth subculture. Please note that this second criticism was removed without any discussion on the talk page or comment in the edit summary. Both criticisms are referenced to specific pieces that can be verified. A section on "Criticism and intolerance" that does not mention a single concrete criticism is in clear violation of NPOV. These criticisms are notable, referenced, verifiable, and relevant. They should be included. Ecto (as 207.81.15.15) 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Maddox may be popular - and I haven't removed the mention of his crit - but why is it in any way notable? You can find the same stuff spread around the internet by all sorts of people, most of whom misunderstand crucial aspects of the subculture. At any rate, some of the strongest critics of the subculture are specific goths themselves. There isn't much denial in most circles about the subculture's negative aspects, & I believe it is best critiqued by insiders who understand it, not outsiders who, er, don't. Maddox is not important in the scene, at all, and his importance to the outside world is debatable. (He's important to his own subculture of Maddox-readers, and that's about it.) 4.131.38.195 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. What about a photo of the people dressed in black who live at Flinders Street Station? It only needs a caption like, "Look at them! These are what we have to walk past every day." There is a police station nearby, so I am sure an attribution of the strange smells coming from them to narcotics can be verified. That they look hideous, obstruct pedestrian access, and talk immodestly is notable, in my mind. Rintrah 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rintrah, I have a few suggestions for you:

1. Write an article about those people. Make sure it measures up to Wikipedia's standards on notoriety, like the article Goth subculture does.

2. Write a section outlining those criticisms in a neutral way, like the section "Criticism and intolerance" in Goth subculture does. Make sure to comply with the policy on NPOV, like Goth subculture’s "Criticism and intolerance" section does. Your caption does not, I am sorry to say, measure up, so you will have to reword it.

3. Find documents that make those criticisms and reference them in the article. To pass Wikipedia's guideline on verifiability, a reader has to be able to view the criticisms firsthand, such as the case with the criticisms made in Johnny the Homicidal Maniac and on "The Best Site in the Universe". A reader has to be able to check to see if the sources actually make those criticisms. That is what it means to be verifiable.

4. Make sure your sources meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notoriety. Are they made by important people, like Vasquez or Maddox?

If all these points are followed, your content should find a welcome home on Wikipedia.Ecto 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I could follow those suggestions, but I would end up with a shitty article about a group of deviants with shitty sources. Other than goth vanity sites and blogs, there are hardly any sources for it. I could write an article about them myself instead, submit it to a magazine, and then write an article sourced from it, but I would still have to face the question, "is it really worth it?". Researching them entails spending time with them, which no hygiene valuing researcher would suffer. I could also look for criticisms by third rate writers (i.e., in newspapers and half-notable websites), but that is janitorial type work too. Like drug addicts living in a particular urban slum, those goths exist, but few could be bothered researching them. I do not think I should turn my joke above into an article. Rintrah 17:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If writing an actual article would be such a waste of your valuable time, I cannot imagine how much your comments on this mere talk page have unfairly taxed your busy schedule. Maybe you should stop making them.Ecto 17:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Waste of my time? The former, yes; the latter, no. If my time is unfairly taxed, I will refrain from wasting it. Thanks for your concern. Rintrah 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome.Ecto 08:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. I love wikipedia's guidelines of civility. :) Rintrah 08:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank 207.81.15.15, Ecto, & the others for their additions/expantions to this section. I like what you have done to it, & camend you for your interest in helping improve this section. I Thank all of you for your time, & effort. Thank you. Sincerely Holyguyver 00:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kimveer Gill material

I see that this was discussed above; is what's presently there the result of consensus? (EDIT: It was apparently added in the last 48 hours by an anon.) I have no problem with citing Gill as an example of criticism or crimes committed by people claiming affinity for the goth subculture or whatever. But this paragraph seems ridiculously out of balance, citing like 5 or 6 items from his VF profile. Primary sources are fine, but we don't need a play-by-play of everything the lad ever posted on his VF profile. If all this material is deemed relevant, I propose it be offloaded to Kimveer Gill or at least to footnotes. Regards, PhilipR 05:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I made that edit and the post on this talk page, but neglected to sign in. No, we don't need the play-by-play, but I was so shocked to see the dubious claim that Gill had been "proven to have no connection to the subculture" that I felt the need to clear the air with some facts, but I suppose I went overboard with my homework. We should keep the changes you made, put back in one quote, delete the footnote, and shuffle the then-deleted content to a new section in Kimveer Gill about mentions of goth in his VampireFreaks.com profile. How does that sound?Ecto 08:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

HONESTLY what you all are doing is WRONG! STOP DISCRIMINATING US GOTHS FROM SOCIETY! HOW COME you're just making shit up, saying it's dangerous to be Goth. Well guess what, I'm Goth and I'm proud of my lifestyle subculture. Sure, we like different things but just let us be. Ecto, you're a horrible person, I hope you know that. Why list a section of 'critisim' when Maddox is just a faggot, mother-fucking sonofabithc, cock sucking asshole! fuck maddox! Jhonen SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER bE COMPARED WITH THAT evil man. Jhonen's never critized the lifestyle. Sure, he's made little comments of how most get into it but don't know everything about it and what it is all about but that dosen't mean he's critiquing it. If anything, Vasquez IS a Goth. GOTH FOREVER!-

The Powerful

Ecto is working to make the article better and your insults are absolutely unwarranted. The only one here who is endorsing a non-neutral point of view is you. You've gone past the point of rational, and are now just making a spectacle of yourself. I suspect at this point that it is entirely purposeful.Theplanetsaturn 08:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

@Ecto: Sounds like a good plan.

@The Powerful: Why on earth are you so melodramatic? I think all of us have a perfectly firm grasp on the fact that Gill was an isolated incident and in no way speaks for the entire goth scene, EXCEPT YOU! I think all of us understand that Maddox is just one source, possibly of dubious reliability, and in no way dictates other people's perception of goth -- all of us understand that EXCEPT YOU! - PhilipR 16:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Powerful, you should read more Vasquez. How does that comic not satirize the goth subculture’s stereotypical martyr complex? Not that I personally associate martyr complexes with any goths, especially not conceited, irrational, hypersensitive, or hypocritical martyr complexes such as the kind Vasquez criticizes using Anne Gwish. I’ve certainly never encountered a goth with such a pathology. So yes, Vasquez does use satire to criticize certain elements of the goth subculture, no matter how obviously unfounded that criticism is. Ecto 16:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is little more than internet trolling. The source rants about "shit-eating gothics," without any actual criticism of the subculture nor any attempt at grammar. This is not a serious reference. I have removed it. :bloodofox: 11:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The article cited (side-line.com) to supposedly show that the goth scene recieved backlash is completely useless. It was written the day after and merely says "It are [sic] rough times for industrial / goth music fans these days as a result of yet another trench coat killing that took place, this time in Montreal, Canada. Industrial music fan Kimveer Gill..." and then mentions he actually had a side-line.com profile as well. firstly it doesn't actually establish a SINGLE incident of actual backlash and it also is questionable whether or not the sole purpose of the article was to clear the air that side-line.com didn't somehow drop the ball:

"Gill was also a member of the Side-Line forum known to us under the nickname Fatality666, the same he used on other sites so it seems. Unlike his Vampirefreaks.com profile his Side-Line profile didn't show anything weird and at the moment of taking it offline he had no history of posting comments."

Yes.. the Title of the article is very impressive: "Shooting by Canadian trench coat killer affects industrial / goth scene". I'm sure it affected it, but this journalist wouldn't know since he wrote the article the day after the shooting prior to any effect having time to take place.

Gil's mom said hes a loner who practices shooting a lot. and looking at his profile its very clear he was into GOTHIC METAL. Look at his favorite bands.. he includes virtually no gothrock bands or even darkwave bands or electrogoth that real goths his age would normally be interested in, he links photographs to gothic metal and even so called "goth metal" bands (which the editors at the gothic metal page say are in fact mainstream vanilla metal which the media calls goth for marketing purposes). Gothic Metal for those of you who don't understand this (like Gill himself) has nothing to do with the Goth subculture. That test he took which says 100% goth. I took once. It said I'm emo. It was written by another gothic dipshit (as Maddox likes to call them) who doesn't know what goth is. The questions are about gothic metal bands and things like that. Not that we can include original research. But I would like someone to find an actual reliable source of information that the goth scene has experienced any backlash. Something objective, that the amount of goth bashing actually increased. I am active in the toronto goth scene. And the actual effect has been opposite. the event has actually inspired goths to pull together once again and come out of the woodwork, and brace for a backlash which only actually occured in the right wing media rag called The Toronto Sun. For 2 weeks before they lost interest upon seeing that no goths actually cared what some rightwing rag called The Toronto Sun says. (our scene is very small, these days.)

Unless someone has a source which is notable that says "Gill is a goth", then there is no notable opinion whatsoever that he is a goth and without that, there is no justification to include Gil in the Goth Subculture article as no link has been established. I found a CBC article saying Gill a "gothic-looking man wearing a trenchcoat" another article said "a man with a mowhawk". As it stands the only link is some journalist stating his own conclusion "It are [sic] rough times for industrial / goth music fans these days as a result of yet another trench coat killing that took place, this time in Montreal, Canada. "

This journalist can't even write a sentence. "It are"?!?!?

We need a better source.. or a rewrite... TheDarknessVisible 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article passes Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Your original research does not. Ecto 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you ecto. I already said "Not that we can include original research. "

The UNNAMED person, perhaps journalist, who doesn't check his grammer, does not state that the goth subculture "experienced a backlash". He or she said "It are [sic] rough times for industrial / goth music fans these days as a result of yet another trench coat killing that took place, this time in Montreal, Canada. " He or She was making general fluff statement.. the introductory sentence to an article. He or she was not reporting events, or reporting what a witness told him.

The article not does meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.

1) It is an ANONYMOUS report which merely states an offhand remark about potential future events without any justification or reasoning or reference to an expert or eye witnesses. It is is this offhand remark which the wikipedia article wants to cite as fact. It was not a journalistic statement.

2) the wiki goth subculture article uses weasle words. "After the media's exposure of Gill's writings, the Canadian goth scene suffered widespread backlash" is substantially different from "It are rough times for industrial / goth music fans these days as a result of yet another trench coat killing that took place, this time in Montreal, Canada.". (no mention of media exposure, canadian fans or goths, a goth scene, or the most spectacular claim widespread backlash.

The only actual direct consequence of media exposure reported in the article is as follows:

"Kimveer Gill, 25, portrayed himself as a gun-loving Goth who hated authority figures and wanted to die "in a hail of gunfire". Sadly enough, he posted these words on his profile on the popular VampireFreaks.com community making the site being [sic] hit hard by press and the general public. As a result the owners decided to take the profile offline to calm down the storm."

the report says vampirefreaks.com experienced extremely high traffic the day of the shooting and as a result kimveer gills' profile was taken down.

THAT is what the report says.

The article does not report on any backlash, widespread or not against goths. nor does it single out the canadian goth in general. And what it does say, it refers to "fans". I was a fan of goth music prior to being a goth.not everyone who likes goth music is a goth. most arent.

and yes. I know my original research is not relevant. But the canadian goth community didn't experience widespread backlash. I'm in it. The claim is outrageous and it requires a source.

The wikipedia articles can not rely on original research. and so the sentence can't say what it says without a source which reports the fact of "the canadian goth scene in suffering widespread backlash"

TheDarknessVisible 03:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating the validity of this material, but I wanted to mention my reason for revert. The way it was structed (as edited by TheDarknessVisible) read poorly. The purpose of this sentence, as included was not readily apparent. Rather than try to repair the section without any proper idea of the editors intent, I chose to revert. Theplanetsaturn 05:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I clarify: My intent is only to state what the "news" source actually reports. To avoid drawing original inferences from thin air or using weasely words such as "suffered widespread backlash".

I will try to make it more readible. But I'm not going to say "the canadian goth scene" when the report said "industrial / goth music fans". I'm not going to say "suffered widespread backlash" when the report said "it are rough times these days". When music fans have rough times, it generally means no one is making their kind of music anymore, or their favorite band broke up. But we dont know what the author was reporting; He or she didn't specify. To translate that to "widespread backlash" is weasely and effectively original research.

As an asside: "it are rough times" IS NOT journalistic reporting. IT is a statement of a view point, and in this case more likely total fluff filler. Ecto says this viewpoint is reliable and should be taken as fact. I disagree. But at least if we take it as fact, as Ecto wants, it must be reported neutraly according to that stated viewpoint. To draw inferences is "original research". If it makes the wikipedia article look like we are reporting trivia, so be it. The article is not an entertainment piece, and although images of widespread backlash and pandemonium make great reading, it is not supported by the source. Sourcing this article is doomed to sound strange... this source is devoid of any informative information on the "rough times".. and if you take the facts from it neutrally the reader is going to be left thinking... "So What?!!?"

I'll try "The next day it was reported that the goth music scene was having "rough times these days"."

perhaps some readers will find it factual and informative. I doubt it. but at least it is what the article actually reports.

it is more compliant with wiki policy to document specific incidents of actions taken against the goth subculture. and let the reader decide whether it is widespread backlash, localized backlash, or an upswelling of heartfelt support. This article only documents 1 such incident and that is increased traffic on VF.com and VF's subsequent closure of Kimveer's profileTheDarknessVisible 06:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that I'm NOT objecting to the statement "The Dawson College shooting raised public concern with the goth scene in Canada" which starts off the sentence. This is probably not properly sourced but its true. The canadian public was concerned.. it didn't react irrationally however and evoke widespread backlash against goths.TheDarknessVisible 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Your new edit reads much better. Thanks.Theplanetsaturn 20:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

@Thedarknessvisible:

The changes you are making seem unnecessarily apologist and biased. It's as if you are trying to denounce any negative association to the goth subculture within the article.Theplanetsaturn 00:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

clearing the air is not apologist. It would be apologist to excuse the actions of goths as being understandable which is NOT what I'm doing. The actions of the school shooters is unforgivable. All I'm doing is including the authorities which state in no uncertain terms. There were NOT goths. It is not apoligist to point that out. It is confusing to include references to non goths in a goth wiki article. the clarification is necessary and considering the fact that real people are being affected by the misinformation it is also of serious public interest that the record is put straight.

I also happened to edit the SuperColumbine Massacre page to put the information that Kimveer Gill did NOT list that as his favorite game, or even at all. I dont consider clearing the air apologist. especially when it comes to repairing someones reputation which was harmed over a misunderstanding.

However considering the possibility for bias.. please do say something if I get the facts wrong or if particular sentences use weasly words.

Perhaps Mercer's words "this idiot" should be changed to [Kimveer Gill]..? TheDarknessVisible 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a shame the mallgoth article was deleted, because the Kimveer Gill information could sit there as a criticism of that movement. I really don't see why information on a groove metal, nu metal and industrial metal fan should be contained within this article. - Daddy Kindsoul 17:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone has any reliable independant information publications about mall goths I would be quite happy to start a wiki page on the subject. But I dont think Gill was even a mall goth. He hung out at the shooting range, not the mall. And he didn't dress like a mall goth. He dressed like he was into metal.TheDarknessVisible 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism by 2 Comedians

{{editprotected}}

It seems the section now labeled "Criticism" (not controversy) should be DELETED. Since neither of the items included are bonafide academic criticism of the goth movement but merely mention 2 comedians poking fun at goths. The fact is that goths routinely self-parody as well (and self-parody deserves some mention, which I see missing). I would hardly cite someones commedy routine as "criticism", and in any event what makes these 2 commedians so important that a general reader should be interested? Is this page intended to promote these 2 commedians?

If the Pope or someone of general interest criticizes the goth movement I could see the importance. I dont believe the satirical criticisms of 2 commedians is important enough for an encyclopedic article.

Quite frankly Saturday Night Live's "Goth Talk" should be mentioned if we are going to go down this route. I've seen huge amounts of material making fun of goths. What makes these 2 so special?

