Talk:Bauhaus (band)

Influence.

I tried cleaning this up so it's better organized, in that the bands listed as representing a particular genre in fact represent that genre. And . . . wow, was that a big job considering how many there are and how long the reference lists are. In looking at many of the cited sources, it's dubious how many of them (such as Reggie Watts and Elliot Smith) even cite Bauhaus as an influence on their music and those who are just mentioning Bauhaus in passing in the context of making some broad statement about the history of music or bands they were aware of when they were younger. I won't delete these, but we really ought to think how many of these are actually worth including and perhaps agree not to add any more? It makes the section really hard to edit and do we really need to list every band whose ever mentioned liking Bauhaus, let alone every band whose ever mentioned Bauhaus period? Lynchenberg (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Legacy and Influence.

I've decided I want to try discussing this properly and make another attempt at improving the article. My argument for keeping the comments from band members about Bauhaus' influence and/or lack thereof on the goth scene and/or music style is as follows. I think it's relevant to have the band's perspective on their legacy if it isn't excessive and third-party sources are cited too. The third-party source says they are considered the inventors of goth. One band member says he felt other bands were more influential another accepts the label. To me, that is presenting the information neutrally and takes up only five sentences. Arguably, it's the only part of the section that gives any real information, the rest just catalogues every band that's ever mentioned Bauhaus. If we wanted to cut down on or cut out that catalogue and add other voices (like more music historians) to the section to give a more complete overview of the band's legacy I'd be in support of that. I'd also be open to suggestions to make the section read more neutrally. But don't go deleting information until it's been agreed on here and don't accuse me of having ulterior motives like hating The Cure or being an obsessive Bauhaus fanboy. Lynchenberg (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

wp:undue [1] it is not relevant to transform this article in an essay about the goth genre, either quoting every single sentence by a Bauhaus member. A member of a band is not a music historian or a music expert. There is a big problem of editing by two Bauhaus fans, non-neutral approaches in the present case, which is bordeline to this, WP:SPA. Woovee (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I don't agree. The section does not quote every single sentence by a Bauhaus member, it is one Kevin Haskins quote about his perspective on their legacy as an influential goth band. Hardly an essay or every quote and seems relevant and I don't see what's non-neutal about it, as this isn't my opinion, it's a band member's opinion. If you want to counterbalance with a dissenting opinion from another source, that would be fine by me. As your your accusations, this is just speculation about I don't think it matters whether I'm a Bauhaus fan or not. I think my edit history makes it clear I have a variety of interests and edit often, I don't just use it for this issue. Let's see what other people think. Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Quote from Kevin Haskins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? User:Lynchenberg (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Referring to this edit.

Discussion

• Yes, it should be included. It's interesting for our readers, and gives insight into the band's viewpoint. We don't use bandmember opinions to change genres, relying instead on WP:SECONDARY sources, but this one quote is not trying to redefine the band. Rather, it is adding to the reader's knowledge about the band. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note, wp:canvas. User Lynchenberg had campaigned in a non neutral manner on Binksternet's talk page [2]. Woovee (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not non-neutral campaigning. Lynchenberg was taking a gamble; I could just as easily have said that I was against the quote. What you're seeing is Lynchenberg asking me for advice, and me giving advice. Nothing unusual about that. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not a gamble. Binksternet had already supported Lynchenberg's will to include that The Cure defined the goth genre according to the singer of Bauhaus Peter Murphy [3] on 16 January 2021. Copy / Paste of Binksternet's previous comment: "I'm in favor of keeping the comment from Peter Murphy saying the Cure was defining the goth sound while Bauhaus was doing reggae and punk like the Clash." That speaks volume, this is why they want to do the same with the Banshees. And then if other quotes from Bauhaus members are found saying that Murphy considers, Killing Joke or The Birthday Party (band) were more goth than Bauhaus for some other random reasons..., Binksternet would also surely agree to add them. They are up to transform a part of this article in a platform, on the goth genre according to Bauhaus members [and their fans]. Woovee (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet you're strongly encouraged to reply to these interrogations which are legit. Woovee (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Note, I did not "campaign." I asked a more experienced user for advice on what to do in this situation. I did not ask him to comment here or influence his role in the discussion, I didn't even expect him to take part in it. I do not know Binksternet personally and only know of him because I've seen him edit articles I've edited for years so I thought he would know what the appropriate course of action would be. This is clear when reading what you linked to. It's also clear you keep calling ignoring whatever I say and accusing me of being a biased Bauhaus fanboy who wants to distance them from the term "goth." I will state openly I've never removed anything to do with goth from the article and I don't mind the term; my edit history shows no attempt to distance any artist from the term, quite the contrary, I added Nick Cave to the notable goth figures category. To me, goth is just a kind of music and it's a kind of music Bauhaus plays. I've never written otherwise. You continue skewing what I say with the same canned response and accusations, ignore my attempts to discuss the issue with you, and whenever the issue looks resolved, lie in wait for a month to half-a-year to come back, hoping you'll be able to get away with skewing the article, and when I challenge you, make skewed accusations like I am a Bauhaus fanboy with a single-purpose account even though I edit all kinds of articles on all kinds of subjects.Lynchenberg (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know Binksternet personally and only know of him because I've seen him edit articles. I didn't even expect him to take part in it.

