Talk:Gothic metal

---

A request for mediation has been made in regards to the dispute on this article.

---

Users involved in heavy dispute on this article have been referred to the Abbiration committe and are awaiting response. Please do not remove anything from this page.

---

A request for comments has been made about the dispute on this article's contents.

---

Archives

For previous discussion, please see:

• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 1
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 2
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 3
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 4
• Talk:Gothic metal/Archive 5

List of bands should be in another article.

As many other genres i feel list of bands belongs to another article. I copied the contents from the main article to List of goth metal bands.

As mentioned before, its a list of Gothic Metal AND Gothic-Doom bands. The genre is also called GOTHIC Metal, not GOTH Metal. Rename the article appropriatly, and then the article list shall be included. At current, it undermines almost all of the article. Leyasu 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Both names 'Goth Metal' and 'Gothic Metal' are used in Gothic metal article refering to the same genre. I renamed the mentioned article to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands even though this name seems too clumsy to me. D0c 11:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also read the Common Misconceptions part of the article on the negative use of the term 'Goth Metal'. Yes, it is a clumsy article to do a list of bands for. Yes, the name of the list is clumsy. But it wasnt my idea to list both articles into one. However, i have been handing out Wikipedia's name more regularly now, and people who have gotten back to me have said, not having to go through 100 different articles to find something is a lot more helpfull. So maybe keeping the band list on the article is helpfull as example bands, with a comphrensive, detailed list in another article? Leyasu 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just put {{:List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands}} in the main Gothic metal article under the header for the list. That will copy and paste the contents of List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands into the article. (Though to edit the list, you'd have to go to List of gothic metal and gothic-doom metal bands. You can't edit the list directly from Gothic metal if you do it this way.) --Idont Havaname 04:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with that Idont. It makes it harder to keep track of the articles, and for editing by others it makes it a nightmare to follow all the articles. Personally i still think having 5-10 bands on a seperate list for both Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal, and then a comphrensive list of each in seperate articles is the best way to go about it. Leyasu 04:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's not a good way to do it either, though. It's generally not good to pick a few items out of a list, and if you do, you might run into POV problems (or at best, you'll just be mentioning bands that the rest of the article discussed.) If the list is short, it can stay in the article. But this one seems to be long enough to justify its own article, so it would be best to keep it on a separate page. --Idont Havaname 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The only ptoblem is, a lot of people want things there for quick reference. I suggest waiting for more people to comment before any action is taken by either of us. Leyasu 06:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No Concensus Reached, So Tags Shall Remain.

I have placed 3 fitting tags on the top of the article, due to the reason that reverting the article back to the original will just cause Leyasu to wage another revert war; Looking at the above notes, there was absolutely no concensus reached that Leyasu's Temp page was suitable enough to be submitted as an article; he/she basically said they would be doing it, "everyone is on my side" (who is "everyone"? It seems everyone was criticizing his/her edits) and that was that. Still several factual errors in the article, as what had already been discussed. Danteferno 15:05, 15 January 2005 (UTC)

Consenus was reached and more than one editor has reverted your tags. The argument was also abandoned by the the disagreeing half after ample warning was given to the posting of the revision unless further discussion was to be held. Further attempts at blatant vandalism, MPOV, and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point will be pointed out to admins, who can then decide the best course of action. Leyasu 16:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is from a user (Leyasu) who has been blocked by Wikipedia admins for personal attacks and 3RR, a user who has been pointed out by Wikipedians as using sockpuppets, a user who continuously provides no source/references for their edits, and is now denying that any of this took place. Recently, a wikipedia admin (Sn0wflake) abandoned trying to work with Leyasu for his/her continued personal vendettas and campaigns (See Leyasu's discussion board for proof on all the above.). Very confusing, but not surprising, sadly. Danteferno 18:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User who made accusation of Sock Puppets = Danteinferno.

Admin (Sn0wflake) quit an argument between several users, one of which was myself, and quit the argument from participating due to all users. The article in question being Grunge.

Another user also banned for 3RR was part of the argument on the Grunge article.

Dante has also broken the 3RR on this article against edits i made.

It should be taken into account, that Dante was also named for MPOV on several articles.

Another point is that Dante was also told by more than myself, that his edits are wrong, and more than one user has reverted his edits. Dante also claims vandalism on any edit that isnt his own.