This section should be deleted. TheDarknessVisible 01:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

Should we cut down on this section? It seems more like an exhaustive list than a proper "see also" section. We could work most of these links into the main body of the article or daughter articles. For example, most of the goth-related genres could be mentioned in the music section or the article on gothic rock. Ecto 08:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and Parody

In my most humble opinion, there should be a section about the cultural mockery and criticism the gothic subculture catches. E.G.: The Aquabats! song Fashion Zombies which generally mocks the entire concept of buying expensive clothes to look like "they crawled out of coffins". Kevin DuBrow 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The last section of the article is along those lines. Ecto 08:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What about "You'll Dance To Anything" by the Dead Milkmen (er, I think) or "Goth Girl" by John Wesley Harding? (The latter is a gentle, affectionate parody about a "normal" guy with a crush on a goth girl, but he does mock her boyfriend and friends a little: "Goth girl, who is the guy on the leash? Does he wash dishes? Goth girl, he looks like Pete Murphy to me - aw, yeah, HE WISHES!" etc.) There are other songs in this vein; maybe someone else can come up with a few more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.131.38.195 (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Please remove

I would just like to ask that maybe to reconsider some of the things you have written on the critisim and intolerance. Maddox is NOT a published author, the internet doesn't count. He is a rude, insensitive and snotty man. He is evil. Vasquez has not critized the subculture, he may not be fond of how some people do not know how to be a true Goth but he has never critized it. In fact, most of his artist friends (such as Roman Dirge and Voltaire) are highly active and defensful for the subculture. I am a Goth myself and I think that he is only using that humour to use self-mockery and irony. He has never denounced himself being Goth, perhaps some aspects of his work (which to me is silly) but never himself. Maddox is only be a trollish, foolish and arrogant coward. Just because he does not agree with our lifestyle gives him NO write to riddicule us. Please reframe from listing parodies or popular culture, maybe you should make another page that shows media presences of subcultures (such as hippie and punk as well) instead of placing them on this very page. Please reconsider placing Jhonen, because if he really WAS a critic of the subculture he would have been much harsher and not supportive of his audience, and there should not be a comparision with Maddox to him, because they're almost opposites. Plus, if I find the link, I'll post his quote: "if I made a comic about a sandwich, it'd be a goth sandwich," as well as the article from the Candian comic convention that clearly states he shares the same culture as his audience.

Also, the thing with Kilmeer MUST BE large exaggeration, it is extremely unnessicary to post that. In fact, I curse the man who did put that up on the page in the first place. For though he may have described himself as Goth (but gun-loving) his nearly impossible. A Goth quality is not be violent, sure there is a dark image but we do not have the potential to harm-even if he probably WAS it was GUNS that caused him to commit such crimes, not the Gothic subculture. Would anyone please give me permission to remove such critical nonsense and injustice? Please, I really would like to defend my lifestyle. Goth4ever. Thank you all-The Powerful

(The above got lost in the shuffle a while back. Ecto 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Maddox is a published author. He published a book last year. And his site is one of the most popular on the Internet. He may be rude, snotty, insensitive, and evil, but that's the point. It's his sense of humor, and he uses this offensive style of satire to criticize things. Don't take his writing at face value, and whatever you do, don't take it personally.

Vasquez criticizes the goth subculture often. No one has ever stated that Vasquez hates the subculture, or even that he is outside of it, just that he criticizes it. Since when does being a part of something mean that you can never criticize it? Only brainless shills treat something they're a part of like it's above and beyond criticism. Vasquez is not a mindless drone, so his comics satirize goth. Just because he criticizes something, that does not mean he hates or rejects it in anyway. Roger Ebert is a movie critic because he loves movies, not because he hates them. Criticism is just taking a look at something, finding out what's wrong with it, and trying to figure out how to make it better. Is the goth subculture incapable of criticizing itself? For its own sake, I hope not.

The comparison between Vasquez and Maddox has a solid basis. They both criticize the subculture.

Everyone has a right to ridicule everyone else (freedom of speech). And when they do, Wikipedia has a duty to document it, so long as that ridicule comes from someone important and is directed at something important.

I remember the context of the quotation, "If I made a comic about a sandwich, it'd be a goth sandwich." You should read the article on sarcasm.

As for your suggestion that we burry these criticisms in another page, that would be content forking, something that Wikipedia forbids.

The content about Kilmeer is in no way exaggerated. Those are all direct quotes from his profile. Check for yourself.

Since when is goth about non-violence? I thought it was about dressing in black, listening to gothic rock, and hanging out with people with similar tastes. There is nothing political inherant to it beyond that. You can add whatever you want, but Wikipedia is not the place to do that.

Kilmeer Gill shot up that school because he was either sick or evil, not because of guns, and not because he identified with the goth subculture. Like it or not, though, he did view himself as goth, and that, coupled with a lot of other incidences, has some people worried about the goth subculture. Taking that any further, by either blaming goth culture (like some people do), blaming gun culture (like you do), or covering up the controversy (like you’ve been trying to do), would be pushing an agenda and would therefore be against Wikipedia's policies. All we can do is state the facts, outline the controversy, and describe the points of view involved.

Though this post of yours deleted a lot of other comments, it was so civil. What happened? Ecto (as 142.207.2.31) 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that there's something about the way it's currently presented which gives the impression that these are (a) outsiders of the subculture criticising all goths (which isn't quite the same as satirising certain aspects of a subculture), and (b) these are serious criticisms as opposed to satire/humour. This is more a "references in popular culture" thing than "criticism".

Is there a source for Vasquez having "criticized the goth subculture for what he perceives as its tendencies towards backbiting, unoriginality, and conceit"? Mdwh 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(a) No question, Maddox is an outsider criticizing the entire subculture using satire. Vasquez is (not that we could ever state one way or the other) an insider criticizing the entire subculture (everything from the bands to his own involvement) using satire. Both criticize and both satirize the entire subculture. The article makes no statement at all as to whether they are outsiders or insiders, and, in my opinion, it does not need to. On that count, I have no idea how you got the impression that you did. Also, both criticize and satirize the entire subculture, so that part of your impression is accurate, but I have no idea why that would be a cause for complaint.

(b) That paragraph uses the word satire two times. Would you prefer three? These are not mere "references". These are satires, and as such, criticisms. There is a clear relationship between those two modes of discourse, yes? Satire is a form of criticism, and even though it uses humor, that does not make it any less critical or even, at the end of the day, any less serious. Your binary opposition between serious criticism and humorous satire does not hold any water at all. The article states that the two produced criticisms and satire, and the readers are then free to determine for themselves the levels of seriousness or humor the works contain. Describing something as “humorous” or “serious” on Wikipedia is in violation of NPOV. We should be as terse and specific as possible in describing these works instead of using such a broad term as references. That would just be inaccurate. It is also debatable if either work qualifies as "popular culture".

Yes, there is a source, already in the article, Johnny the Homicidal Maniac. That book has no page numbers, so it is difficult to be more specific than that without getting into needless plot description for context. Any reader can simply pick up the book and verify that yes, it does criticize the goth subculture in several places, such as the Anne Gwish strips. The articles for Vasquez and JTHM linked to in this article contain fuller descriptions of Vasquez's criticisms of the goth subculture, descriptions that would only bog down this article. Giving readers access to wider yet related content is one of the purposes of including those links.

I hope this reply addresses your concerns. Ecto 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not so much the wording, but the location it's placed in - talking about intolerance and controversy on a widespread national scale, and then jumping to satirical humour (I wasn't the one who claimed this was humour, above it was said "It's his sense of humor") which seems a million miles away. I think something like "References in popular culture" would be more appropriate for these. Mdwh 17:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of calling them works of "satirical humor", I would call them, say, works of "humerous satire", but that would be outside of Wikipedia and not in this article. You see, not everyone shares Maddox's or Vasquez's senses of humor, so their works are not viewed as humor by everyone. I, for example, take exception to Maddox's in particular, and so would on second through call his work mere "satire" rather than "humerous satire" in any situation. Refering to either as works of "humor" or describing them as "humerous" in the article would be POV. We would have a similar problem with the word "serious", but that is obvious. Since these are neither mere references nor popular culture, how about a section about criticism followed by a section on the topics of intolerence and controversy? That would solve our location problem. Ecto 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[Un-indent] Well, the stuff about Vasquez was, at minimum, rather convoluted. I've made it more concise. A reference to support just what he "perceives" to be wrong with Goth culture would be helpful, though I'm not sure if it's strictly necessary. Metamagician3000 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the same applied to Maddox. Now fixed - at least I consider what I have done to be a fix. The material about Gill was slightly oddly worded, and again could have been stated more crisply. I've made a change there as well. Metamagician3000 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I further reworded some of this. Metamagician3000 23:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Cyber link

I dont think we should remove that link because the goth subsulture has become fragmented over the years now there are many different kinds of goth with differing perspectives and fashions. I'm sure i don't need to list any. In fact i think there should be a page for each of these sub-subcultures with the goth page as the general view. Perhaps what some of you are getting at is that it should be a "cybergoth" link instead. I don't know please shead some light. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.252.165 (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

This cybergoth thing is also called "neogoth" in the USA and in parts of Europe, because the members of this techno-influenced movement don't bear any relation to the original Goth subculture. --~Menorrhea 19:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Except that, last time I checked, there were quite a number of "cybergoths" who started out as regular-ol-goths, usually more into the industrial end of the scene than the guitar rock or artrock sides, who then began to wear ever-tighter clothing and ever-weirder hair extensions. Most of them were still involved in the scene, even though beginning to dress differently. Some were flat-out rivetheads who hung out with goths and started to take a greater interest in fashion. The goth scene has fashion fads like any other, and cyber has been one of the consuming fads since the late 1990s. There may be new "cybergoths" who never start as regular-ol-goths, but that wasn't the way it was when cyber was branching off.

As I stated back in October 2006, there isn't good documentation for this stuff, because most of it happened on Usenet & on the websites of Usenet users, many of which are no longer online. But it's really not hard to pull up old alt.gothic.fashion messages and watch people get into Dane clothes (very cyber, see technokitty.com) who had previously been buying stuff from shops like The Black Rose (which used to be more tradgoth), and to watch people transitioning from one look to another and, for the most part, continuing to go to the same clubs and have the same friends. Several worked popularly as goth models while swearing up and down that they were now cyber, not goth (the lovely red-haired girl in the kimono who was on the cover of Mercer's 21st Century Goth, for example). What has actually happened in the clubs is that the music more influenced by techno-industrial sounds has taken over, and it is very difficult to find a "goth night" that actually plays gothic guitar rock or artrock anywhere in the US. It's all VNV Nation, Combichrist, Covenant, Wumpscut, coldwave, darkwave, etc.

Insistence that "cyber" is a different thing entirely began as an attempt by people who used to be more traditionally goth, but who started listening to the more electronic music and wearing tighter clothing and specific types of hair extensions, to distance themselves from what they saw as negative stereotypes of the scene. (Running around saying, "I'm not goth!" is a pretty popular goth pastime.) There's also schism from people who prefer the old goth sound, which I think is already addressed in the article. However, to my knowledge, the music that the cybers listen to largely grew out of music that is solidly part of the industrial side of the scene, as well as the darker end of 80s synthpop that was popular with a lot of 90s goths. Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music has a lot about this in the Trance section.4.131.38.195 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I feel that we should beef up the lead slightly. What is there is pretty good, but a lead is supposed to provide an overview of the whole article, and a standard lead in the best articles is quite a bit longer than this - typically three paras and up to twice as long as what we have here. Anyone have ideas how to improve it? I won't tamper with it without discussing here first. Metamagician3000 23:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No thoughts from anyone else? Metamagician3000 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And just who is this beautiful one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kristengoth4.jpg

Looks like an Emo kid or a babybat. --~Menorrhea 14:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

babybat. definetly. Emo is just a slang for wimp

hmm, is it you that girl, maybe? :P --Dr. Who 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like an emo kid as defined in the US. (A typical emo look is much more punky/indie-rock - practically sporty in comparison to a goth look). Looks like a young goth girl to me. Cute pic! 4.131.38.195 11:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A pseudogothgirl, yes. --~Menorrhea 14:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Metal

I think the article does not discuss continental gothic scene, which is often connected more with the metal scene than with Sisters of Mercy-type of bands. The reason to include these is a bit different dressing code and different taste in music, e.g. old Paradise Lost (and their album Gothic), Katatonia (Metal/gothic/rock), and various forms of metal, which introduce elements of gothic in combination with different styles (progressive-gothic, gothic-doom, etc).

This is the article of the original Goth subculture, a post-punk- and new-wave-related subculture. It's not the metal article. Gothic Metal is definitely a metal style. And the fans of this music are not really goths. They're hybrids, metallers or neogoths without a relation to the gothic roots. --~Menorrhea 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

General Websites Editing

Gothic Babe of the Week at http://www.industrialgothic.com/ was removed. It has been in existence much longer than the majority of sites claiming to represent the Gothic Subculture, and is widely known. It has been in existence since 1996, and has had nearly 6 million visits.

It is a great portrayal of Gothic subculture representation and how it varied over the past 10 years or more, in it's archives.

Please explain why it doesn't qualify, and justify the links you display now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.101.157.140 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

"See Also" section is a disaster

It is clearly just a dumping ground for people to add their favourite books, comics and TV shows, with no assertion of relevance ever given.

Can anyone think of a reason why, at the very least, I should not remove every item whose own article does not make reference to the goth subculture? If a connection is tenuous enough not to be mentioned in the article for a given book, comic, TV show or movie, then surely it's too tenuous to be worth a "See Also" link?

An exhaustive list of everything that at least one self-identifed goth Wikipedia editor is a fan of serves no purpose. --Stormie 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The big problem on WIkipedia is that members of various subcultures very often are not aware that their language as well as their mental schemes are not objective and very far from encyclopedic standards. It happens with most of the stuff written regarding music genres. --Dr. Who 23:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have cleaned out every article which did not itself make some reference to it's subject's connection to the goth subculture. I do not claim that this is now a perfect "See Also" list, but it is a much more manageable starting point to try to construct something. --Stormie 05:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Goth metal

What about it? there are no references about it... it's the main kind of music in goth subculture nowadays --Absinthe88 14:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd dispute that, although maybe things are different where you are? (Italy I assume from your user page). Anyway, it's certainly as relevant as the other musical styles in the "See Also" section, so I have re-added it. --Stormie 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's relevant because most of goths i've known at goth festivals listen to goth metal (or doom metal or any subgenre related to goth metal) nowadays. very few goths listen to the same kind of music goths used to listen in the 80s. Obviously i'm talking about the italian goth scene (yup, i'm from italy :), but there are many non-european metal bands who are definetely goth (such as Type O Negative). i know goth metal scene is less developped outside Europe but it's a pretty important part of the history of this subculture. Thank you for adding it in the "see also" section, anyway :) --Absinthe88 15:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

They are GOTH METALLER. They're not GOTHS... The Goth subculture is connected to the Post-Punk and (New) Wave movement of the 80s. All the other cultures of the mid-90s are parallel movements and hybrid cultures, nothing more. --~Menorrhea 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mh...personally I beg to differ...--Absinthe88 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether that's true or not, all of the other "parallel movements and hybrid cultures" are on the "See Also" list. Anyway, I don't think you can view the goth subculture as some entity frozen in time, certainly the "Current subcultural boundaries" section of the article would not have that as the case. --Stormie 23:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Punk is Punk, Metal is Metal and Goth is Goth. All these subcultures are defined by their favourised music. And the music of the Goth subculture was Gothic rock. Today, the Goth subculture is decomposing, because Gothic rock is a dead genre. Here in Germany, we have a new generation of dark people. They hear music like Power Noise, Futurepop, Neue Deutsche Härte or Dark Metal. But these people don't know the original Goth subculture and their music, because they aren't Goths. We call these people "neogoths" or we don't use terms. They're a part of the Dark Culture, but they're absolutely no Goths. --~Menorrhea 00:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Amen brother or sister Anapuna 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All these subcultures are defined by their favourised music.