It is against the truth. Binksternet had already supported Lynchenberg in this Bauhaus (band) talk page last January, to include in the article a quote of Bauhaus singer pigeonholing another band The Cure as goth. Woovee (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Woovee, I said I was done discussing this and would accept consensus, but you're continuing to fabricate things to make me look bad in the hopes my arguments won't be taken seriously instead of engaging with those arguments. I never tried to hide that Binksternet supported my argument in the case of Bauhaus before, it's right here on this talk page. And just because Binksternet happened to support me previously doesn't mean I know him personally or that I even expected him to respond to this particular discussion. Binksternet has reverted my edits before on other articles and has argued against positions I've held. Stop trying to tell me what's in my head or ascribe motivations to me that aren't there. In the link you provide, all I do is ask for advice as I don't know how to handle this situation because last time I handled in the wrong way and you continue being so unreasonable, as you continue to demonstrate by still trying to smear me even though I've said I'm done arguing and am fine leaving it up for other commenters to decide. All you're doing by continuing to pull these ad hominem attacks is making yourself look worse by demonstrating you routinely read things into situations or statements that aren't there, whether it's Peter Murphy hating the Cure because he felt more aligned to the Clash's mix of reggae and punk, Kevin Haskins trying to blame Siouxsie and the Banshees for the goth subculture because he felt Bauhaus were more of an art rock band, or all that I have some conspiracy with Binksternet to "blame bands other than Bauhaus for goth" because I asked his advice on his talk page. If we've really got this secret cabal, wouldn't it make more sense for me to contact him somewhere that doesn't leave an obvious public trail, like Wikipedia? I said I will not argue anymore because I've made my case and you ignore it, so I don't see the point. But I will continue responding to any irrelevant personal attacks you continue making. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It is canvassing, especially when there are denigrating. It was also good targetting by User Lynchenberg as user Binksternet had also already supported them on this talk page on 20 January 2021. Woovee (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The definition of denigrating is unfairly criticizing. Looking at the edit history, what have I said that is unfair? I am frustrated, but everything I've said is factually inaccurate and can be verified in the edit history. I've also been open about when I've stepped out of line in edit-warring when I shouldn't have and making an incident report when that was the incorrect course of action. You're the one who keeps tossing these accusations at me, claiming I hate The Cure or I'm some obsessed Bauhaus blogger, none of which you can prove. Lynchenberg (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No this [4] is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. A member of a band is not a music historian, he can't judge. This musician doesn't like the goth genre which was attributed to their band. It is also not relevant to transform this article in an essay about the goth genre. Woovee (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Describe how Haskins is being used to represent a "music historian". I think he is being used to represent his own viewpoint. Since he is a member of the band, and this is the band article, I think it works just fine. The cited source even selected the quote as worthy of highlighting in a pull quote format. Not undue emphasis at all. The WP:BIAS guideline has no relevance to this issue. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not the role of an encyclopedia to relay the opinion of a musician who doesn't stand being tagged goth by all the journalists. Transforming this article in an essay about goth is not relevant, simply to please two Bauhaus fans/ wikipedia users who want to rewrite history. Woovee (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet I'm the one being denigrating. Lynchenberg (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes My goal here is just to provide information on this band and the quote wasn't even my addition. One short paragraph is hardly an essay and one quote is hardly a comprehensive list of everything every band member said. Doing so seems to be deliberately skewing the situation to remove information that has been interpreted a particular way. This skewing has been consistent and any passes I've made at a real discussion have been ignored or met with the same canned response.Lynchenberg (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lynchenberg's goal may be to include every single quote by a member of Bauhaus charging other bands for the goth tag. Lynchenberg already found one about the Cure[5]. It is not relevant to transform this article in an essay about goth from the prospective of Bauhaus' members only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Bauhaus fans should write their own book to gather their favourite random quotes of their idols blaming other groups for inventing goth. Woovee (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