I will now inform Admins about this users behaviour. Leyasu 16:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please report me for my "behavior", Leyasu. One admin already told you that calling another Wikipedian "meglomaniacal" is namecalling and a personal attack (advised by Sn0wflake in your dispute with LGagnon, something you were blocked for, and then you threatened to report admin Sn0wflake for not siding with you.) Your presence here has been nothing but counterproductive, and there is still no evidence that the "majority is in agreement" with you in turning the Temp page (which has various errors, mentioned above) into the main article. No, everytime you're asked a question for your sources and claims, it's "harassment" against you. --- Danteferno 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The only user who has harrassed me openly is Danteinferno and i have made no such claims against any other users. I also never threatened to report the admin who blocked me, i asked him to explain where i made a personal attack, which in kind, he did.

This again is slander and personal attacks, claiming now im being counterproductive on Wikipedia and making bad faith edits. Again, personal attacks.

Also, a consensus being reached is evidence enough. As well as the Gothic Metal scene and the bands involved within depicting the genre as such. One persons defination and that of misconception with sources critcially disclaimed by many, including the scene, doesnt make a good source. Leyasu 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You could say a concensus was reached as much as you want - it didn't happen.Your "friend" parasti(who also seems to be joining you in your 3RR violations on other articles) is not the main voice of Wikipedia, and neither or you. So where's that Wikipedia admin you were talking about? I think their judgment on whether a concensus was reached (and whether the tags should stay) is confirmation enough. I also think it would be good to let them know of your current 3RR violations of other articles (with other users), that the same thing happening there is happening here - and it's not a "Danteferno" problem. Danteferno 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my "official" reply on Danteferno's talk page. That is all there is to it, basically. And for the time being check out WP:NPA. Cheers. -- parasti 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not all there is to it. Per your discussion page, you just registered with Wikipedia on December 18, so unless you have an existing username on here, you have not been here long enough to read up on the Wikipedia process. Danteferno 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how does the time I have spent as a registered user on Wikipedia matter in this discussion? Here's a hint: it doesn't. Also what makes you think I have "joined" User:Leyasu in his "3RR violations on other articles", as I do not seem to recall such actions, moreover, I would surely notice if I had been blocked for 24 hours? If you bother to answer, please make sure you provide links to the exact 3RR-violating edits from my contribution history, otherwise it is to be considered a personal attack. Do not expect to be taken seriously if you cannot reasonably argue in a discussion.

Now, all else aside, I ask, what do you consider to be incorrect in the article and what are your suggestions for improving it aside from "this article needs a complete rewrite". If you cannot give a reasonable answer, then please stop vandalising the article, as your actions will then eventually be reported as such. -- parasti ^(talk) 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

To be brief: 1.) The article states symphonic metal was derived from gothic metal. This is untrue, and the original version of symphonic metal (before Leyasu changed it) reflects that as well. 2.) The article begins by stating that the genre started in Europe; this is also untrue; and later on, the article contradicts itself when stating that American bands from the 1980s played a part in its beginnings. Type O Negative's first album was from 1993, a few years before many well-known gothic metal bands in Europe would release their albums, and TON were also an influence for European bands. Leyasu thinks that they are "gothic doom" and belong in a separate category, but users that include myself, Idont havaname and Sn0wflake (see Leyasu's talk page) told him/her that gothic metal and gothic doom are essentially the same thing, regardless of TON'S "genre" 3.) The article reads like someone's personal opinion, is very unclear in the way things are described (no examples for claims on the way gothic metal "sounds"), and doesn't seem to be in encylopedic reading format. 4.) Moonspell are not from Scandinavia (see "Beginnings") 5.) Various Gothic Metal bands that were removed from the list by Leyasu, including Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT, simply because he/she does not want them there. Your two cents?--Danteferno 23:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I know nothing of symphonic metal, but anyway is it even necessary to mention the origins of symphonic metal here when it has its own article? To avoid confusion at least. The "original version" was a mere 3 paragraph definition stating that symphonic metal is not a real genre, hence with no reference to its origins.
2. The Gathering released Always... in 1992, several songs from which were written and released in 1990. It's often called atmospheric death / doom metal with keyboards and Beauty and the Beast vocals, but then again that's what is commonly referred to as gothic metal.
3. No comment on this one, feel free to improve it.
4. It does not imply Moonspell are a Scandinavian band; it makes sense if you leave out the part where Scandinavia is mentioned. The way it is said could be improved though, see #3.
5. As said on the Lake of Tears article, they have a "wide range of different styles", so it seems to be more of a The Gathering case: you could name albums, but not the whole band as being gothic metal. As for my personal opinion, their sound on the album I have heard is very much similar to that of Crematory, which is in turn similar to that of early HIM (they came later though, so it's the other way around); often clean male vocals, minimal use of keyboards, simple but agressive drum beat, complex solos and verse-chorus-verse-bridge-chorus structure. While it is metal, it is definitely not gothic. No opinion on other bands, as I have not listened to them. -- parasti ^(talk) 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1. The revised version of the article states: "A softer genre known as symphonic metal had evolved in the mid- to late- 1990s from gothic metal bearing strong similarities to its predecessor"' - this is completely untrue - symphonic metal did not evolve from gothic metal, symphonic metal is simply a style used by power metal and black metal bands that use symphonic elements. Perhaps there are gothic metal bands that use symphonic elements, but it did not "evolve" from gothic metal.