, what if somebody likes The Cure and Madonna at the same time but feels uniquely goth? Does the whole subculture definition change? --Absinthe88 02:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed gothic metal from the see also section because it has nothing to do with the goth subculture. Gothic metal stems from the metal culture, whoise roots are, you guessed it, metal. The goth subculture's roots are in post punk and punk. Both genres have totally different roots and have never been assoiciated with one another. Just because gothic metal has the word 'gothic' in it does not make it part of the subculture. Type O Negative is not considered goth, nor are other 'metal' type bands. Just because some metal bands dress in black and sing about death does not make them goth. Also, just because 'some' people consider gothic metal gothic doesn't mean it is. The only people that I have ever met who consider the genre to fit within the gothic subculture realm are those who are younger and who have no real knowledge of the history of the goth subculture. It is NOT the main kind of music in the gothic subculture these days. That award would probably go to synthpop/futurepop. Come up with some cold hard facts that gothic metal is part of the gothic subculture before you try to add it again. You cannot add it just beacuse YOU think it is. Crescentia 03:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, gothic metal isn't even mentioned in the article itself so why should it even be in the 'see also' list'? If it was related to the the gothic subculture wouldn't you think that it would be mentioned in the history of it? Crescentia 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

i didn't add it, it's not my opinion anyway. --Absinthe88 09:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean that it shouldn't be in that article's See Also list—have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also. The See Also list should be a list of "other articles in the Wikipedia that are related to this one", and "should ideally not repeat links already present in the article".

I suppose the question that should be asked is: was "gothic metal" so named due to connections with the gothic scene? Connections with gothic rock? Or from a more general use of the word "gothic"? The History section of the Gothic metal article doesn't offer any references, but it does claim that "a group of young bands in Northern England borrowed from the early gothic rock sound of the 1980s" and that this "was the first stage of the gothic-doom subgenre and the gothic-metal genre".

This seems to connect goth metal more with gothic rock than the goth subculture. I have added it to the "Related genres" list on that article. --Stormie 02:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At the beginning of the 90s, Paradise Lost were influenced by artists such as Sisters Of Mercy, Fields Of The Nephilim and Dead Can Dance. Gothic Metal is a crossover between Gothic rock (or Dark Wave) and Doom metal and Death metal. This new genre is therefore a fusion genre like Jazz rap or Funk Metal. In the middle of the 90s, Gothic rock artists like Dreadful Shadows or Love Like Blood mixed Gothic rock with hard Metal elements. Many Goth people didn't like this Metal music, because they were an outgrowth of the (Post-)Punk movement and (especially on the european continent) an outgrowth of Post-Punk and New Wave (in Germany with an influence of New Romantic, photo archive).

Between the middle and the end of the 90s, a new subculture was born. They were Goth metallers, but without a connection to the original Gothic roots. In later years, this subculture expanded on the foundations of other genres such as Dark metal (Cradle of Filth, Dimmu Borgir), Symphonic metal (Nightwish, Therion, etc.) or Shock rock (Marilyn Manson). All these people bear no relation to the original Goth subculture. --~Menorrhea 13:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy the fact that people are saying that gothic metal came from gothic rock. Gothic metal came from metal....period. The metal menatility and the goth mentality are totally different and the two subcultures have never really had anything in common except for the color black. I removed gothic metal from gothic rock because it ....has....nothing....to....do....with....it. I have NEVER heard a gothic metal band played in a 'goth' club in the many year that I used to attend them. I'm really done. I am tired of having to edit 'goth metal' out of every goth article on here just because some kids think that it's related to the goth subculture somehow. I knew there was a reason why the goth subculture is dying. *sarcasm* Crescentia 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but it's a fact. Metal bands used elements of Gothic rock. In the middle of the 90s Gothic rock acts used more metal elements (Fields Of The Nephilim -> The Nefilim). But the both subcultures, goth and goth metal, are completely different. That's the main point.

BTW: In germany, genres like Aggrotech, Power Noise and Futurepop are the cause of death of the original Goth and Wave movement. --~Menorrhea 18:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's too much to hope for that anyone can come up with a reliable source for either the assertion that gothic metal IS or IS NOT descended from gothic rock? Don't suppose anyone owns the book Sound of the Beast: The Complete Headbanging History of Heavy Metal by Ian Christe, which is cited as a reference on the Heavy metal music article? --Stormie 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have the book, but it doesn't discuss the genre (odd since a lot of emphasis is given to oter metal genres like thrash, death metal, alternative metal, and nu metal). Name individual bands, and I'll probably find them in there. WesleyDodds 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Gathering, Tristania, Theatre of Tragedy and Therion are some bands mentioned in our gothic metal article as being involved in the origins of the style. --Stormie 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm over 40, I've been a fan of almost everything that can be listened on the Earth. I can witness that Menhorrea is right. Dr. Who 00:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you a reliable source? :-) --Stormie 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, no. I'm postng just in the case a "vote" is needed. Just msg me, and I'll explain my (verifiable) opinion. Please note anyway that, with regard to music and sonic features it's very easy to tell what is metal and what is post-new wave, goth rock, darkwave or whatever. I'd say that the same can be done with the relevant subcultures. Cheers.Dr. Who 01:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I think I started a debate. Anyway, I wanna make sure that you understand exactly what I mean, so I'll explain it: genuine hevay metal has almost nothing do to with goth, especially with original 80s goth music since they were opposite subcultures at that time. But I think there's been an evolution in the 90s, and I'm not talking about Marilyn Manson's industrial metal who's sometimes considered goth just because since he appeared on MTV he wears victorian-dandy suits. I don't think that goth metal goths should be considered as a part of the original subculture, but since you said that gothic rock is a dead genre, and since the goth subculture is based on music, I think music has changed. I'm not saying that there's been a fusion between goth metal and goth music, I'm saying that goth metal has been heavy influenced by goth elements, such as the lyrics themes and some use of synths. I've met many goth people at festivals who listen to The Cure as well as Tristania or Theatre of Tragedy, they consider it as a goth offshot based on heavy metal with many goth influences. Call it neogoth or whatever, but you can't say that goth metal and goth subculture have nothing in common at all. Actually, nowadays, here in Italy, goth metal is the only genre close to goth subculture, and when most of people change, the whole community does the same. It's tough, but have to accept that we're not in the 80s anymore. Evolution is a natural process. Anyway, I understand that in the US it's different.

"Gothic music can be briefly characterized as intensely textured, often gloomy or dark both lyrically and musically, and heavily influenced by Celtic and European folk styles, punk rock, heavy metal and classical roots." 1

"In gothic music as well, gloom is represented through a mixture of styles, including gothic metal, medieval music and Celtic music." 2

"Heavy metal is not a part of the (U.S.) goth scene. Despite some superficial resemblance in street clothing, goths and metalheads consider themselves unrelated. There are in fact some genuine cross-over bands (most notably Type O Negative) which are not played in many goth clubs simply because they are on metal labels." 3

"Gothic music has also splintered into genres like industrial, Goth rock, Goth metal, EBM, synth-pop, ethereal/darkwave and dark ambient" 4

"Since the mid-1990s, styles of music that can be heard in goth venues range from gothic rock, industrial, EBM, synthpop, punk, metal, techno, 1980s dance music, and several others, although this does not represent a variety of music that is considered gothic mainstream, but rather a convention among DJ and nightclub owners to condense the number of nights devoted to any particular music venue." 5

"There are no hard and fast rules; anything which has an air of dark power is gothic. Some people also refer to goth music as "darkwave" "goth techno", "dark alternative", "electro", "ambient ethereal" and a hundred other phrases which may or may not be strictly applicable." 6 --Absinthe88 12:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

POV sources against POV sources. "Gothic music has also splintered into genres like industrial, Goth rock, Goth metal, EBM, synth-pop, ethereal/darkwave and dark ambient 4." This is absolutely bullshit. Industrial is a genre from the mid-1970s... In those days, goth music didn't exist. Goth is a genre from the late 1970s (1979) and was influenced by Industrial music (Alien Sex Fiend, Bauhaus). EBM is an outgrowth of Industrial music and electronic punk (DAF and Die Krupps were electropunk groups). EBM is absolutely no Goth music. Dark Wave is an umbrella term from the 80s, mostly used in Germany. And this umbrella term included the Goth music of the 80s. [2] ...and Synthpop... one of the first synthpop song was "Popcorn" from Hot Butter, released in 1972. In those days, goth music didn't exist. So please, forget web sources.

Btw: You said "here in Italy, goth metal is the only genre close to goth subculture". But what is with bands like The Frozen Autumn? Kirlian Camera? Ataraxia? Camerata Mediolanense? Black Rose? Ordo Equitum Solis? Gothica? All these groups came out from the italian Dark Wave milieu. --~Menorrhea 13:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said "call it neogoth". --Absinthe88 15:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you a neogoth? :-) ~Menorrhea 16:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I usually listen to Queen, Dresden Dolls, Nightwish, Lacrimosa, AC/DC, Lacuna Coil, Placebo, Depeche Mode, Madonna, White Stripes, Opeth, Led Zeppelin, Rammstein, Mozart, Theatre of Tragedy, Beethoven, Nirvana, Manowar, Apocalyptica, Type O Negative, Guano Apes, Metallica, Black Sabbath, the Beatles, Guns'n'Roses, Skunk Anansie, Goldfrapp, Children of Bodom, Tears for Fears, Eurythmics, some other synthpop stuff and some jazz as well. ^____^ --Absinthe88 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that you're you. :O) --~Menorrhea 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

XD, my music is a cicus, in my i-pod there's ABBA next to Apocalyptica. I'm not a goth, or maybe I should, as well as I should be a pop-punk-synth-classical-grunge-metal-cyber-fetish-crap XD...I'm defenitely camp. --Absinthe88 17:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the real question to ask is "Does gothic metal have a huge presence in the goth scene like old-school goth, industrial, and EBM do?" WesleyDodds 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Goth scene... which of the many Goth scenes? ;-) Btw: In Germany, the original EBM (not the boom-boom crap) has an own subculture and isn't a part of the darkscene or the goth scene. --~Menorrhea 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have a presence in the old-school, original goth scene. It does have a pretty relevant presence in the neogoth scene. At least in Italy. It's not a fashion matter, it's a music matter; in goth metal the lyrics themes are (most of times) love/death, depression, loneliness...a pretty romantic taste. Sometimes synths are used, even though it's still based on metal (so guitars, strongs drums, etc) --Absinthe88 13:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about the music genre we call "goth", it's about the subculture. So do sizable portions of the subculture listen to gothic metal? WesleyDodds 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is the main problem. The spectrum of the Goth subculture of today isn't clearly defined. So do sizable portions of the so-called "Goth subculture" listen to Gothic music? I think NO. They listen to Futurepop, Medieval Rock, Aggrotech and other stuff. But all these genres are absolutely no Gothic music. --~Menorrhea 11:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up an old discussion, but I'd like to mention here that one of the main arguments posed by people who don't mind hearing EMB/aggrotech/gothic metal/etc. at what are seen as being "goth nights" is that although that music isn't associated with either gothic rock or gothic subculture, very often the goth communities in many areas are too small to be able to produce a large crowd if there were a club night that played solely gothic rock..hence the reasoning behind adding music of various (and oftentimes, more popular) genres. It's not that they're related to goth in any way; it's just that they attract more of a crowd...which in the end may be a mix of rivetheads, metalheads, and goths-- all very different sorts of people.

I'm also aware that in the 90's in certain areas you were very likely to hear shoegaze and dreampop along with gothic rock at a typical "goth night". And neither of these genres are likely to be added to the "see also" section of the goth subculture article, and nor should they be. A lot of goths frequent 80's nights because of the occasional goth or post-punk tracks that get thrown into the setlists-- this also doesn't mean that we should have a link to every single genre in the 80's alternative gategory here. And I might as well mention here that a large number of goths who like traditional gothic rock also happen to enjoy numerous bands that fall under various alternative categories-- such as noise pop, dream pop, no wave, psychobilly, etc.

Basically, what it boils down to is that I feel it is completely unnecessary to write about gothic metal in this article, and that it should be kept to articles that deal primarily with the metal subculture. --CatZilla 13:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion that may make ALL the kids happy: why not add a disambiguation between "gothic subculture" and "gothic metal"? The issue is that gothic metal fans of relatively recent vintage call themselves "goth", but there is an established goth subculture (which, as far as I can tell, is usually about more than music: also about fashion and media consumption, at least) that disagrees and doesn't always want to be lumped in with the metal fans. There is definite drama within the scene over what's heard at clubs, as mentioned above: some people would like a return to the dreampop-and-gothic-rock style of club nights, some want them to become harder and more dancey. But it seems like the umbrella definition of "goth" has stretched to cover both styles and the stuff inbetween. However, it hasn't stretched to include gothic metal, at least in the US, even though fans of that genre have appropriated the term goth for purposes of self-labelling. (Am I making sense?) I have yet to hear gothic metal played regularly in goth clubs, even though I do hear futurepop, powernoise, darksynth, coldwave, and a variety of other music styles that are either admittedly goth, or at least goth-connected or goth-friendly in sound. (Ex: I hear Goldfrapp in clubs, but Alison doesn't present herself as a goth, so they aren't a "goth band.") Among goths I know who miss the old sound, the dancy retro-80s bands that are popular in the modern/indie rock scene are catching on well, but I haven't heard them much at clubs. 4.131.38.195 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For what its worth, I was at a burlesque show last night and a standup commedian said something about heavy metal, and a girl in the front cheered, and he said I didn't know you goths are into that stuff, and this girl made a very clear point of emphasizing that she is NOT a goth. This point was so important for her to make that she repeated herself after the comic didn't seem to hear her the first time. In any event he was clearly taken aback by the revelation... which goes to show anecdotally that metalheads do get confused for goths, routinely. And at least some metalheads get offended at the notion of being confused as goths. (now only if they would put 2+2 together and stop dressing like goths.)TheDarknessVisible 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NPV in Sources

Any point in these links in the sources:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=gothics http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=gothagain

These are not useful, neutral, or even correct, they are a (stupid) man's opinion, he can't even get the term right.

I dont see anything that could even be interpreted as from that site in the article...

So is there any perticular reason theyre there?

72.69.145.201 02:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Goth subculture#Criticism and Talk:Goth subculture#Criticism and intolerance. Ecto 09:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Maddox and "gothics"

If we are going to keep this section here, which, to me, is pretty dubious, it should be made clear of the tone of this "criticism."

I've since attempted to do this twice and was reverted by the same editor on the grounds that it is unreasonable. For example, should we not note that Maddox suggest placing all "gothics" - as he refers to them here - in a cannon and firing them at a brick wall or perhaps that he claims to have known a "shit eating gothic?"

As it stands, the article selectively takes the more 'serious' sounding aspects of the article in an attempt to pass it off as some sort of scholarly work without pointing out those two major elements. :bloodofox: 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no real concern over deleting the material altogether, provided someone does not come forward with a reasonable argument otherwise here first. Supposedly Maddox is a well known author of some merit. That is the argument made in the past for the inclusion of the material in the criticism section. I wouldn't know. As for your edits, I simply think they were unnecessary. The way it was written originally neither adds legitimacy to the article, nor denies it. Which is how it should be.Theplanetsaturn 08:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Theplanetsaturn:

1. Maddox, as a celebrity and published author, has notable views.

2. Maddox's Web site, The Best Page in the Universe, is a verifiable source for Maddox's notable views.

3. Maddox has expressed his notable views of the goth subculture at length on The Best Page in the Universe, a verifiable source.

4. Part of Wikipedia's purpose is to document notable views that appear in verifiable sources.

5. Therefore, Wikipedia should, keeping to a neutral point of view, include, rather than exclude, Maddox's notable views of the goth subculture, and provide a citation link to The Best Page in the Universe, a verifiable source.