One quote from Murphy saying he felt The Cure had a bigger hand in developing goth (which I originally added in the musical style section discussing their reggae influence and alignment to The Clash, but which I moved to legacy because you threw a tantrum that Murphy mentioned the Cure), one from Haskins saying he thought it was Siouxsie and the Banshees (which I did not find or add, I'm just preserving), and one from Ash saying "actually, we ARE undeniably goth" (which I've made no effort to remove) is not a catalogue of random quotes blaming bands for inventing goth, and at a whopping three or fours sentences, is not an "essay." Stop telling me what I think Woovee. I've told you where I stand on goth multiple times and you ignore me. Stop telling me what my goals are. I've told you what they are and you say, "No, it's this." Stop insulting me, especially in this passive-aggressive "I'll-write-about-you-like-you're-not-present-in-the-discussion" way, then complain that I'm "denigrating" you when I start getting annoyed. I've tried to have a reasonable conversation with you for months now. You ignore what I say or skew what I say or insult me. If you're so big on Wikipedia etiquette, why not WP:Assume good faith and try to reach an understanding? Because you're not succeeding in changing my mind. You are however, succeeding in getting under my skin. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We have been trying to make this article good for years but now there has been damage and a lack of focus in 2021. Including random quotes concerning the origins of goth in the biography of a band on an encyclopedia, leads nowhere. It is wp:undue in such a big proportion that it has become a big editing problem. What users Lynchenberg and Ninmacer have been doing for months, is WP:PUSH. Woovee (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is their legacy if not the origin of goth? Is that Reggie Watts or Elliot Smith acknowledged their existence? Is it that Jello Biafra mentioned he listened to them once? The section needs work, but I've been editing this article for far longer than 2021, I did not just show up then. I think three or four sentences acknowledging their legacy as one of the key goth bands and their own feelings about that is relevant. If we want to improve the section, why not massively cull the namechecking? But before that, please, answer me this. If we don't acknowledge their legacy as the first or one of the first gothic rock bands, what is that legacy? And can you (for all your claims that I am trying to "rewrite history") source that other legacy beyond "here's twenty nu metal bands who say, 'Hey yeah, Bauhaus is kind of cool, I listen to them sometimes." Why don't we work together to make the article better instead of you pointing the finger at me based one four sentences, three of which I didn't even write? I'm right here man, talk to me. Lynchenberg (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. All the quotes from Bauhaus' members about goth saying who is more goth among their post-punk peers, are not relevant, because this wiki article is not about the goth genre. The band's legacy is to have inspired and influenced many acts, and this is why there are quotes of many musicians revering the band mentioned in the article. Woovee (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't it be both? I don't think three or four sentences stating their feelings on inspiring goth or being the first goth band is excessive, and while I think some examples of acts they influenced in other genres are notable, listing every act who ever covered them or mentiond them is excessive. The reason I think these quotes are worth keeping isn't because they're giving specific bands credit for goth but because it paints a portrait of how they seem themselves in realtionship to the history of the genre, which is relevant given they're often considered its creators. The specific bands they mention don't matter to me. The interesting part of the quote with the Cure is that Peter Murphy felt they were working more in the punky reggae tradition of the Clash (whether or not that's how it came off to listeners), the interesting part of the Haskins quote is that they felt they were more in an art rock mould, the Ash quote is interesting because it's acknowledging how they appeared to an audience. I promise you, the farthest thing from my mind when considering these quotes is the band trying to pin the goth tag on other specific bands. I understand goth is considered a distasteful term in some circles but I don't think it comes off this way in the selected quotes or in the context of the article. It's just that if a band are considered the Godfathers of Goth, you can't really avoid mentioning that briefly in the opening and I don't think three or four quotes is excessive. Any more than that, yes, but right now we're just at three and I don't plan on adding any more. If you think that Bauhaus is coming off as a non-goth band in this section, feel free to add more quotes making it cleaer they played goth. But we can't just ignore that aspect of their sound, image, and legacy. I think the best thing for this section would be to next explore their influence outside of goth but to be trim it so it's only the non-goth bands they most notably influenced. That section is so long now that I wouldn't know where to begin cutting stuff and would be happy to leave that in someone else's hands. Thank you for being polite with me and addressing me directly in this response by the way, it is appreciated. Lynchenberg (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ a note to Lynchenberg about the presentation of this rfc:

it would need to be changed because it doesn't present well the stakes of this edit.

Firstly, the edit that you want to include in the article was partly OR, Haskins didn't mean, "bands like" the Banshees, he talked only about one band. Then, the question should be more turned like this: "Does Bauhaus member Haskins' opinion, mentioning that the Banshees were more goth than Bauhaus because he considers that his band were more art rock than the Banshees, be included in the article? One user considers that it is not relevant to include the opinion of a Bauhaus member towards the genre of another band because this article is neither about the Banshees or about the goth genre.".Woovee (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion of yours is utterly non-neutral, a violation of WP:RFC which says we should "include a brief, neutral statement" about the issue. Your suggestion places argumentative wording in the supposedly neutral statement. Any "stakes" that you feel are weighing on the issue should be addressed in discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is written in green is neutral and clearly explains what this rfc is about. The presentation is also problematic because Haskins doesn't really talk about the goth subculture (which is what is written in the edit) but more that he considers his band was art rock and the Banshees were more goth than Bauhaus to his view. Woovee (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

When I talk about goth, I mean as a musical genre not as a subculture. I think it comes off that way in the article too. Beyond that, I think I'll just let any other commenters decide on this. I've made my case multiple times and at length and I feel exhausted at this point. I'll accept whatever the consensus is. Lynchenberg (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

or what about this "Does Bauhaus member Haskins' opinion, mentioning that the Banshees were more "goth" than Bauhaus because he considers that his band were more "art rock" than the Banshees, be included in the article? Concerns were raised because music genres are usually determined by journalists and this may look like a quote of a musician pigeonholing another band than his.. Woovee (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