Not what the Symphonic Metal article states, which was revised with consensus. And not what a lot of sources say, which can be found in the archives, which Danteinferno provided themself.

1. The Gathering's first album was from 1992, correct, however they did not break out as a "gothic metal" band until later. The same could be said for TiamaT, who began as death metal and entered the gothic metal sort years later as well. Bottom line, TON came before both. (I was mistaken at first - Type O Negative's first release was from 1991; "Slow Deep and Hard".)

Type O Negative however, is not a Gothic Metal band. And no matter how much Danteinferno blows the whistles for them, the Gothic Metal community, and most of their fans, recognise them for their work in both the Doom Metal and Gothic-Doom scenes. Also, claiming a band is Gothic Metal because you like them, doesnt make them Gothic Metal when they are not musically Gothic Metal.

1. If I improve/reword it, Leyasu will revert it back and call it "Bad faith edit/Vandalism". See the Children of Bodom or Cradle of Filth revision history to see what I mean.

Both articles have suffered heavy vandalism, with sections behing removed and replaced with random characters or insults towards the bands. Last i checked, this is vandalism. Also, i myself will not revert an edit or call it Vandalism, unless it explicitly states something that isnt true, or relevant to the subject matter.

1. There was a great section in the original version that reflected how many death metal and black metal bands from the Scandinavian region became "gothic metal". It is erroneous to include Moonspell as they are from Portugal. It would make more sense to include the bands used before (which were removed for no reason.)

Removed for not being Gothic Metal. Bands from X place changed genre to Gothic Metal. Y Band from X Place changed their Genre to Pop. List Y band from X Place as changing their genre to Gothic Metal. Something says that isnt very enceylcopedic, or accurate, to me.

1. In agreement with Lake of Tears, however, being that Gothic metal bands progress, and use a lot of experimentation, it is sometimes hard to even judge the most comfortable bands in the genre, because they, too, will experiment. LoT's genre-labeling varies, however reputable websites for heavy metal (such as Allmusic.com and Metal Archives) have labeled LoT as Gothic Metal. Charon and TiamaT are unarguably Gothic metal bands. It should also be noted that many bands listed in the article or the band list have no Wiki-page and are probably too obscure for mentioning as "notable". --Danteferno 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the bands listed are better known in the Gothic Metal scene and genre than either Tiamat, Charon or Lake of Tears. Also, bands often try to claim they are something they are not. Atreyum My Chemical Romance and Evanescence have all laid claim to being Gothic Metal, when they obviously are not. One band claiming they are Gothic Metal, doesnt mean they are Gothic Metal. Also, i ask Danteinferno for how these bands are Gothic Metal, other than is 'becasue i said so' argument.

1) Symphonic Metal as a genre originated from Gothic Metal. Thats as a genre. General consensus from most of the metal community reflects this. I listed over 20 sources saying this, all of which Danteinferno claimed were 'disallowed' because they didnt agree with him, even though half of them you provided by himself.

2) The genre did indeed start in Europe, and is mostly a European scene. The genre has some fans in America, but is not as intensely followed by any means as it is in Europe. Also, Type O Negative share nothing in common with Gothic Metal, apart from the Synthesise of influences in their guitarworks, which is also the same as what Gothic-Doom does. They are also highly regarded around the world as Gothic-Doom or just plain Doom-Metal with Gothic Rock influence. Irony i believe, when they are supposed to be Gothic Metal, while lacking most traits of the genre, or affiliation with it.

3) The article is better than the one Danteinferno claimed was 'his' that i had 'no right to edit'. I also, fail to see how it reads POV. If it reads POV, an explanation on how it reads POV, not just rash claim of 'This reads POV so post my POV because i said so'. Arguments such as that dont work. I was also considering RFA for the article, to see how it can be improved, much like the Nightwish article was done.