Bloodofox: That paragraph is just a summary of Maddox's conclusions. Adding more to it than that just gives it undue weight. ----Ecto

That sufficent for me. I recalled similar arguments which is why I have been re-adding the material when deleted.Theplanetsaturn 19:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, is "notable" worth more than "informed"? Here, you're giving it more weight. Maddox may have made himself a person of some notoriety, but that doesn't mean that his views on the gothic subculture are informed to the degree that they constitute worthwhile criticism.4.131.38.195 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Readers can make up their own minds as to how informed or uninformed Maddox is. That is not our job. Ecto 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His criticism is satire. It is academically dishonest to publish satire as if it serious. HE IS A COMEDIAN. It would be like saying "Stephen Colbert says George W. Bush is the Greatest President the United States has ever had, and is an avid strong supporter of the Bush administration" or that Bill Maher thinks Osama Bin Laden is inside America riding alone with Americans. This is absurd. You can't get a commedian's SERIOUS views by taking his literal words. The paradox is a synopsis of a commedy routine. It is NOT an authoritative statement of someones true views. And frankly, his views on the goth culture should be posted on the wiki page of Maddox. Otherwise wiki will soon be full of the idle musings of celebrities and every single page will be contaminated and rendered utterly useless.

If this isn't corrected I will escalate this. I kid you not.

The stuff that follows belongs in a seperate section, so I'll add a title. TheDarknessVisible 01:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a citation from Madox's page (I merely followed the source from goth subculture):

"I've been trying to avoid putting up another page about Gothics for a while now, but recently I've been getting a flood of emails from dipshit Gothics that don't know the definition of satire and sarcasm."

I wonder if the dipshits he is referring to is us? At a minimum the section should be renamed "Satire and Sarcasm" however in as much as it has little to say about the goth subculture it should be deleted.

TheDarknessVisible 02:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism sections are the standard for content like this (Wikipedia:Criticism). Though we have to let readers make up their own minds regarding Maddox's tone, university English departments are under the impression that satire and seriousness go hand in hand just as much as satire and humor. Even Wikipedia's definition of satire reflects that understanding: "Although satire is usually witty, and often very funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour but criticism of an event, an individual or a group in a clever manner." Anyone who thinks A Modest Proposal is nothing but a joke is just as wrong as anyone who takes it at face value. Maddox's degree of seriousness is up to the readers to decide after clicking on the hyperlink and reading his work for themselves. Maddox's writings on the goth subculture are satire, a form of criticism, so they belong in the criticism section. These pieces are not just the idle musings of a celebrity. Maddox is a notable satirist who turned his pen to the goth subculture. Hence his two texts are relevant to the topic at hand. Ecto 07:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you seem to be conceding the argument. You said "Anyone who thinks A Modest Proposal is nothing but a joke is just as wrong as anyone who takes it at face value."; therefore by your own position : to take Madox's statement at face value is WRONG. The wiki article takes Maddox's statements at face value and is therefore in that regard, wrong.

We prevent readers from making up their own mind regarding his tone because when reading an encyclopedia one does not expect to find serious sounding quotations, which were meant as jokes, taken out of context. It is the "sarcasm" which is problematic. It makes it very difficult to know what Maddox actually thinks about the goth subculture. His commedy routine is NOT an authoritative or verifiable source on his views. They are meant as entertainment.

If the reader is OBLIGATED to follow the link to Maddox's page merely to have any chance to understand the wiki article then we are presenting nothing more than a promotion for Maddox's page, without actually presenting the reader with Maddox's views. You should not be obligated to follow up the citations merely to understand the base article.

His conclusion actually is "I propose that we build a giant cannon, gather up all the gothics, pack them into the cannon, and launch them into a brick wall." . THAT IS A NOTABLE VIEW.

Thinking goths are boring is far less notable than launching into a brick wall. If notability is the only criterea for admission and not Maddox's reliability as a genuine critique of subcultures then a death wish seems to fit the bill.

Check out Wikipedia:Notability for the sense editors use.

I propose for now the Wiki article be changed for the time being to :

"American satiricist Maddox has criticized the subculture more directly. In a web article titled "I Hate Gothics", Maddox states that the subculture bases itself on an inconsistent, ambiguous label, and that the entire movement revolves around nothing but aesthetics, and seems "trivial and unimportant" to him. He concludes to say goths are cowards and should all be launched out of a giant cannon into a brick wall.[12] In another article titled "I've got your Gothic movement, RIGHT HERE" he goes on to characterize "gothics" as, "Boring, arrogant, uninteresting, [and] un-innovative." [13]

This avoids promoting his web page directly but the links to the specific articles are there. This is more relevent. It also convey's a sense of sarcasm while leaving all the most pertinent of maddox's "views". I still believe decoding the opinion of a comedian from a comedy bit by taking it literally is academically insincere, but if the consensus is that those statements are reliable, I'm satisfied to assume they are, provided the satirical and sarcastic tone is transmitted as Maddox explicitly stated his "views" are intended to be.

It is simply Original Research to tone down what views the editor deems to be extreme views (and thus merely humourous) but then take what points seem reasonable to the editor and leaving those as is. The editor is in effect substituting his own views for Maddox's. My proposal leaves the information that Maddox has complaints about goths, what they are, and what his solution is. It leaves the absurdity of the original source, and explicitly states he is a satiricist. The shorter current version leaves a false impression of somber and academic thought on the part of Maddox, thereby inadvertantly saying MORE by saying less.

deletion is still more appropriate, otherwise soon wiki will be full of Maddox's views on everything, but at the very minimum the paragraph should be corrected as I've stated. TheDarknessVisible 10:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you've put a lot of thought into this, but personally I don't see a need to make the changes you endorse. As Ecto says "Maddox's degree of seriousness is up to the readers to decide after clicking on the hyperlink and reading his work for themselves.". Theplanetsaturn 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't take the article at face value, jut gives a brief description of it. What, is Maddox really praising the goth subculture or something? You seem to be operating under a mistaken definition of "notability" as Wikipedia editors use it by applying it to certain points in a piece of writing. Please read Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia is under no obligation to comment on the nuances of a text in brief descriptions, and doing so is likely original research. "Somber and academic thought"? The guy has one name and his Web site is called "The Best Page in the Universe". Anyone who mistakes that for a source of "somber and academic thought" must have low blood sugar. The paragraph avoids a pontification on Maddox's sense of humor just for the sake of brevity. Your proposed changes give the content undue weight. Changing "writer" to "satiricist" is a good idea, though, just for the sake of readers who don't get it after reading the first sentence. Ecto 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not hugely bothered about including the material, but I disagree with the logic that "X is notable as an author, therefore his views on Y are notable". I would suggest it appropriate to include the views in his article, but I'm not convinced that they are appropriate here. I mean, I'm sure that there are all sorts of authors who have all sorts of views on all sorts of subjects, but we don't go putting those views in any article other than the author's own, unless there is good reason to (either the view is particularly notable, or it's considered a reliable source on the matter).

Consider, if Maddox claimed that all homosexuals were promiscuous, would we put that in the homosexuality article as "Criticism"?

I see that Maddox's article doesn't mention goths at all - I propose moving the information to there. Mdwh 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's criticism of the goth subculture. It fits perfectly in a section about criticism of the goth subculture. There isn't any more to it, in my view. Ecto 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ecto you continue to insist upon citing Maddox with no indication that his statement is sarcasm or satirical. Maddox himself indicates his view is sarcastic and satirical which means he is NOT giving people the go ahead to portray it otherwise. The general reader can not be presumed to go off and fact check the wiki article. Especially when the previous paragraph about a cartoonist specifically mentions it is satire. The fact that he claims his statements are sarcastic and satirical should be included. He should also be referred to by his more accurate description satiricist. He has never written anything notable EXCEPT satire.

I agree with bloodfox that the sarcastic and satirical intent of his comments must be included in the WIKI PAGE itself. To do otherwise is to materially misrepresent Maddox's statements, and therefore to misrepresent his views. Since no one has a good argument why he can't be called a "satiricist" or why the sentence can't say "Maddox sarcastically remarked " then this should be done. If it gives it more "weight" than it deserves, that is not as much of a problem as making it seem serious when it is sarcastic.

However some editors seem to refuse to allow bloodfox to make that change even though it is appropriate.

I do not believe mentioning his view that goths should be fired out of a cannon and all killed gives his criticism too much weight. A call for genocide is a very serious criticism and deserves at least 1 sentence.

Furthermore what makes this 1 particular view of Maddox notable? He lambasts everyone! It is as Mdwh says, not sufficient that he is a celebrity that every view of his whatsoever becomes notable. Does anyone in society actually cite Maddox as an authority? Would a board of education act on Maddox's views? Has a single being in society relied upon Maddox's views on Goth in order to make some kind of decision in that regard?

I dont believe that wikipedia is a platform for people to air their opinions on various pet peeves of theirs. There are far more notable criticisms of goth subculture. If the best we can find is 2 satirical commentaries then it is tantamount to implying that in fact no one whatsoever has ever raised a legitimate and rational criticism on the goth subculture.

I am disputing the neutrality of this paragraph on Maddox.TheDarknessVisible 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

To quote from my previous post, "Changing 'writer' to 'satiricist' is a good idea, though, just for the sake of readers who don't get it after reading the first sentence." I didn't think my wording was that obscure. Do you need me to reword it? Ecto 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't address any of the points I raised. Should his views on every subject be put into the relevant Wikipedia articles? Do all notable people get to have their viewpoints put into every Wikipedia article that they have an opinion on, even though their notability is nothing to do with that subject - rather than putting their opinions on their own page? Mdwh 03:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

He's a notable satirist/critic and he satired/criticized the goth subculture. Your argument doesn't change that, so I see no reason to address its points. Ecto 04:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

And your argument doesn't answer my questions. Does everything he's satired/critised get put into the relevant article? Do we do the same for every notable person? And if this is satire, the title/wording should reflect that, at the moment it suggests that this is some objective non-satirical criticism. Mdwh 10:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to address your questions. Ecto 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think blunty refusing to discuss issues on Talk is productive. Mdwh 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing irrelevent issues on Talk is even less productive, you have to agree. Wikipedia is not paper, so your objection has nothing to do with this article or the policies that we have to follow in writing it (see below). Ecto 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My objection was that being a notable person does not mean that your view on every single subject - including goth subculture - is notable criticism of that subject matter. Which is relevant to this article. Yes, we are not limited by paper, but we should also not be giving undue weight to any random person who criticises the goth subculture ("Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all."). My primary concern is that of NPOV (which, unlike notability, is an official Wikipedia policy); listing a few random people's views as "criticism" can give the misleading impression that there is some kind of significant criticism against the goth subculture.

I also agree with Dr. WTF, we can't tell whether this is criticism of goth subculture, or satire of those people who criticise, or what. Mdwh 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

We have already reached agreement that the material should be removed. Ecto 21:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the {{editprotected}} tag. The article is only semi-protected and I see no actual consensual change being requested. Harryboyles 12:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about whether the stuff about Maddox is important enough to stay, but I've offered my own new version of it FWIW. Have a look and see what you think. It's just a suggestion. Metamagician3000 12:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the new version put up by metamagician. I agree with Mdwh that maddox's view on goth is not really notable simply because he hates everything and has an opinion on everything whatsoever. this is one of his plethora of views. a rant and nothing more. But the inclusion of the word satiricist the way Metamagician has put it right now, satisfies me that the reader will not be mislead into thinking Maddox is a notable sociologist or notable psychologist or notable arts critic or something.

In any event. I retract my neutrality dispute. I am satisfied now. The issue of notability and the issue of neutrality are seperate. I think the article accurately and fairly depicts the views of maddox (as irrelevant as he may be). TheDarknessVisible 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The overly conscious editing approach has rendered this section useless. Criticisms leveled are explained comfortably for the reader suggesting a point of view not implicit in the original material. Rather than let it stand as horribly disfigured as it has become, I have deleted it.Theplanetsaturn 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Satire is a form of criticism. "Criticism" is the standard title for sections like this (see Wikipedia:Criticism). The title "Satire" defies that guideline. Ecto 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Add in the fact that satire is pointed out in both the Maddox and Jhonen section. Further labelling just indicates a point of view. The section should be re-added under "Criticism".Theplanetsaturn 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I readded it as titled criticism.TheDarknessVisible 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I had no position on whether it should be called satire redundantly. If it is titled "Satire" then pointing out the fact multiple times is redundant. If it is called criticism, then satirical criticism should be noted as such in each instance, because scholarly criticism would be the default assumption by a reader of an encyclopedic article. I still think maddox is not notable. But as long as he is noted as satiricist (as it is now), I'm satisfied that the article is neutral. The reader will know that the article includes the word satiricist for a specific reason. A seperate section on satire may not be utterly useless. the Goth subculture is a very popular topic for parody and satire. goths do it to themselves in fact. Self parody is a part of the subculture. and perhaps Satire and scholerly criticism ought to be in 2 seperate sections. I can't believe the 700 club hasn't come out and condemned goths.TheDarknessVisible 23:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course satire is a form of criticism - that's my point, we don't need to label it criticism, when we can use a more specific term. I agree with TheDarknessVisible - I'm happy for it to stay, as long as it's clear that this is satire. I will drop my objection to the title (though I don't see anything in the Wikipedia link you give about what satire should come under?) as long as we keep it mentioned in the text. Mdwh 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ofcourse satire is a form of criticism, but criticism of what? Who decides how his writing should be interpreted and what he is actually criticizing? For all we know he could be critizing those who critize goths through satire. I'm deleting the part about maddox on the grounds that it is not qualify as Wikipedia:Notable, specifically:

"Substantial" means that the source covers the article content in sufficient detail.

Maddox is no expert on goths, no scientist and has not done any substantial work or study on the subject. His only criticism is through two satire articles which do not cover the subject in subsantial detail to be considered notable. --Dr. WTF 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. WTF here. This is hardly notable. Do you realize how much of this crap is on the internet? Should we note it ALL here? I do not think Maddox is notable enough for this inclusion. :bloodofox: 21:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. It does seem quite plausible that Maddox is criticising goth bashing via satire. he is certainly not pretending to be a goth. I am also inclined to remove it because many editors keep trying to delete the material from the maddox page on the basis that considering how many views he has on many many things, this view is not important. And to reraise my original objection (or one of them).. nothing whatsoever has been done as a result of this view. maddox has not actually persuaded anyone to do anything at all with this view of his. nor has he even lifted a finger to actually try to change goth. it just seems like 1 commedy bit out of many many commedy bits. I vote to exclude it.TheDarknessVisible 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline (not policy) Wikipedia:Notability: "These and all the notability guidelines are for allowable article topics within Wikipedia, not for allowable content within a legitimate Wikipedia article. That is, not all material included in an article must, in itself, meet these criteria." That guideline (not policy) in no way dictates that we delete this content, as you suggest.

As for the "Do you realize how much of this crap is on the internet? Should we note it ALL here?" objection, from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This content passes verifiability, etc.

And the "For all we know he could be critizing those who critize goths through satire" reason: That is exactly why we should let the readers decide for themselves by providing a link. Even if your view were correct, it would still be just as relevent to this section.

Finally: "[N]othing whatsoever has been done as a result of this view." Could you please point out the policy that requires that we exclude views on the basis that they have not seen practical application?

The grounds given for the deletion of this content in no way reflect Wikipedia's policies. The exclusion of this content is unjustified. Ecto 18:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. I just supported the deletion. However having done more research on the issues I come back with this argument for exclusion:

While it may be true that Maddox is a notable person, he is NOT a reliable source on information about the goth subculture. See WP:RS. It is self published and he is NOT writing an area of his expertise. The wiki guideline on reliability is to not include information which is unreliable. The inclusion of Maddox's views about the goth subculture in the article about the goth subculture is an attempt to insert unreliable information. This information should ONLY be included in the article about Maddox himself. It isn't reliable information about the goth subculture and has no place in a wiki article about the goth subculture.

"Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, ```they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book```."