NOT neutral is anything about "One user considers" or "concerns were raised". Just let the suggested text speak for itself in the RfC. Down in discussion you can lay out all the stakes. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate, "concerns were raised" is acceptable, you can start reading this other current rfc as an instance [6], and then answer to this issue [7] that is specifically addressed to you. And finally, my request is adressed to the user who filled the rfc. Woovee (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet:No doubt this will be linked to again as an example of some kind of conspiracy theory, but is there any procedure in place for getting Woovee to stop making up accusations about me and insulting me? He is not responding to the substance of what I say. I am tired of making the same arguments only for them to be deflected with speculations about my true motives when I've laid out what my motives are multiple times. I've also made my case so I'm happy to let anyone who responds to the rfc decide. I just don't want to deal with these personal attacks anymore and all they're doing is obfuscating what the discussion is really about. He's making it about my supposed motivations for wanting particular content in the article rather than whether or not they should objectively be in the article. I don't have a problem with the term "goth." I like Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure. But even if I hated those bands and the term goth, that's not relevant. I have no interest in looking up more quotes by Bauhaus members mentioning other goth bands. I just think that having each of the band members give their take on their style is interesting. I think it's interesting for the reader that Murphy saw the band as reggae-punk, that Haskins saw it as art rock, and that Ash saw it as goth; allusions to other bands are incidental. I think the discussion should be on the merit of that and not my character or alleged hidden agenda. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Problematic user-to-user behavior should be reported at WP:ANI. Make your case as succinctly as possible, with a few diffs to show examples. Elaborate later if asked. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I won't report anything but I will make a brief report if it continues (I understand I do overwrite in my responses and I'll try to cut down on that).Lynchenberg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Concise answers, please, most of your edits on this rfc are far over ten line replies; it is way too long. And be very careful of what you are doing, it is useless and counterproductive to copy paste parts of sentences someone has said outside this rfc section like you did in the second half of your reply. I note that you refuse to reword the rfc whereas the problem is due to the choice of users selecting sources with quotes of Murphy & co pigonholing other bands rather than choosing sources and quotes of Murphy & co when they only talk about their music without tagging other groups. I am afraid that this is impossible to find any agreement in a near future because you do not want to compromise Woovee (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're just being weird now. I haven't copied and pasted a word. that should evident to anyone whose read my reply. At best I paraphrased what the article said before you deleted information, and you're the one who keeps copy-pasting the line about how the band members aren't music historians, I'm turning this article into an essay on goth music, and it's unencyclopedic to trash others bands. You make no attempt to respond to any of my rebuttals to these claims, you just repeat them.It's also convenient you want the article reverted back to yesterday's version rather than the September 2nd version, which is what we had before you started removing sourced information from the article based on nothing but assumptions and personal interpretations. I thought perhaps we could reach a compromise by not naming any other specific bands in the Haskins quote and just focusing on how he views Bauhaus, as usual, no dice with you. At this point, it's not even about this specific quote being in the article for me, it's about how this is not how Wikipedia should work. The person who refuses to stop reverting, refuses real discussion, and only gaslights, insults, and makes biased assumptions should not be the one who dictates what's in the article. Lynchenberg (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As usual you refuse to reply to the important point. -> The problem is due to the choice of users selecting sources with quotes of Murphy & co pigonholing other bands rather than choosing sources and quotes of Murphy & co when they only talk about their music without tagging other groups. When you deign to reply to this, this discussion will be productive. Woovee (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule against referencing quotes that mention other bands. The only reason you are against this is because of your personal interpretation of how it makes those bands look. I'm willing to not quote the parts where they mention the other bands if it really bothers you that much as they're not necessary, but throwing them out entirely or demanding entirely different quotes purely because you don't like what it may or may not imply about other bands is irrelevant to whether the quotes are worth citing.Lynchenberg (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• There isn't any defined rule, but an encyclopedia guarantees a certain quality. When there is plenty of material available, - it's the case here, Bauhaus gave tons of interviews - why would an encyclopedia include quotes that are controversal when there are a lot of itws that aren't. In that genre, goth, no band liked to be tagged. Bowie hated the glam rock umbrella and he never pigeonholed his peers. Marc Bolan did it for Bowie, Gary Glitter. A NME journalist of the 1980s David Quantick recently remarked that every goth band used to adopt the same tactic in interview; when they were asked if they accepted the goth label, they invariably answered "No", and then, afterwards each one couldn't help naming other bands in the goth genre [8]. Murphy once praised their music while minimizing the songwriting quality of Joy Division [9]. One would not be surprised to find one statement from him pigeonholing Nick Cave. I have got articles with Bauhaus. I'm sure I'll find quotes of them in which they talk about art rock in a neutral way. That said, the band's legacy is wide, they didn't just help spawn the gothic rock genre, they had an impact on US alternative rock Woovee (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't with regards to what we quote but how what we quote all perspectives with equal weight. A quote from a journalist tagging Bauhaus as goth, two quotes from Murphy and Haskins describing a different perspective, and a quote from Ash accepting the goth tag shows a variety of viewpoints. While Ash rejected the goth label harshly in the eighties, the quotes from Haskins, Murphy, and Ash are recent and Ash in particular seems to have mellowed out. In recent years, Murphy is quoted as saying the Cure is a great pop band and the entire band cite Siouxsie and the Banshees as an influence that predates them. These are not quotes trash-talking other bands. Even if they were, that doesn't mean there isn't relevant information in those sources. I would be against including the Joy Division source because it gives no information. It just says that Murphy doesn't think Bauhaus sounds like Joy Division. The quotes I wish to include actively describe Murphy and Haskins' views on Bauhaus as reggae-punk and art rock respectively. Lynchenberg (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