4) Im not a specialist in Geography, if there is a minor Geographical error in the argument, a minor edit from anyone can fix it. A minor mistake requirring a minor edit isnt justification to rewrite the whole article.

5) Well, according to Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT's articles, the bands arent Gothic Metal. Lake of Tears, could be considered Gothic-Doom on one album. On that note, that album is widely considered Folk Metal, due to its heavy folk themes, and lack of Gothic Metal and Gothic Rock elements. Tiamat, you explain how they are Gothic Metal, because making 'because i said so' arguments isnt going to work either. And Charon is hardly Gothic Metal, has no affiliation with the Gothic Metal scene, and is generally not accepted as Gothic Metal by anyone par a very small portion of the bands fans.

Taking this into account i listed some extra things to note.

6) Danteinferno abandoned this argument when he was proved wrong. The user Idonthavename left the argument, after helping in the revision of the article. Snowflake also told Dante he was wrong on a number of occasions, as can be seen in the archives, if checked.

7) Danteinferno has tried to discredit me with personal attacks of various forms and styles. This has included blatant insults in the form of such classics as 'you are an idiot'/'you are a moron', to such discredit the argument by descrediting the person as 'everyone hates you'/'you make no good edits'/'you dont know anything'. Its childlike and pathetic, it really is.

8) If the article was fine in the first place in the form Dante claimed was 'his' that i dont have 'any right to edit', then it wouldnt of needed revising. As such, it was revised, with consenus (Which i might add Dante called everyone who disagreed with him a sockpuppet). If this article was in need of a complete rewrite, then why would it of already been rewritten? Also, isnt it ironic when the person claiming it needs a rewrite, is the person who claimed ownership of rewritten article? Doesnt that some what come across as meglomanical point of view and bad faith editing?

Im going to put in a RFC, because, this is not going to get anywhere, its a circular argument thats practically unworthy of archival space. IM listing in for RFC, and if personal attacks are continued against me, i will inform the Abbirition Committe, as i have given example, and warning as to how Danteinferno is making them. Its a shame that Dante seems to feel he has to harass me and make personal attacks in this way, but that isnt the spirit of Wikipedia, and it doesnt warrent place here. Perhaps if Dante would prefer to use a Wikipedia with no rules, he should go to Anarchapedia. Leyasu 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single thing you wrote above is wrong - you haven't provided any sources to your edits - per your talk page, you REMOVED citations from other articles (and other users noted you on this). Being that each thing you say about me (or anything who disagrees with you) is a personal attack and harrassment, it seems ironic and hypocritical that you're accusing me (and others) of personal attacks and harrassment - you're baiting for such, that's for sure. It was Leyasu who got banned for personal attacks. Again, anyone can look above (and the archives) and see that everyone who participated in the discussion with Leyasu asked him/her many times to provide sources for his/her edits, in which Leyasu either refused, or simply posted website URLs that didn't have any information supporting his/her argument. It comes as no surprise that the admins Leyasu came to for help in this did not answer. If I was an admin, I would probably be hesitant as well. The only reason I'm staying is because the public should not be stuck with the flawed article that Leyasu submitted with absolutely no precedent. Danteferno 05:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Three editors (Myself, Parasti and TureMetalFan) have no all told user Danteinferno he is wrong. The claim of providing no sources for the revision, which were provided in the discussion of the revision previously, which most of the sources provided where originally sourced by user Danteinferno, is a tom-fool claim.

In the claim i removed citiations from other Articles, this was during a conflicting view on the Nightwish article on formatting. The citations, in fact, were left, however i had removed the in sentence links to them. The users involved, including me discussed this in a perfectly civilised manner, and it was explained to me that in sentence Links are considered helpfull and good for RFA, despite their formatting uglyness. I didnt contest this and the issue was laid to rest. Nothing bad there i think.

The claims that i am making personal attacks against Danteinferno, and that im harrasing him are somewhat null, when the user has periodically gone around reverting edits of mine on articles, used open inflamatory language and manner, including direct insults, and has openly claimed the original articles as his, claimed people are conspiring against him, and also has an obvious personal vendetta against me. Thus, an Admin or Meditation Committe member would be best to decide who is indeed, making the personal insults.

I was banned for making a personal attack, which at the time i didnt realise was a personal attack. Apologies were made after this, due to my intepretation of personal attacks being somewhat different to others. The issue was resolved somewhat instanteneously, with the Admin explaining how what i said could of been considered a personal attack.