"As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include:

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. "

The goth subculture is NOT a field of Maddox's expertise and he is NOT a well known professional journalist.

"Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself..."

This is not an article about maddox. This is an article about the goth subculture. So his views can not be relied on here.

Including the words "It is Maddox's view..." can only be used to correct a problem with NPOV. It doesn't correct the problem with his lack of reliability on the TOPIC OF THE ARTICLE. Since Maddox is unreliable that weights against the inclusion of his opinions here. However I agree that he *is* reliable in regards to his views. Maddox's views can be included in wikipedia in the article on Maddox. They are irrelevant here.

Your prior argument based on Wikipedia:Criticisms, is also unpersuasive. Criticisms is not a guideline or a rule. It is nothing more than an essay. And does not actually prove anything is standard or not standard. In fact the essay actually argues AGAINST a seperate criticism section, contradicting what you said about it. It says the material should be included directly in the main body of the material.

TheDarknessVisible 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the concrete, relevant, and accurate reference to policy. Well, I am convinced! I will move the content to the Maddox article, as you suggest.

Your summaries of the essay and my argument are mischaracterizations. What I was actually arguing, if I remember correctly, is that the title "Criticism" for such a section is standard, and it is, according to that essay (titled "Wikipedia:Criticism" itself) and any such section you will see in any Wikipedia article.

Here is the full text of the section from Wikipedia:Criticism, which goes against your portrayal of it after the halfway mark:

"In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet. Criticism sections should not violate Article structures that can imply a point of view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are. Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the mean while the "separate" section might be tagged POV-section or similar)."

That gives reasons both for and against having such a section, so it is not a clear-cut argument "AGAINST" including such a section, and certainly not an argument for naming such a section anything but "Criticism" should it be included, so it does not contradict my argument at all. If you see places in other sections of the article where we can incorporate this information, I would have no objection at all to doing so, but so long as we have this section, it should be titled "Criticism".

P.S. Yelling for emphasis is impolite. Ecto 15:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that ANY form of the written word could be construed as "yelling" is one of the more ridiculous notions of the internet. If the point of emphasis is made, any other interpretation is irrelevant.Theplanetsaturn 18:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If you go around typing in all caps it will offend people. That's just a fact of dealing with others on the Internet. It's a convention, and it has been a convention since before I was using the Internet. So don't blame me for it, and don't hold it against me for warning others about it. Thank you. Ecto 22:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is offended by capitals for emphasis is looking for offense where none is given.

I just said it was impolite and that it will offend people because capitals mean yelling in Internet discussions. It takes more than yelling to offend me, personally.

That's just a fact, regardless of what internet culture has to say about it. Furthermore, let's be clear about this "warning".

There is no need for that condescending tone. Yeah, "warning", as in "heads up", as in "watch out for this".

I did not see any instance of anyone using ALL caps in any message here. All caps in an entire post would be ridiculous.

That exaggeration is clearly not what I meant by "all caps" at all.

But capitals used specifically for emphasis are an entirely different creature, and obviously do not warrant any "warning".Theplanetsaturn 01:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You obviously know a lot about what it takes to avoid comming off as offensive, so I'll take your advice to heart from now on. Ecto 04:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

all caps used to put emphasis on a specific word, or clause etc, is NOT yelling. WHAT IS IMPOLITE IS SIMPLY LEAVING YOUR CAPSLOCKS ON. THIS SHOWS THAT YOU DON'T EVEN CARE THAT IT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO READ LONG STRINGS OF ALL CAPS. THIS IS WRITTEN EQUIVALENT OF YELLING; IT IS DISTRACTING AND DOES NOT ACTUALLY HELP GET THE POINT ACROSS IN ANY WAY. DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?TheDarknessVisible 16:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your use of capitals for emphasis reads just as much like yelling, especially given the content and tone of your writing. Use something like italics or bold (you also mix bold with capitals, which adds to the confusion). Better yet, structure your sentences so the rhythms of your words place the emphasis for you. That way no one will get the false impression that you are trying to be obnoxious. Ecto 17:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Glancing back, I can see one or two instances where you capitalized entire sentences. Were you indeed yelling there? Ecto 17:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

no. I was adding emphasis to a conclusory sentence. You'll know when I'm yelling because I'll type faster.TheDarknessVisible 17:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I will never get the chance. All capital letters, especially for an entire sentence (conclusory or otherwise) is the standard way to communicate that you are yelling. You should use that, instead of typing faster, whenever you need to indicate that you are yelling, just for the sake of clarity. Of course, it is better not to yell at all, because that just tends to give people an excuse to think poorly of you. Anyway, I hope my advice gives you reason to find a clearer method for giving emphasis in your writing on the Internet. 207.81.203.17 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

cutting

Do Goths cut and do self-mutalation (i think I spelled that wrong) or mostly Emos? (I personally dont think Emo is even a real style though)

Um, OK, you should use four tildes to sign your posts or press the little button at the top of the edit window that looks like it has handwriting on it, just to the right of the W in the red crossed-through circle. Ahem.

Self-injury is not related to subculture, it's related to emotional and psychological issues. Quoting from the Wikipedia article, the person who self-injures is not usually seeking to end his or her own life, but is instead hoping to cope with or relieve unbearable emotional pain or discomfort. Someone may have reasons for cutting which tie into their reasons for being attracted to certain kinds of music or imagery or stories, but there are plenty of people who do not cut who are also attracted to those things. The goth and emo subcultures are two things that unhappy people might be attracted to, but there are plenty of people in the mainstream who self-injure, too, and plenty of happy, relatively well-adjusted goths. You should not assume that the way someone dresses or the fact that they listen to melodramatic music means that they are a self-injurer, and that everyone who looks "normal" isn't one. 4.131.38.195 11:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add about todays ACTUAL goth's.These are my definitions: Type A Goth:The kind discussed on this page Type B Goth: The kind we see every day:Tendency to wear black or dark clothes, fascination with horror and darkness and have mixed musical interests[pleas note that goths tend to lean to a certain genre]:Metal,Punk,Alternative and Classic Rock

                                             BGWB (Bad Guy's Wear Black)

Broken lks

The references contain broken links: http://vampirefreaks.com/main.php?pg=4 currently ref #7, takes you to the homepage of vampirefreaks.com, not the article at that site that's supposed to be used as a reference. Also, http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation/11200369.htm takes me to an error page, though this could be because a subscription is required. delldot talk 23:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Gothic Geographic Scenes

Things to do. different parts of the earth have local customs which differ. lets discuss and document. TheDarknessVisible 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Relationship between goth subculture, gothic architecture, gothic novel, romantic movement, gothic aesthetic, gothic rock, gothic fashion and the sublime

Things to do. For many goths there is a relationship between these things. lets discuss and document. Read Edgar Allan Poe? Lord Byron? Do you ever stare at churches or mountains or skyscrapers? I saw an awsome essay on this once online.. alas. it is gone now. TheDarknessVisible 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Gothic was an youth culture in England and connected to early gothic music, nothing more. All the other associations are bullshit. Gothic had nothing to do with gothic novels and had nothing to do with gothic architecture, the germanic goth tribe or gothic lolita. Gothic was a music-inspired outgrowth of the post-punk and new wave movement with funny and spooky themes. It was batcave party people.

Btw: In Germany, the term "Gothic" (in relation to a music style) was unknown until the early 1990s (1991/1992). German people called this kind of music as "Wave" or "Dark Wave". In other countries the music style and the youth culture were simply called "Dark". There was no relation to gothic architecture or other things. --~Menorrhea 11:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be so happy to use your definition of goth. Sociologically a subculture is defined by "distinctive behaviors and beliefs" which seperate it from the mainstream culture. A clear cut definition would cut through the BS. No subculture to my knowledge exists, that calls itself "the goth subculture" which is distinctively a follower/devotee/fans/performers of any other style of music than gothic rock. There is no electrogoth subculture or whatever. the dark scene isn't the goth subculture. likewise literature or whatever is not the "distinctive characteristic" of the subculture. I totally agree. Only the music is distinctive.

However other editors consistantly revert me if I try to say words to the effect of "members of the goth culture are all followers of goth music", "dressing goth doesn't make you a member of the goth subculture", etc.

I believe you are wrong to say that "in other countries the youth culture was simply called dark." Its not true of Canada at least. However I have been suggesting we need seperate pages for seperate geographic locales. There is also no such thing as a youth culture. Thats a misnomer. being "a youth" is just as secondary and irrelevant as "wearing black lipstick". neither make or break a goth.

The earliest I know anyone who can remember the term ever being used in my scene here was circa 1988 or 89 (a manager of a local nightclub popular amongst goths, and used to hold regular goth nights, told me this and he was a punk before punk itself died). he says prior to 1988 certain people who looked like what we may think of goths, were called "freaks" at least by the punks. Another person (a goth) advises me that everyone including the punks and transvestites, were called freaks. I think probably what happened is the freaks called everyone freaks inclusively, and punks called themselves punk and called everyone else freak. So that way the freaks didn't realize that punks dont consider themself freak. but thats my interpretation of trying to blend their histories. When I got into it around 1993 it was called goth although goths accepted and often called each other freaks, I personally didn't think that punks were called freaks.. then again the people I took for punks were apparently something else by that time. I always prefered "goth" and I took it to mean "followers of goth music". And anyone who listened to more goth than me was MORE GOTH THAN ME. I didn't feel threatened by that fact. Industrial music was never called goth. Even bands like switchblade sympony had some controvery over being permitted to be called goth. we were very strict about the term applying to GOTHROCK "PERIOD".

However virtually every goth whatsoever was into gothic literature, and moreover they were into Ann Rice, Dracula, the X-files, and many of them were into the whitewolf live action game (I was into the paper/pencil version). They took pictures of themselves in graveyards and basically acted like the munsters. They sure as hell watched gothic movies because Interview with the vampire caused all sorts of controversy. So perhaps the "gothic literature scene" overlapped with the "gothic music scene"...(ohhhh good times). But as I said... the subculture was identified and still can only be identified by a universally distinctive trait. I agree with you. IT IS THE MUSIC: GOTH ROCK.

Once we have identified goth rockers (which is objective), only then can anyone objectively research whether or not gothic lit is actually popular or if thats merely something literary posers claim because they think it makes them more goth.

Some people want to use vague, utterly ambiguous, self referencing identifiers to seperate goths from non goths. A goth listens to goth music, and goth music is defined by whatever goths listen to : ergo: anyone is a goth : ergo : goth subculture doesn't exist. If anyone's a goth its not a subculture.

I can say that in the toronto scene, gothic lit and architecture was part of our goth scene's mystique because I honestly believed for a couple years that goth had existed as a continuous subculture since Lord Byron's time. I didn't know goths were immitating old B&W movies. I thought the people in the old B&W movies made those movies because they were goth. these goths were making chainmail by hand and all sorts of crazy things and wouldn't shut up about thinks like Sandman.

I prefer the objective definition you seem to want to use. its a type of music and the fans of the music. thats what the subculture is.

However I disgree that the aesthetic has "no part". If it hard no part there would not have been any cause for Joy Divions promoter to try to describe them as more "gothic" than pop rock"; he would have had no concept of what "gothic" means to use the word. the gothic aesthetic is real, and its palpable. and goth rock musicians (the ones who are willing to label themself) do seem to get a kick out of acting "gothic" and sounding "gothic". However I agree that this gothic aesthetic is NOT a distinctive trait of the subculture because it can not be objectively defined in a way which lets you identify the subculture. the aesthetic is a side effect.. a common feature... similar to the fashion IMHO. it can be studied properly once goths are objectively identified simply by studying the goths. As long as wishywashy definitions are used, nothing can ever be said, and Maddox has a fieldday. 21:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in editing my own thoughts on this issue into the article, since it's all personal opinion, original research, etc. etc. But in my experience (involvement in the goth scene in Sydney, Australia since ~1990), the scene, the subculture, whatever you want to call it, is about: music, and clothes, and makeup, and jewelery, and movies, and books, and comics, and booze, and drugs, and many other things. Various people in the scene are into various of these things. Some devote huge effort and expense to their clothes and makeup, some wear black jeans and a Bauhaus t-shirt. Some love their Anne Rice and want to be vampires, some have never read a book in their life. And for sure there are many people who self-identify as "goths", dress in a goth style and go to the nightclubs to drink and hang out with friends, but are really not into the music, only enjoying EBM or synthpop or retro new wave or whatever. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the goth subculture and the gothic rock style of music are connected but different things.

The "goth" aesthetic has many facets, and the goth subculture is a subculture of people who appreciate various facets of it, and want to associate with others that share that aesthetic. Music is only one facet of it, and a particularly controversial one in and of itself (cue the sound of a million arguments over whether band x is or is not "goth"). --Stormie 03:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been involved in the goth scene on and off since about 1994. I first heard the term applied to the subculture from school friends who were goth circa 1989. Most of the posts signed with IP numbers on this page are mine (I don't have a static IP and I keep forgetting my login password). I like the current state of the article, for the most part.

I'm making this comment because I agree overwhelmingly with Stormie. (Except to add that there's at least one more category of goths with regard to literary taste: those who read a lot and don't particularly like Anne Rice, or are uninterested in being exposed to her work. The fact that something has goth-friendly elements does not mean that all goths will like it.)

Furthermore, the definition of "goth music" isn't really "goth rock" and hasn't been for ages - that sort of music has been mostly dead for a while (except for with bands like H.I.M.), was not the original music of the scene (which was certain strains of postpunk, many of the bands most likely to say "we were never a goth band!"), and is not universally liked in the scene - yet the scene has managed to go on in the many years since it's been a major force. I'd say that most goth music can probably be defined as "music both made and primarily consumed by people who identify as goths," but even that isn't 100% true, since many of the major 1980s bands associated with the subculture famously don't identify with it. Adding "music widely enjoyed in the gothic subculture" to the definition might be helpful, except that there are many not-goth bands that fit that description, but have been considered goth by goths. There may have been controversy in the Canadian poster's area, and even online, over whether or not Switchblade Symphony could be described as a goth band, but there wasn't in my area on the regional level. However, that doesn't mean that every self-identified goth liked them, just as I never liked Fields of the Nephilim, or Nosferatu.

As a subculture, like any subculture, goth is first and foremost about the people involved in it (without whom it would not exist). There is a gaggle of tastes associated with it, not one single thing. I think it is a mistake to conflate a specific music fandom with a subculture, although there is a significant overlap within the two groups. Punk comes not just with punk music (which has an array of styles), but also with a generalized set of ideologies that can differ widely from person to person, such as the contrast between Oi! and RiotGrrl.

It should also be understood that there is a tongue-in-cheek component of the subculture for many people involved in it, and that a goth who has intentionally been photographed in a series of settings that are architecturally gothic may be actively working the pun aspect of the situation... or, more likely, they may just like stuff that looks old. They'd be just as happy to pose under a Romanesque arch as a Gothic one.

The thing is, the stuff that both Stormie and I have said about the history of the scene, and its general characteristics, and the subculture as we know it, is very true for the English-speaking world. It is clearly not true for many non-Anglophone countries. Most of the disagreements seem to come from what "goth" is in such countries vs what "goth" is in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia. Even then, there are things like obvious regional differences in terminology ("goth" vs "death rock" vs "freak" in the earlier 1980s, and so on). Germany has had specific terminology, too, like "grufti."

In fact, I know that the subculture as Stormie and I know it is not even quite the same thing, because there are certain differences between the scenes in our two countries. It's just very similar, between its UK origins and the fact that Anglophone goths - though 'not' all of them by any means - have been connected via the internet in increasing numbers since the early 1990s. This allowed for certain elements to globalize, like the fashion for colorful hair extensions that seems to have begun in England in the mid-1990s and that spread to the US in the late 1990s, specifically through online conduits. (Hair extensions were seen here and there prior to that, but not as a cliched and typical part of the female "goth look," as they became a few years ago.)