wp:Positive bias doesn't match equal weight: when the genre of a band relies on quotes of journalists, that's fine but here the part of the section mentioning their genre is 25 % from the journalist and 75% from the band. In this source [10], Murphy says, "we're just goth" "We were and are the seminal moment in that time. Joy Division is not that. It's OK, but it's actually really trashy. It's not that well-done. It's all right, good songs"; why would it be not relevant to include this in the article, while there were parts of quotes tagging the Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees, as more goth than Bauhaus. Woovee (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I don't see anything wrong with a quote from Haskins regarding his thoughts on the goth label of his own band. I also agree that his quote is not appropriate to use as a source to dispute the goth label for the Bauhaus; regardless of what members of Bauhaus may think, there are plenty of independent sources to support that genre label. I also fail to see how his quote denigrates another band or the goth genre in general. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you say Yes for ? Is it a yes for including quotes of Murphy and Haskins pigeonholing The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees, as more goth than Bauhaus ? What's next, quotes of Murphy tagging Nick Cave's Birthday Party and Kiling Joke as more goth than Bauhaus ? All these bands said that tagging them "goth" was lazy journalism. I contribute to many other music related articles: as there are quotes of Massive Attack refusing the "trip hop" genre while pigeonholing other acts with that umbrella, do we include this too on wikipedia? is it relevant to include such quotes on an encyclopedia ? @ Ohnoitsjamie - Woovee (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, could you explain the strange relationship you have with the rfc demander, and the exchanges you had made with them on their personal talk page before going here. Is your reply here a way to excuse yourself towards some trouble and the threats of suicide you provoked to this person and the violent comments you read on their talk page? Woovee (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any relationship with the user. Their name came up on an admin noticeboard, I gave them a final warning, then read the RFC and weighed in on it. I'm sorry that the RfC is not going your way, but hounding everyone who disagrees with you probably isn't the best tactic. I'm not commenting on it further, as there's nothing more to explain regarding the warning I issued nor my opinion on this RfC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - this is a harmless, single-sentence quote that sheds some light on the band's own relationship to the "goth" label; I don't see what the problem is. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

WHat about positive Bias. It is relevant to choose one sentence from one journalist identifying Bauhaus under the goth genre. And then is the rest really relevant ? To dilute this and to counterbalance this assertion, it would be more apt to add quotes from other journalists. But instead, two hard core Bauhaus obsessed fans both simultinously found quotes of Bauhaus members tagging famous bands The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees, as supposedly more goth than Bauhaus, and then include this on wikipedia. This opinion is only biaised Bauhaus Members opinions of themselves, because both the Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees also rejected the association with the gothic rock genre. If one introduces quotes of Bauhaus memebers tagging two of their peers in an encylopedia, do believe that it will create not a kind of war but reactions in return. I will include quotes of Siouxsie and the Banshees tagging Bauhaus as third rate band (quotes do exsit), I will include quotes of Robert Smith tagging his peers, and I would not be surprised, judging the verbal violence in the rfc demander with threats of suicide on their own talk page, that it will put them into personal crisis. If there is one partial opinion of Bauhaus members towards the Cure and Siouxsie and the Bansheees added in this article, I will also do the same at other biographies and include quotes of Massive Attack members rejecting the trip hop act while tagging their followers. I will equally include quotes of Marc Bolan tagging Bowie in an interview as a glam opportunist, etc. And I will put quotes of Lou Reed also tagging his peers. Beware, if you Bauhaus listeners, want to create a fire war on wikipedia, it will happen. There is no need to transform wikipedia as a fan site for Bauhaus listeners to portray their favourite band in a flattering manner. Woovee (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood all of this, but if some artist expresses a noteworthy opinion about another artist, then there's no reason not to include it. If Marc Bolan did indeed criticize David Bowie, then that information deserves to go into the articles about one or the other, or (probably) both. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Here lie our differences; an encyclopedia never includes any controversy in biographies (you'd see that if you took a look at encyclopedias in a library). As a long-time wiki contributor on music related articles, I see that you have never added any significant historical content to a music related article/biography and you don't measure well the stakes of this discussion. That said, I will probably ping contributors of other music related articles with high profile/popularity, users who have made some research, to have an extra opinon, because we do need points of views of longtime wiki users, who worked on A and GA articles. Woovee (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia includes controversy in its biographies, including this one and the ones in the library. (Not that "band A is more goth than band B" is really a controversial statement.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't include any controversy in their biographies, and particularly no biased / self indulgent opinion of artists towards their own legacy. Woovee (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now I don't know what you mean by "controversy". Is it your view that, if famous person commits a crime, the Britannica article about them won't mention it? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about a marginal opinion in arts in general, there are never any in any enclyclopedia, whether Encyclopedia Britannica or of another one, and here we are discussing music in the present case. Woovee (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think it's a marginal opinion, but maybe you'll have better luck convincing others here. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Woovee promising to include irrelevant quotes is a threat of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dire predictions of others starting a "fire war" is actually Woovee threatening to make war, as others are not so inclined, not having indicated anything of the sort. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