This is an important point to make, because in the 1980s and even later, the majority of goths were connected by fanzines and word of mouth, if at all. Widespread use of online communication began much later, and even after the mailing lists and newsgroups existed and became accessible to college students and then the general public, it was common to find goths who seldom or never used them. I know that, duh, people in other countries have internet access too, but those people have a bond of both language and geography; Anglophone goths are comparably far-flung. I'm making this point because I find that some younger people take their degree of connectivity for granted and don't take into account that it's a relatively recent development in the scene. People were just not very connected in the late 1980s, when most alternative culture was about talking to the right people or them talking to you, finding like-minded penpals, hunting down zines or starting your own, managing to make it to the right shows or hear about the right club nights, and trading tapes. This accounts for stuff like, "In Germany, we just called it Dark," and, "In Toronto, the goths were originally known as Freaks." Underground stuff was just much further underground until the mid-to-late 1990s.

Another possibility is that there be more regional articles like the Toronto one, which address Germany, Italy, Finland, etc. There is major value to these regional variations, because I believe that the scene is becoming increasingly more global; it is more and more common to see American goths making the trips to Whitby Gothic Weekend and the big European festivals like Wave. What I don't think is that what was going on in non-Anglophone areas in the 1980s should be a huge component of the English language articles: it should be information in the form of parenthetical notes. And what is true of Anglophone goth scenes should not necessarily be excessively prominent in articles in, say, Italian or French - those articles should reflect their native scenes foremost, in my opinion. The authors who have written about the gothic subculture authoritatively enough to be referenced here are almost certainly not completely conversant with the history of the subculture in non-English-speaking countries, maybe not even in English-speaking countries other than their own.

Finally, I used to have a big pile of magazine articles that would be helpful references here, if only to have citations for things we know to be true. I will contribute info from them if I can find them. Old info about "the state of the scene" certainly won't be accurate, but it does provide a snapshot of those periods when the articles were published. Most of them were about the history of the scene, though. It seems like something that can fairly said about the scene today (which is approached in the article's current state) is that it has become diffusive - the longer it goes on, the wider the umbrella needed to cover all the things associated with it. The 1988 Wikipedia article on the subculture would probably be fairly easy to write, and the big arguments in it would most likely be over the infamous schism in the Sisters of Mercy. But it isn't 1988 anymore. :) 4.131.33.136 13:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with breaking the article up into multiple geographical articles. However if this article is about the "anglophone goth subculture" then it should clearly state that. It should not use sweeping generalizations. Then local histories can be more accurately accounted for. In as much as this article does not claim to be anglocentric it should be general and talk about the whole subculture in terms which hold true over the whole world.

I think from the perspective of the goth subculture it makes no difference if Sioxsie was post-punk or positive punk or goth rock or hiphop. Siouxsie was one of the cornerstones of the subculture. the label is secondary. the same holds for Rob Smith and Andrew Eldritch. It never mattered if they accepted the terminology.

another thing which needs to be clear. To the extent that there are some people who call themself goth who dont share the same distinctive tastes, behaviors and customs, and do not mutually identify with the individuals of the original goth subculture, they are NOT the same subculture. There should be a disambiguation page if they are also called goth (and many of them dont even call themselves that).TheDarknessVisible 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

gothic "society"

Things to do. there are certain rules goths never break at the threat of losing their membership card. Lets discuss and document. For example : Never tell anyone to their face that you are "more goth" than they are. dont argue about what goth is where anyone can see you. dont argue about goth at all with anyone with more goth status than you (generally years in the scene or contributions to the scene decide status). etc... some are universal rules, some are local, some correspond to what the goth is wearing.

there are customs... codes of conduct.. etc..

discuss and document.. TheDarknessVisible 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is any of this verifiable? Metamagician3000 00:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Gothic elitism?

The subtext of the article and particularly the talk page seem to suggest, that Goths are not the community of equals they seem to the casual observer. The idea of rules that define what is and what is not Goth seem an unusual attribute of a nonconformist subculture.--Teletran 06:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

what exactly is your point?TheDarknessVisible 18:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a strong current of "everything I like is goth, everything I don't like is not goth, and if you don't like what I like, you're not a goth" in the goth scene. Always has been. --Stormie 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

most mature goths consider such attitudes as nothing more than a sign of immaturity, ignorance, self-centeredness and lack of commitment. I challenge you to find a single high status goth seriously holding that "everything I like is goth, everything I don't like is not goth, and if you don't like what I like, you're not a goth". such people view goth as a secondary part of their life. the message of non-conformity is something of a joke. and teens are the loudest proponents of it (while being the most conformist of all). sociologists who put too much credence in what members of a subculture say are lost. understanding goth is not actually required, and part of goth is a skepticism towards all statements of fact anyway, so knowledge can hardly be directly transferred to the most goth people; they have their own theories, and therein lies the whole point: people can be completely free and yet come out agreeing. No one really holds onto the same explanation, and if they are put into words, the words contradict. but being goth has improved people regardless of whether or not they actually ever understood it -- and that's probably why so many people are so commited to it. TheDarknessVisible

goth related media

goth magazines goth movies goth art goth poetry

document, document. a lot of goths write poetry.. who are they inspired by? does any research exist? there are magazines which don't pertain to any specific style of goth music but actually are better described as pertaining to the entire culture... there is Tim Burton. discuss and document TheDarknessVisible 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Goth's who don't listen to goth music

Theplanetsaturn, your personal research is irrelevant. the entire article up to the line you object literally defines the goth subculture in terms of MUSIC. There is mention of people absconding with the word "GOTH", but nothing about how goths who dont listen to goth music. You have just created a whole new class of goths.

There is not one single bit of information of what 'goths who don't listen to goth music' are like. I am not making an extraordinary claim. I'm stating something which is a fact and a very well known and obvious fact. Supporting by a third party source. It agrees with the entire wiki article, and merely clarifies a point of special interest.

As it stands the reader has absolutely no idea WHY we even have a section on goth music. What is the relevance? My introductory sentence explains the relevence: All goths listen to goth music.

Someone went to the trouble of writing a FAQ and publishing it and hosting their own web site. it is research. it may not be the strongest or most reliable in your view, but we have NOTHING which contradicts their research. Or do you?

And on what basis to you claim this third party research does not hold salt? its their conclusion based on whatever research they have done which they stand by. They say as much. If you object, go and argue with them or find a contradictory source.

I'll give you some time to revert your revert or else I'm going to put it back in tommorow. Unless you have a better reason than what you have stated so far that it should not go in.

My understanding is that you object that the source is not reliable.. is that correct? You have not stated why.

Or do you actually have information of members of the goth subculture that never listen to goth music? Because if music isn't part of the culture then the entire section should be moved.

In the mean time perhaps you should put your position in "Listening to goth music is not a requirement to be a goth." and cite YOUR source. The general reader wants to know "What makes someone a goth?"

TheDarknessVisible 00:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The burden of providing a source lies on the one putting in a claim - so we don't need to have a source if we say nothing on a subject, but we do need a source if we are going to make claims.

In general, trying to say what a "True Goth" is is venturing way too far into POV. There is no objective test on what makes someone "a goth", it's just a term used to describe people, and a term that some people self-identify with. It's not decided by some FAQ on a webpage. Mdwh 01:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

@TheDarknessVisible:

I included no personal research. I added nothing in this instance to the article but instead deleted the opinion you held up as definitive. Furthermore, why are the opinions cited in the Real Gothic FAQ notable or valid? Anyone can create a website with their opinions. Linking to one does not constitute a valid source.

Sweeping generalizations are frowned upon. You opinion that "all goths listen to goth music" is an unnecessary generalization that is impossible to prove the validity of. Therefore it has no business in an encyclopedia.Theplanetsaturn 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a source. It isn't my opinion. It is the opinion of the third party published source. The source goes on into great detail and makes specific detailed claims about all aspects of the goth subculture. There is no reason to doubt the reliability of this source. And no rule on WIKI which makes it prima facie unreliable. In fact it is prima facie reliable. because it actually agrees with the common wisdom. The only thing you can rely on to prevent me from relying on it is a MORE reliable source which contradicts it.

You claim the statement is impossible to prove. Thats a solipsism. just like when someone says its impossible to prove the dinosaurs existed because no one ever saw one. You are simply saying that. what is your documentation? The defining characteristic of this culture is music. And the definining characteristics of the members of this culture are the music they listen to. "goths who dont listen to goth" can have a seperate page.. perhaps as some kind of "subtype". But this article is about the goths who DO listen to goth music, because that is what people think the term goth means.

American Heritage Dictionary states:

goth (gŏth) Pronunciation Key

n.

1. A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics.

2. A performer or follower of this style of music.

source www.dictionary.com

Dictionarys are reliable references on the usage of words. In this case GOTH.

Where does WIKI have a rule which says that defining certain characteristics universal to members of a group is POV? It isn't my POV, its the sources conclusion. And the dictionaries definition of the way the word is used. I am simply referencing it. it isn't POV, when a third party published source makes the claim. Someone says my source is unreliable. But they are merely assuming its unreliable. that is the reason we use links. The reader can follow the source and judge reliability on their own. As it stands the source doesn't contradict anything in the article but merely clarifies. So no 'weighing' of the reliability should be made, because the only data as an editor you can 'weigh' it against is your own POV. And as you keep reminding me (unnecessarily) personal POV isn't sufficient.

The entire article as it stands goes on and on about music. There is no documentation to support the theory that part of the goth subculture itself exists without goth music. And that is what you are claiming. Where is the documentation of a "GOTH SUBCULTURE" with no goth music. "goth subculture" refers to a group of people (more than 1 person).

same dictionary:

3. Sociology.

a. the cultural values and behavioral patterns distinctive of a particular group in a society.

b. a group having social, economic, ethnic, or other traits distinctive enough to distinguish it from others within the same culture or society.

This goth article presupposes that there are social, economic, ethnic, or other traits distinctive enough to distinguish GOTH from other subcultures and yet refuses to define them. It wishy washy. wishywashiness doesn't make it encyclopedic. It makes it confusing.

My statement is supported both by a 2 published sources and the american heritage dictionary cites the USAGE of the word "Goth" in the english language which would tell us what people are looking for when they come here.

If it is an "impossible thing to prove" let the reader judge that for themself. There is no WIKI requirement that facts must be provable or proved to the satisfaction of all editors. they must be sourced. And it is certainly sourced. Only if there is a legitimate controversy (based on sources conflicting) would their be any need to judge reliability. personal POV of editors is not sufficient to claim a statement is controversial. the only controversy raised so far are solipsisms.

Goths are those who are followers or performers of goth music. They also have fashions and other activities. but it comes down to the music. according to both the dictionary and the source I found by googling.

I found another source saying you aren't goth if you are happy all the time. well I'm not relying on that because it CONTRADICTS plenty of sources. A happy person who follows goth music is part of the goth subculture. I have never seen a source which says "you dont need to listen to goth music to be part of the goth subculture". 2 sources say you do.

It is no more a sweeping generalization to say goths listen to goth music than to say squares have 4 sides. Or that all Christians believe in the existence of Jesus. Its a defining trait. supported by sources.

I can probably make the sentence read less of a sweeping generalization. And though they may be frowned upon, they are not forbidden on WIKI when they are sourced. if thats your only objection. Maybe then we can reach consensus. But you aren't going to find consensus if your position is that there are people in the goth subculture who never listen to goth music, go to goth music events or know anything about goth musicians. Thats what the word MEANS. It is all the other psuedo definitions and vague philosophical meanderings into pure POV which are undefinable and abstract and UNSOURCED. TheDarknessVisible 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You persist in your arguments if I included specific information about Goths who do not listen to goth music within the article. I've already pointed out for you that I did not, and something this basic should not require repetition. I don't need to prove to you my perspective, nor does my perspective require consensus. Perhaps in your world view goth is defined SOLELY by musical taste. Your original edit was definitive, after all. I disagree. But as I am not framing my disagreement within the article itself, I do not need to provide a source or reach a consensus.

What I take issue with is your sweeping generalization. It is impossible to prove. This is a fact despite the many fallacious analogies you provide. Furthermore, it is a blatantly unnecessary qualifier, as the very first sentence of the article already points to the musical roots of the subculture.

As for the reliability of your first source, I would argue that under Wikipedia's guidelines it fails miserably as a reliable source. The guidelines specify that an online self published source is not automatically considered reliable. The criteria seems appropriate with the source your provided. As for the second source, it encompasses those who listen to goth music, but it does not exclude those who do not.

But if it's a consensus you want, pursue one. Currently, the consensus is against the inclusion of your information.Theplanetsaturn 03:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What you reverted was the sentence: "Merely "dressing goth" alone, does not make a person a member of the goth subculture." and you removed the name Pete Scathe from reference #1. This has nothing to do with the discussion of "Goths who dont listen to goth music".. Is the American Heritage Dictionary a reliable secondary source or not?

It says Goth is:

 1. A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics.
 2. A performer or follower of this style of music.

I am pursuing a consensus. I did not believe the FAQ is self published because I am not the publisher. However on reading the wiki guidelines again I see I've misinterpreted who the "Self" is referring to. I'll accept that as a valid reason for not relying on the FAQ.

The FAQ: I will concede the argument for now unless I get more evidence or justification for its reliability. I still ask is The American Heritage Dictionary a reliable source?

The argument about "Merely "dressing goth" alone, does not make a person a member of the goth subculture." I put to a new section.

"Merely "dressing goth" alone, does not make a person a member of the goth subculture."

for the Peter Scathe article:

1) Peter Scathe (the exact same website and same author) is already relied upon by the main article. so he must be reliable or else why is the article ALREADY relying on him. The only issue is whether to remove ALL the material relying on him or not. 2) Pete Scathe states:

"What is goth? Goth is an alternative subculture; it is both a style of music and a fashion, like Punk. People who listen to the music don't necessarily dress in the style, and people who look like goths don't necessarily like the music either - a lot of metal fans have adopted the goth look, making for a great deal of confusion.

However, on the rare occasion that someone looks like a goth and likes goth music, chances are they're actually a goth. "

His paragraph CLEARLY states that there are non-goths who dress goth and this causes a great deal of confusion. This is DIRECTLY on point of the statement "Merely "dressing goth" alone, does not make a person a member of the goth subculture." It also justifies its relevence: "a great deal of confusion".

confusion about what? well the paragraph is defining "What is goth" so it would be a great leap to pretend the confusion is not directed to that specific issue.

He cites a specific examples and says it causes confusion. My sentence merely clarifies what Pete Scathe is obviously trying to clarify: simply that "dressing goth alone does not make a person a goth"

Pete Scathe is also a SECONDARY source:

"Most of the chronological information on this site is gleaned from George Gimarc's invaluable Punk and Post-Punk diaries, with additional information from Mick Mercer (and his Gothic Rock books), old copies of NME/Sounds/Melody Maker, my record collection, my very fallible memory and various people on the net. Huge thanks to all of them, and especial thanks to Bob for doing the Cascading Style Sheets version, Hatty for the Zig Zag article, and to Greylock for the Positive Punk article. Also many thanks to Peter H Coffin for giving me extra web space to cope with the inevitable overflow and to Gavin Baddeley (author of Goth Chic) for donating a recent article about the history of goth."

I've been convinced about your reference to the FAQ being inadmissible. But I do not have the burden of establishing Pete Scathes reliability, it is ALREADY established by someone else a long time ago.. whoever cited him as Source #1 of the article. I'm removing the FAQ reference.

I put back the statement about dressing goth doesn't automatically mean you're goth, because his paragraph is directly on point by illustrating the example. The final sentence also clearly suggests that even someone who both listens to goth AND dresses goth may yet still NOT BE GOTH. You can't honestly say that isn't what the sentence says.

"However, on the rare occasion that someone looks like a goth and likes goth music, chances are they're actually a goth."

is the same as saying:

"However, on the rare occasion that someone looks like a goth and likes goth music, they STILL might not be goth" "

and my fashion sentence says nothing more than that. dressing goth doesn't automatically make you goth.

on the music sentence.. your argument is that Scathe does not exclude those who don't listen to goth music. You are correct. He "technically" doesn't exclude them. He excludes them by implication. his intention to exclude them is also clear to ME, but I could see this leaves room for personal interpretation and obviously you interpret his words to mean people who dont listen to goth might still be goth. Even though he is attempting to describe goth and no where does he say anything about anyone else falling into that catagory.

I shall concede the argument for the "goths must listen to goth" right now unless I get more support. I believe you are being intentionally stubborn however in interprettation. You seem to be an apolegist for some kind of hypothetical person who listens to no goth but wants to be goth. (i.e. posers).

however the "not all people who dress goth are goth" sentence is on point for the fashion sentence. CLEARLY not all people who dress goth are goth. the paragraph says it.

I am not sure if you are aware that your most recent revision of my edit, removed the sentence "Merely "dressing goth" alone, does not make a person a member of the goth subculture."

Since you didn't comment on the fashion thing at all and you put your edit in the "goths who dont listen to goth music section", and you say the source is not on point and it is: I must assume you thought I was trying to use it to prove that all goths must listen to goth. (since the paragraph can be intepretted to say that although it says it in less direct terms).

to summarize: without prejudice I concede the "All goths listen to goth" for now; and I'm reverting your revert because you reverted stuff that didn't seem to have anything to do with your justification for reversion.

I'm also removing the Real-Goth-Faq as a reference. TheDarknessVisible 08:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point is that on a subjective point like this, we can't give definite answers because one person is apparentely a reliable source - it's still an opinion. This is different from relying on people for more factual things.

The dictionary is reliable - but another point is that there's a difference between how words are used, and saying that some people aren't goths - for example, it would be fine to say "The word 'goth' is used to describe followers of goth music".

Also I think the problem is that it's defined negatively - saying "Goths are people who do X" sounds better than "Doing Y isn't enough to make someone a goth". It particular, words can have more than one strict meaning - citing a dictionary is not proof that no other usages exist, so you'd need a source meaning that goth is never used in any other meaning. Mdwh 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDarknessVisible "I believe you are being intentionally stubborn however in interprettation. You seem to be an apolegist for some kind of hypothetical person who listens to no goth but wants to be goth. (i.e. posers)."

Let's forget for a moment that the goth subculture, while clearly having it's roots in music, has now grown to encompass multiple forms of media. And because of this, an individual is not limited to one single gateway into said subculture. Lets ignore the impact of goth oriented literature and film and any possible sway these aspects of the subculture might have in influencing an individual. Why? Because according to the edit you want to include these are immaterial. Goths are ONLY defined by their tastes in music. Now, if you cannot see the shallowness of this thinking, I cannot help you. You expose your own bias repeatedly through your edits and you are obviously too close to this subject to approach it with an air of neutrality. "Posers"? Is that what anyone who fails to meet your criteria must automatically be? As I specified earlier - You are not the arbiter of what constitutes goth subculture. You would do well to remind yourself of this fact from time to time.Theplanetsaturn 19:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to be clear on what exactly this article is about.

I'm not at all clear on what the editors think this article is talking about. Nothing in in the article supports Theplanetsaturn's claim "an individual is not limited to one single gateway into [the music culture which originated in 1979 in the uk]". And by "gateway" I assume he means "set of characteristics" because this article doesn't say how to "become" a member of the goth subculture. Obviously how a person became a fan of gothic music can be different for different people. But you aren't a goth according to our information, unless that you share that trait.

Wiki defines subculture :"a subculture is a set of people with distinct behaviors and beliefs that differentiate them from a larger culture of which they are a part."

And yet Theplanetsaturn opposes ANY ATTEMPT to actually define such distinctive behaviors.

Theplanetsaturn then refers to a subculture of literary gothic fans, or gothic horror movie fans who call themselves (or are called by society) the "Goth subculture". This is not documented anywhere.

Specifically, it is not documented anywhere that all members of the gothic subculture read gothic horror or watch horror movies. Therefore this is NOT A DISTINCTIVE BEHAVIOR. not all goths wear trenchcoats, not all goths dress in a specific way. All goths (in this subculture) do a distinctive thing.. they follow gothic music.

Gothic literature PREDATES 1979 by 200 years. Gothic film predates it by about 60 years. ergo: it is NOT the gothic subculture that this article talks about which originated in 1979 in the uk. If you want to change this article to Gothic SUBCULTURES PLURAL then you may have an argument. But in that case it CLEARLY DIDN"T ORIGINATE IN 1979.

What ThePlanetSaturn seems to wish is that this was an article about: "the influence of THE GOTHIC on modern society".

Thats NOT a subculture.

this is an article on a specific subculture and it must be specifically clear on that, it must define the distinctive behavior and belief (i.e. following gothic music, dressing gothic and believing gothic music is the best and perhaps believing they are superior to the rest of mankind as maddox says): It is an article on the gothic subculture, a musical subculture, which originated in 1979 in the UK. commenting on how it interacts(interacted) with other subcultures is fair, but pretending they are all the same subculture is bullshit. its confusing. Its dishonest, its POV and unsupported by any documentation.

There are distinctive behaviors and they are documented by reliable sources.

The reliable sources demonstrate their awareness of the definition of "subculture" by flat out telling you the distinctive behavior and beliefs associated with the subculture.

it as negligent and inaccurate to claim this is an article on 1 thing, describe its origins and then take 12 different real or imagined subcultures happen to share a term "Goth" (but do not share the same distinctive behaviors and beliefs) and then UTTERLY REFUSE TO DISAMBIGUATE.

And groups which share nothing but the term "goth" are NOT the same subculture and they require their OWN wiki article with a disambiguation page. You dont mosh them all together just because they share the word "goth". You don't try to assert that just because something doesn't hold universally true for all usages of the word "Goth" that it doesn't hold universally true to any specific subculture which uses that word whatsoever.

Moreover: Scathe specifically clarifies WHAT he is talking about and then tells us its origins.

we rely on those origins, but then certain editors want to exclude his CLARIFICATION on what he is talking about.

That is SOPHISTRY. It is an attempt to expand his origins to include things with unshared origins.

To apply his information to other people which do not share any distinctive behaviors or beliefs of the subculture he is describing.

If we rely on Scathe for origins we can't exclude his explanation of what he is talking about and say his opinion is merely "subjective". He was telling the reader what he is talking about and what his ORIGINS apply to. His information does not EXCEED that domain otherwise we are taking him OUT OF CONTEXT.

This article MUST ALSO BE CLEAR ON WHAT IT IS TALKING ABOUT.

I refer to the "consensual" paragraph already in the article: "By the 1990s, the term "goth" and the boundaries of the associated subculture had become more contentious. New youth subcultures emerged, or became more popular, some of them being conflated with the goth subculture by the general public and the popular media. This conflation was primarily owing to similarities of appearance, social customs, and the fashions of the subcultures, rather than the musical genres of the bands associated with them. As time went on, the term was extended further in popular usage, sometimes to define groups (PLURAL) that had neither musical nor fashion similarities to the original gothic subculture."

The paragraph does not say "The goth subculture was extended". It specifically says "the term".

I do not object to the fact that the word "goth" in "popular" usage may apply to things which have nothing to do with the goth subculture.

But it must be made crystal clear that this is NOT an article about those OTHER THINGS.

the next line says "This has led to the introduction of goth slang terms that some goths and others use to sort and label associated trends and members of loosely related subcultures.

It doesn't call them the same subculture. It says they are loosely related subcultures.

PLURAL

And especially in the case of subcultures which share NEITHER music NOR fashion... these ARE NOT THE SAME SUBCULTURE by definition.

the next paragraph "The response of these younger groups (PLURAL) to the older subculture (SINGULAR) varies. Some, being secure in a separate subcultural identity, express offense at being called "goth" in the first place (because they aren't, but the stupid media keeps calling them that: it doesnt make them goth), while others choose to join the existing subculture (SINGULAR) on its own terms. Still others have simply ignored its existence, and decided to appropriate the term "goth" themselves, and redefine the idea in their own image. Even within the original subculture, changing trends have added to the complexity of attempting to define precise boundaries."

appropriate the TERM goth. does not mean appropriate the subculture, the behaviors and beliefs, nor does it mean "appropriate this wiki article".

This wiki article must clarify: "This is an article on the subculture of the followers and performers of goth music"

This is not an article on "those who have redefined the idea in their own image"

The article says: "This article is about the late 20th / early 21st century subculture" (SINGULAR) again

And this article is SILENT on anything at all about these other subcultures which have appropriated the term "Goth". All we say is that THEY EXIST. This is not an article about them.

I dont know why some editors are pretending this is an article on people who dont share any distinctive behaviors of beliefs with the original goth subculture. The article already says those are OTHER subcultures.

As it stands this article has no clear scope.. Or it did until certain editors decided that it shouldnt.

it is NOT an article on the term "Goth".. we already have a disambiguation page for THAT.

A lone individual who calls himself "goth" does not a subculture make. He must be part of a social group with distinctive behaviors AND beliefs. And then if the name we use for that specific group is "goth", then so be it. But it is not "shallow" to say 'hold on 1 second... they are not the same group of people as this other group of "goths" because their beliefs and behaviors are not THE SAME... i.e.: they are not the same subculture'

When Scathe says "goths listen to goth music and dress in goth fashion"... he is not trying to say Visogoths must listen to goth music or else they are not visigoths. He is saying they must listen to goth music or else they are not part of the goth subculture which originated in 1979 in the UK, follows goth music and dresses in certain fashions.

This article PURPORTS to talk about a group of people because they are a subculture. And then refuses to disambiguate the fact that not all human beings in the world who get labeled "goth" are actually part of this same subculture.

This culture calls itself THE GOTH subculture. If there is any specific data on a seperate "goth" subculture its time to disambiguate rather than refuse to properly document the characteristics of the goth subculture which originated in 1979 in the UK.

TheDarknessVisible 22:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The DarknessVisible: "And yet Theplanetsaturn opposes ANY ATTEMPT to actually define such distinctive behaviors.

I oppose any attempt to limit the scope of the subculture when said limitations are based on opinion rather than fact.

The DarknessVisible: "Theplanetsaturn then refers to a subculture of literary gothic fans, or gothic horror movie fans who call themselves (or are called by society) the "Goth subculture". This is not documented anywhere.

Nor did I include any such statement within the article. You really need to grasp the difference between the talk page and the article itself. I do not need to prove that there are goths that do not listen to goth music as I am specifically avoiding making that claim within the article itself. You need to prove that "all goths listen to goth music, and those that do not, are not goth". This is something you cannot do and your continual attempts to define the subculture based on your opinions fail. Your sources are insufficient and the further you go with this debate the more you expose your own bias. You attempted to inject a POV aspect to this article and you failed to either integrate it properly as a sourced opinion or provide sufficient evidence of one definitive guideline that MUST be adhered to within the subculture. If you have new evidence to provide that yours is the one true definition than do so. Otherwise, it's over and done with. Yet you act as if I am limiting the scope of the article because I correctly refuted your logic and your sources. At this point, you're just pissing in the wind.

The DarknessVisible: I do not object to the fact that the word "goth" in "popular" usage may apply to things which have nothing to do with the goth subculture.

You're still not the arbiter of what constitutes goth subculture. Stop playing at it as if you were.Theplanetsaturn 22:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Theplanetsaturn:I oppose any attempt to limit the scope of the subculture when said limitations are based on opinion rather than fact.

The "limitation" is not a limitation, it is what the word refers to, and it is based on facts as reported by Pete Scathe and the American Heritage Dictionary. 2 reliable SECONDARY source. Your justification for excluding those facts is merely some solopsistic argument. You have taken it upon yourself to limit the domain upon which sources can be relied upon. notwithstanding that they are reliable sources and respectable sources, and they contradict nothing. THIS IS NOT NEUTRAL.

Theplanetsaturn:Nor did I include any such statement within the article. You really need to grasp the difference between the talk page and the article itself.

I didn't "revert" what you said from the discussion page. I am asking that you provide justification for your bare assertion that "goth subculture" can't be defined in the usual way that subcultures are defined (by distinctive behaviors). 2 reliable sources have BOTH defined it. You "really need" (to use your vernacular) to grasp the difference between an argument and a wiki revert. Asking another editor to back up their argument with a source is perfectly valid.

You have not brought forward a another reliable source which contradicts either of the 2 reliable sources I want to add to this article. you insist that if I rely on those 2 sources I must put a disclaimer that those 2 sources are mere opinion rather than fact (even though they contradict nothing in the wiki article itself) or else you will REVERT me ; I can only conclude that you are not neutral.

You are not the final arbiter of what goth is. I am not the final arbiter. This wiki page does not ARBITRATE what goth is. It is an encyclopedia. It merely reports the current state of knowledge. The researchers do their research. Their reliability is established and then those conclusions are reported as FACTS in wiki unless there is a contradiction with other reliable sources. No reliable sources disagree with my 2 sources.

You are not trying to introduce new material into the article but you are constantly reverting my edits when I am relying on reliable and uncontrovercial sources.

accusing me of attempting to arbitrate goth subculture is sophistry. I am reporting the state of knowledge based on what these 2 reliable secondary sources say, and this article is not neutral because these sources are being rejected out of hand because they say something you dont like. That all goths listen to goth music and that some non-goths can dress like goths without being goths.

Theplanetsaturn:You need to prove that "all goths listen to goth music, and those that do not, are not goth".

You are incorrect. I don't need to prove anything. Thats what secondary research is. Our opinions. even if all of us agree is not admissible. sociologists, historians and anthropologists make certain catagorizations of subcultures. You are attempting to create a neologism. A new definition of "Goth subculture".

I am simply trying to include the reported distinctive behaviors and beliefs and current usage according to these reliable secondary sources. they are not contested by any other reliable sources. They are disputed only by your bald assertion and POV.

Theplanetsaturn:This is something you cannot do and your continual attempts to define the subculture based on your opinions fail.

no thats what you are doing. I'm relying on sources. 1 which reports the usage of the word, and 1 which reports what the goth is based on research. and neither are controversial because they agree and no source contradicts them.

Theplanetsaturn:You attempted to inject a POV aspect to this article and you failed to either integrate it properly as a sourced opinion or provide sufficient evidence of one definitive guideline that MUST be adhered to within the subculture.

First of all.. the fact that a person in mainstream society can put on some makeup and dress in black trenchcoat and the fact that this causes confusion independantly of goth subculture does not require any "definitive guideline which must be adhered to". thats a straw man.

second of all: I never claimed any guidelines that must be adhered to at all. Subcultures are not defined in terms of "guidelines". according to the consensis on wiki subcultures are defined in terms of distinctive behaviors and beliefs. those have been identified by secondary sources and reported. Your belief that subcultures have rules which can exclude someone is POV. I never said these are rules. I said these are behaviors "following or listening to goth music is a behavior". The word "goth subculture" refers to those people who share those behaviors as reported by the sources. thats all it is.

Theplanetsaturn:If you have new evidence to provide that yours is the one true definition than do so

I never tried to insert the words "this is the one true definition" anywhere in the article. Its the only definition ANYONE wiki editor has found. and apparently I'm the only one who's looked.

You are attempting to create an article which goes BEYOND that definition without warning the reader and without any justification apart from POV. You simply flat out refuse to accept their research.

Theplanetsaturn:I correctly refuted your logic and your sources.

You did not refute my sources other than a bare assertion that its impossible for anyone to define what this subculture is. Subcultures are defined by distinctive behaviors. I have secondary sources which document those behaviors. You simply flat out refuse to accept their words; no matter how much I ask for documentation to support your claim, you provide none.

TheDarknessVisible 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another secondary source apparently:

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition as: "goth n. 1) A style of rock music with an intense or droning blend of guitars, bass, and drums, often with apocalyptic or mystical lyrics. (2) A performer or devotee of this music, often dressing in black clothing and wearing black make-up."

TheDarknessVisible 06:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The DarknessVisible: I never tried to insert the words "this is the one true definition" anywhere in the article."