wp:LIE and out of context reproduction of sentences : "do believe that it will create not a kind of war but reactions in return", quote well next time. Your reaction is exaggerated, you did this obviously because I wrote [11], that your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow, according to this [12]. It shows that you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,[13] reverting, asking sources. I have also never seen you adding anything consistant historically at other music related articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article [14]. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who worked on A and GA music articles. You don't get the stakes of this discussion because you're a watcher on these post-punk / goth related articles. Several experts in music related articles, want to write biographies while paying attention to wp:due and wp:undue weight. It should be anyone's concern. Woovee (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It's always a good idea to include quotes from such a person, specially when the words go counter to what one might expect. That makes Haskins's words even more interesting. I think it would be a good idea to include them as long as they are backed by reliable sources. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The question is not about whether one can include a quote of Haskins about their music. The issue is : is it relevant to include a quote of Haskins tagging other bands The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees as more goth than Bauhaus according to their own partial view. All the gothic musicans have one thing in common: they reject the goth tag in interviews while accusing ther peers as being more goth than their own group. The rfc demander cheated their question on purpose: they had presented themselves as a Bauhaus fan in previous discussion, which means their edits are positive bias And their purpose is to soften and reshape the image of their favourite band on wikipedia. You profile shows that you have never contributed to any music related article and more specifically to any article about the post-punk / gothic rock genres and the bands under these umbrellas. [15] Woovee (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations! My initial rationale stands because it appears that, while what you say is true, it does not change my opinion. Changing others' opinions might be easier for you if you just remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I didn't expect anything relevant that replies to the content of my previous explanation; all of the users in this Rfc appear to read the answers in diagonal. To your concern, supposedly humoristic traits are not what one demands for in a Rfc. Woovee (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "humoristic trait" on Wikipedia to be civil to fellow volunteer editors. In fact, it's taken very seriously as one of the five pillars. It is considered wrong to be anything less than civil or to WP:BADGER. The only point I'd hoped to make with you is that if you ever expect to be successful in your endeavors on Wikipedia, then you will want to change the tone of your responses. Again, we wish you only the best! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It also should be pointed out to you that as long as a quote is well-sourced and several editors have come to consensus to include it, that is all Wikipedia requires for its inclusion. Anything else would be, well, non-neutral and POV (another of the five pillars). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - certainly a band member's opinion on their band's genre and relationship to a genre that they have been considered to pioneered is worth noting on the band's article. starship.paint (exalt) 05:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, I think it provides reasonable context to what the band thinks about the "goth" label where it is used. I do not see any particular reason it should not be there. It is not forbidden to use material where the band discusses itself, and in this instance the material is not unduly self-serving or any of the other red flags for a subject discussing themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: References referring to or about bands other than Bauhaus

.

Is it necessary to include a cited source unrelated to Bauhaus that describes Siouxsie and the Banshees as art rock?

Referring to this edit.

Is it acceptable to include a quotation from Peter Murphy that also associates the gothic rock genre with The Cure in a citation where Peter Murphy says he felt Bauhaus was closer to reggae-punk like The Clash?