You spoke in definitive terms. To paraphrase: "If you do not listen to goth music, you are not a goth". Now, if you cannot understand how this is synonymous with claiming that there is one true definition then you should take a step backward and rethink your position.

The DarknessVisible: "You are attempting to create an article which goes BEYOND that definition without warning the reader and without any justification apart from POV."

Again, you cannot seem to understand the clear distinction between the omission of a claim and the inclusion. You need to rethink your argument.

The DarknessVisible: "Subcultures are defined by distinctive behaviors."

Even you use the plural here, while wishing to frame it as the singular within the article.

The DarknessVisible: "our belief that subcultures have rules which can exclude someone is POV."

Strawman argument. I have been arguing against such a position. The absence of defining data within the article is hardly synonymous to your activity. Nice of you to pay attention.

The DarknessVisible: "I must put a disclaimer that those 2 sources are mere opinion rather than fact"

Those are Wikipedia guidelines I have been encouraging you to follow. I mean seriously, you didn't even understand what the phrase "self published" means. I'm telling you how your position CAN be included in the article. Provided your source is at least notable, the same rules that allow for the Maddox criticisms comments allow for the opinions you are trying to include. I've told you this three times now. I shouldn't have walk you through this entire process. Take the time and learn how the system works.

I'm not going to bother picking apart your long winded arguments. You don't seem to understand that this is not a debate. You cannot frame the statement in the article in definitive terms unless you can offer conclusive evidence. An opinion is not conclusive. The dictionary definition is not exclusive. You want to offer up some valid evidence, do so. If you can't, either restructure the opinions into the article as such, or drop it. Either way, I'm done discussing this with you.Theplanetsaturn 10:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The DarknessVisible: "You are attempting to create an article which goes BEYOND that definition without warning the reader and without any justification apart from POV."

Theplanetsaturn: Again, you cannot seem to understand the clear distinction between the omission of a claim and the inclusion. You need to rethink your argument.

Your continued Ad hominem attacks are not productive. Stop trying to criticize the intellectual capabilities of other editors.

Text which merely removes the implicit claim(s) (unsourced and unsupported) in other text is not the same thing as the inclusion of a claim.

Sweeping statements are being said about the "goth subculture" referred to in this text beyond what the the sources claim.

To be more specific: The goth subculture does not equal the goth scene. This is an implicit claim made by the text. the article merely goes its way conflating the scene with subculture, implicitly, and then arrives at unsourced, and untrue places by that implication.

There are all sorts of people in a 'scene' which are not part of the subculture, because being 'in the scene' has not been claimed by this article to be a distinctive behavior of the subculture (nor would it be true, if it did).

the opening paragraphs of this wiki article assert that the goth subculture has "associated music".

Then the section titled "Associated music" starts documenting "goth scene" from the very START. And only ever refers to the "goth scene". This is clearly confusing. It ambiguates what is meant by goth subculture, and leaves the reader thinking they are the same thing, and by implication that anyone in the scene, is actually in the subculture as well.

What is TRUE and supported about "goth scene" is not necessarily true about "goth subculture". Because these are not claimed by any reliable source to be the same thing. The individuals sentences are all true, but the reader has been lead to believe that this is documenting the associated music of the "goth subculture".

IT is my intent to strike out the unsupported implication of the article.

My statement which I wanted to add, removed that implicit claim by clearly defining what we are talking about. i.e. what is a "member of the goth subculture". The section is weasily.

As for the issue of the fashion... I am trying to remove the implicit claim that GOTH FASHION = GOTH SUBCULTURE.

Scathe says that dressing goth don't guarantee someones a goth. And I want to cite him. He is a secondary source. you object to relying on him even to make such a trivially obvious statement of fact without sabotaging his reliability.

that is not neutral.

I am trying to remove the unsupported IMPLICIT claim made by these sections.

since you've had difficulty understanding I'll try to illustrate by example:

If I say "The Japanese are associated with x-box" then a reader will likely infer that "x-box" must be distinctively japanese in some way.

If I add the text "whether or not x-box is associated with japan" then I am removing an implicit claim by adding new text. and get ""The Japanese are associated with x-box whether or not x-box is associated with japan"... it is a weaker statement. it makes the association a mere 1-way association rather than a 2-way association.

If I say "The goth subculture has associated gothic tastes in music and fashion. " then you will infer the fashion and music described in associated recoprocally to the goth_subculture, and if you are looking for the definition of goth_subculture (which you would be), you will assume whatever is stated in the "Associated music" and "Associated fashion" section define membership. They dont.

This is a very sweeping implication which is not supported by sources. I am trying to curtail these implications. I dont want to add more claims to the article with the introduction of the definitions I sourced.

The DarknessVisible: "Subcultures are defined by distinctive behaviors."

Even you use the plural here, while wishing to frame it as the singular within the article.

The "goth subculture" is singular. "Subcultures are defined by distinctive behaviors". "Subcultures" in the 2nd sentence refers to an abstract set of mutiple things: therefore plural.

In english if you want to refer to specific subcultures rather than an abstract set you need to use the definite article and write "The subcultures...".

The DarknessVisible: "our belief that subcultures have rules which can exclude someone is POV."

Strawman argument. I have been arguing against such a position. The absence of defining data within the article is hardly synonymous to your activity. Nice of you to pay attention.

You introduced a hypothetical position. (that I never took) I pointed out that I wasn't taking that position. I state that it would be POV to take such a position, and POV for you to even suggest such a statement is hypothetically possible whatsoever.

And then you say you were arguing against the hypothetical position that I NEVER TOOK: You are the one who introduced the position, and you are the one who is making the strawman argument.

The DarknessVisible: "I must put a disclaimer that those 2 sources are mere opinion rather than fact"

Those are Wikipedia guidelines I have been encouraging you to follow.

I am not talking about the mere fact that you are challenging my sources. I am talking about your reasons for doing so given that I'm citing reliable secondary sources who state non-controversial (in the sense that no other reliable secondary sources disagree) facts. You are certainly entitled to challenge. And certainly if I stuck in the sentence "it is the opinion of" I or words to that effect I should get consensus (because you have agreed on that basis). But the neutrality of this article will still be comprimized simply by using "it is the opinion of". BEcause those terms suggest there is cause for doubt.

It would be like stating, it is "the opinion of Fred that he is, in his own words a 'police officer'.". it suggests that there is actual doubt. To me there is no doubt that their is this wiki page "goth subculture" is in fact a label for a specific subculture.

all the other uses of the word 'goth' have nothing to do with that specific goth subculture except for disambiguation purposes or clarificationm even though all those other uses may be perfectly valid and completely true in their own contexts: other subcultures or other things called "goth".

but those are NEW terms. NEW and seperate scenes or cultures or whatever. which require new and seperate wikipages. cybergoths are not an instance of a member of the goth_subculture. neogoths are not an instance of a member of the goth_subculture. They aren't subtypes. They are totally seperate groups of people who may share a "goth scene".

The scene is not the subculture. Nor is the word "goth" exclusive to the goth subculture. Other uses of goth exist.

Its sociologically nonsensical and non-encyclopedic to talk about a subculture and not define the distinctive behaviors and traits of it. Those traits are DEFINED. They aren't discovered AFTER the subculture. The existence of a subculture is dicovered by the discovery of the traits. But then the traits are defined. If they change then their change is defined. Because the term "subculture" is nothing but a taxinomic classification for those traits.

If there is doubt about what those traits are then there is doubt about the existence of the subculture itself. To take the position that its impossible to define or prove those traits is non neutral. A definition exists. And if the only way to state it is to say "it is the opinion of" it reintroduces the doubt of the subcultures existence. And it doesn't matter if youn't trying to introduce words into the article. The article makes the claim that the goth subculture's existence is controversial. I'm trying to so no it isn't here is a specific definition and the group of people so defined actually exists and meet the definition. It is a non-neutral position because you have claimed it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that the goths subculture has distinctive behaviors and beliefs, and thus you assert that the existence of the goth subculture itself must be in doubt and it don't matter what research says otherwise. if God himself came down and proved it you would still want to say "it is the opinion of" and thus reintroduce that doubt.

subcultures are like species. They have specific definable traits. You can't say anything absolutely true for all dogs, but you still define what you are talking about when you say DOG.

TheDarknessVisible 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

TheDarknessVisible "The "goth subculture" is singular.

The plural in question was rather obviously the word "behaviors".

Otherwise you're just repeating the same nonsense.

I made it clear to you what criteria you need to follow to allow the inclusion of the information. Unless you can offer up something definitive, opinions from a notable source must be framed as opinions. You can appeal to their credibility if you like, but you still must frame the statement properly. That's just the reality of it.

Again, either deal with the guidelines of Wikipedia or don't and have your edits reverted. I don't think I need to point out that the current consensus for the inclusion of your original statement stands solidly against you.Theplanetsaturn 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Goths who don't consider themselves Gothic

This article is referring to the Goth subculture. Those who don't consider themselves Goth aren't actually Goths then, are they? I believe that any mention of this in the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.241 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 April 2007

What you "consider" has nothing to do with it. goth is a subculture, not a religion. If you like what the goths like, and behave like the goths behave, and dress like the goths dress and have social ties with the goths. You are a goth. if you dont do those things you aren't. And what you consider one way or another is not relevant.

however anything that doesn't meet wiki rules SHOULD be removed from the article so feel free to start chopping.TheDarknessVisible 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

pictures of non-goth artists

I dont think we should be putting in pictures of artists that dont actually make goth music. listing their relation to the goth scene is fine and dandy, but it is confusing to include their picture as the reader expects pictures of goths or goth musicians. they can follow a link if they want a picture of VNV Nation.TheDarknessVisible 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's your POV. Many goths of today think that VNV Nation is a modern goth band. We should add a pic of Ronan Harris. :-) --~Menorrhea 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

non-goth subcultures

This is a response intended for "TheDarknessVisible".

"Some, being secure in a separate subcultural identity, express offense at being called "goth" in the first place, while others choose to join the existing subculture on its own terms."

While I have a different IP address, I'm the same person.

Ok...so, basically this was what I happened to be referring to when I commented about "Goths who don't consider themselves Gothic". If certain people express offense at being considered goth then they obviously aren't goth, since they deny it and therefore what is this implying? That those who deny any connection with the Goth subculture are being untruthful? That they are goths regardless of the fact that they sincerely don't consider themselves to be so? The article shouldn't mention them. It's that simple. This should be removed although I'm unsure about doing it for some odd reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.235 (talk • contribs) 13:04, April 4, 2007

problems like this will continue until there is consensus that we are talking about a specific subculture and not a personality profile. as long as people use the word "goth" to mean different things in different contexts we'll never get anywhere.

there are subcultures (regardless of what they are called) which consists primarily of individuals who have the "goth" personality profile. There are many goths who never use the word "Goth" to refer to a subculture but are only talking about a personality profile. And others who never talk about personality but only talk about a subculture. and many who use it in both meanings from time to time, perhaps without knowing it. most outsiders only use 'goth' to refer to a "look", which is even more shallow than the subcultural definition.

personality-wise, many rivetheads are "Goth". subculturally they are rivets, and many get offended if they are being called goth. Because they think goth means something other than what it means. And more often than not, "goth" is used to mean something other than what it means. These rivets probably think "goth" means superficial, pretentious and shallow person. Because the goth subculture in many places was populated almost entirely by superficial, shallow and pretentious people. i.e. the goth subculture in many places was populated with poseurs.. However in as much as the posers acted and believed common distinctive things they were actually a subculture called "Goth" (thats what they called themselves). these are the people who "grow out of it". and in certain places the population of poseurs got so high that when goth lost favour you would think that 5000 goths died. because suddenly all the "goths" were gone. in fact the goths didn't go, its just that all of what was being called "goth" was not actually goth at all. I suspect many of the rivets are goths who were turned off by this, not seeing that the real goths were actually basically the same as what they call rivet. And if rivet becomes superpopular (it might) then it will probably suffer the same fate.

the ex-goth poseur "goths" are the ones primarily responsible for spreading the idea that you are what you label yourself as. And it is in reaction to that, that many goths these days refuse to label themselves whatsoever.

many goths also see what is going on in europe and see a sea of nominal goths (i.e. posers) populated by the occasional goth.

thats all entirely my own POV. But I think the paragraph is trying to say something along those lines... that there are deep, melancholy, introspective, empathic, creative people (goth personality type) who reject being labeled as "shallow pretentious poseurs", because that is what the word "goth" means to them. if you call them goth, they think you are defining them by their cloths. and 99% of the time that is what you would be doing because 99% of the people think goth (personality type) is merely about the cloths, when in fact most goths will tell you that goths can look like anything but just feel more comfortable in black.

psychologists would note that introverts are too easily psychologically stimulated, and dark colours would be preferred by introverts just to get their minds in a somewhat neutral state. extroverts NEED stimulation so will tend towards brighter flashier colours. fashion is a side effect, not the cause of being goth. TheDarknessVisible 21:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Until the middle/end of the 1980s, gothic was a fashion trend, nothing more. goth bands were spooky and dark. they're not really introverted or melancholic. most of the melancholic music groups came from the Depro-Punk and Wave movement (e.g. Cocteau Twins, Joy Division, The Cure), not really from from the UK goth rock. Goth rock was a hard and punky style, it was Positive Punk. The Batcave club was a club created for funny party people.

On the european continent, Gothic blended with the Wave and New Romantic movement. It was a Fusion Culture, it was a Wave-Goth culture. In Germany, this subculture died in the middle of the 1990s. Today, we have a Metal-Goth culture and a Cyber-Goth culture, but the original Goth subculture is definitely dead (including the music). In the late 1990s, all of these new Gothic rock groups were Hard rock or Metal groups in the vein of Fields of the Nephilim. --~Menorrhea 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said the MUSIC was introverted and melancholy.. I said the PEOPLE are introverted and melancholy. Part of the benefit of dressing up goth is that it helps goths deal with that. Whether or not all the rockstars, or all individual goths need that help. Also, it doesn't matter in the least whether or not the batcavers were as introverted or melancholy on average as the "goth" finally was. the batcave scene connected to the origins of the goth subculture, but it is not the actual topic of this article. I don't think what you said contradicts anything I said. TheDarknessVisible 08:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw: Rivetheads are a regional phenomenon in North America. In Europe there are no Rivetheads. You should consider the regional differences. And you should accept that there are dark scenes/dark cultures in different countries such as Spain, Germany etc. --~Menorrhea 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

different subcultures are different things and should be documented as such. the fact that they have the same name is sightly interesting ... but merely requires a disambiguation page. We should also accept that the visigoths were not goths.TheDarknessVisible 03:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Neogoth and Electrogoth are nominated for deletion

If you have any information on these articles (Neogoth or Electrogoth) or topics, please go to their respective pages join in the deletion discussion, or help to improve the articles.TheDarknessVisible 08:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of German "grufti"

It does'nt mean "vault creature" after all. I know it sounds more British and cooler, but actually a grufti is a "vault lover". Gruft = vault or crypt. The ending "i" we use in Germany to give a name/ a person a cute and friendly touch. A grufti is a person who likes to spend his time on cemeteries and who loves all kind of tombs. By the way plural in German language is "Gruftis" not "Grufties." These days the term "grufti" is not often in use anymore and modern members of the scene in Germany call themself "gothic", "goten" oder "schwarze."

Any source for this claim? "Grufti" is a term used in the 1980s by german citizens to describe this youth culture and their spooky outfit. Gruftis did look like burial vault creatures with strange makeup, clothes and hair styles. An intensification of the early batcave style. --Diluvien 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For me there is a source of claim: "vault creatures" are made in vaults (or in hell), "vault lovers" just love to stay there - that's a difference. And just trust te plural "Gruftis" it is the only right one :-)

There are different books with the term grufties. --Diluvien 18:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• 1
• 2
• 3

I found out that there are two terms with the same meaning: "grufti" and "gruftie." Just choose one you like! :-) I prefer "Gruftis"