Referring to this edit. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

No and Yes Summoned by bot. This is a bit to unpack and I haven't read the long history and prior Rfc. For the first, I think the legacy section should be about the band's legacy and how they see it. It gets too weedy if you try to discuss the Banshee's genre here. People aren't coming here to learn about the Banshees. For the second, I think it's a useful quote to include since it's the band discussing their influences. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• No and Yes. The first question involves a violation of WP:SYNTH in which Bauhaus isn't mentioned but a comparison is being made. The second question is simply a matter of helping the reader understand where Murphy was coming from, how Murphy views the milieu within which Bauhaus formed. The practice of inserting a footnote in the reference is covered at WP:FOOTNOTE which says "A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." The Murphy quote satisfies the requirements. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is correct to say that this appendix "although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" " can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.
• One notes that all the sources in this wiki biography contain footnotes reproducing the quotes in their entirety inside the ref. Woovee (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

My take is this. I just thought the information on Peter Murphy feeling Bauhaus was reggae-inspired was relevant information, and Haskins saying they felt more art rock than goth was relevant information. I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation. I don't see any harm in having these references either, but if it really bothers Woovee that much I am fine with omitting them as it's not necessary to provide the relevant information. If we're to omit that however, we should also omit the quote about Siouxsie and the Banshees playing art rock as it's not necessary. I also want to state that this is the last time I want to comment on the matter. Woovee's made this very personal and I've been going through a lot lately. It's not really relevant here specifically what, but I am not doing well right now and had been avoiding editing Wikipedia as during a time I was feeling increasing emotionally unstable I made a comment I regret. I had not been following this discussion as a result, but had not logged out of Wikipedia on all devices, so when Woovee pinged me on my page, blaming me for the results of the rfc and going on about how he "despises" me and making more accusations. I reported this to an administrator who quickly responded to the out-line-comment I made during my issues with another matter, but rather than telling Woovee to desist as I was told to desist, I was essentially told to go fuck myself and my edit asking for help was reverted. This has made me realize responding was a mistake, and I would like to take a break from Wikipedia in general to leave this matter behind entirely. When responding to this rfc, I would like to respectfully ask Woovee to avoid making this personal if the administrators won't, and not to ping me privately or bring me up again. Just argue the issue on it's own merits, and if all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue. I just want this to be over. Peace. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• If Lynchenberg, "sees no reason to name drop" "siouxsie and the banshees" in the body of the article for Haskins' quote, they will have to ping/contact all the users who replied to their previous rfc, and ask them if they would not oppose to this change. And to avoid confusion, they'd show them the new version they would like to see in the body of the article, and write it inside this {{xt| }, to make it in green color. Woovee (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Implementing the RfC conclusion about Kevin Haskins quote

• Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins
• "Clear consensus that a band's own properly attributed view is appropriate for inclusion on the page about said band."[16]

In September–October, we decided to include a quote from Kevin Haskins. The quote in question is as follows:

Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".

References

Woovee removed the quote seven times on the same day in July 2021,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] violating WP:3RR, and five times in September. In October, Woovee removed the quote ten times, and in November six times.

What does Woovee want? Here's a comparison of proposed text versions. First is a version put forward by others:

• Peter Murphy said he felt their contemporaries had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth. Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".

Here's the version that Woovee kept inserting:

• Peter Murphy said Bauhaus "were more aligned to The Clash than anything else that was going around. The Cure and those people really solidified what became goth". Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt: "the Banshees who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement [...] Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock", although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock".

I don't have any problem with the Murphy quote adding mentions of the Clash and the Cure. The problem I have is with Woovee's removal of the link to Goth subculture, the swapping of clear summary text for more of a bandmember quote, and the addition of The Guardian assessment of the Banshees as art rock, which has nothing to do with Bauhaus, and is thus a violation of WP:SYNTH. I also have a problem with Woovee's novel reinterpretation of the RfC; the losing party in a consensus-forming discussion should step aside and let the consensus stand, not fight it tooth and nail. Purposely interfering with an established consensus is WP:Tendentious editing.

Let's keep the wording proposed by the successful RfC. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is correct to say that this appendix "although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" " can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.

Haskins talks about "Goth Movement" and music and art-rock, It is more about the genre. Concluding "goth movement" could be transformed in [goth movement|goth subculture] rather than [goth movement|gothic rock], or vice versa, is wp:original research. Woovee (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's simply reading comprehension. Goth subculture is goth movement... same idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Murphy's view about their legacy

This version had been present in the article from 8 months, from February'21 until August'21.

Murphy felt contemporary dark bands like the Cure had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth.. Woovee (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

What does "dark bands" mean? Not clear to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)