Many times i was asked to provide sources, and after some time, i did. Over half of the sources i gave, had already been given by the user Danteinferno, who was the only user against the revision to what he claimed was 'his' article. The only time sources of mine were discredited, were by Danteinferno, because of such reasons as 'They arent well known enough', and 'Forums dont count'. Not reasons to discount sources by Wikipedia's policys, i do so believe.

I also posted to Admins, following my own inetitive that perhaps if they mediated this argument, it wouldnt become so derogatory. As such i got no replies, so instead i went to the Mediation Committe. We are currently awaiting mediation from them.

Danteinferno in this statement, 'The only reason I'm staying is because the public should not be stuck with the flawed article that Leyasu submitted with absolutely no precedent.' seems to make his intentions clear. The user seems somewhat bothered that the article was revised. I now ask this question, if the article was flawed, and the information in the original was correct, why was consensus reached that a revision should be done? And why has consensus been reached again by mostly different users, that the changes Dante is proposing are wrong? I think these questions answer themselfs.

Thats nonsense, as Parasti has been here long enough to learn the Wikipedia Policys, by reading them. Now your making personal attacks against other users, which completely degrades your claim. You blatantly have no intrest in making this article better, and are content to simply vabdalise it, as it seems. Leyasu 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Danteferno the problem with the list of bands is that half the bands on the list have a female singer. Meaning that half those bands are Gothic Metal? I don't think so. One band for exmpale can no longer be called Gothic Metal that band is After Forever. There first CD my be Gothic Metal but they moved very far away from that after the first CD. Epica can be listed as a Gothic Metal band either they are adding in more then one kind of music. Nightwish is a Symphonic Metal and Power Metal band or just Symphonic power Metal/ Just because a band has a female lead singer dose not make them Gothic Metal that's way a lot of those bands should not be listed as such. Turemetalfan Jan 17, 2006

Leyasu compiled/arranged that list, not me. ---Danteferno 00:42 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Turemetalfan is talking about the list on 'your' original article. Leyasu 03:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, he's obviously referring to the current article, which is your revision. (And the original article was not "my" article) ---Danteferno 03:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Um no Danteferno Leyasu is right I was talking about the original article. There were bands listed there that were not really Gothic Metal at all. The way the bands are listed know is just fine. Though I still feel that some are not really part of the Gothic Metal that is just my opinon. Turemetalfan Jan 18, 2006 9:43 AM

I didn't compile a majority of those bands on the original article, so whoever did, you will need to bring it up with them. Please be sure to address the appropriate parties when you have a dispute. If you feel there are bands on the current page that aren't really Gothic Metal you will need to bring that up to Leyasu. Thanks, Danteferno 03:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of personal attacks, POV, unsourced claims, harassment, et al.

Please see this page on who's consistently doing such (and cited examples)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-16 Deathrock & Deathrock fashion

I will do my best to disregard Leyasu from now on.

For all else concerned in the matter, I am currently in the process of overhauling the gothic metal page with cited examples from reputable sources, and this should be the most comprehensive and neutral of any web reference on the subgenre. It should be done by next week. If anyone wants to see a current draft, let me know. Best, Danteferno 15:50 January 18, 2006 (UTC)

Consensus was reached that the article doesnt need changing, any change to the article with information that isnt accurate will be reverted, and the vandal will be reported to the abbirition commitee. Leyasu 19:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC - Request for Comment

Hello, I thought I'd come in and take a look. Could someone please summarize in 1 or 2 sentences, what the issue is? Thanks. Elonka 03:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This link pretty much summons it up. As well as the Gothic Metal statement on this link. Leyasu 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I read the dispute. It's clear that there are disagreements between a few people about the content of the page, but I had trouble figuring out just which content... Could you clarify a particular change that is in dispute? For example, should the page say "a" or "b" or "c", etc. Thanks. Elonka 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

To summerise it, in the A/B/C format.

• Version A) The original article.
• Version B) The revised article.
• Version C) Dante's proposed revision.

Version A was revised due to the content being incorrect and infactual about the genre of music and scene it was about. After a heavily long discussion on the talk page, which is in the archives, a consensus was reached in that a revision would take place, which several users supervised and contributed to on the since deleted temp page, and as such version B was posted at the conclusion. During this time, Danteferno was the only person who argued against the consensus, on the basis that he 'owned' the article and that he was the person who made the decisions on what was fact, based on bands he did and did not like. All of this can be seen in the archives.

Version B has since been posted for around a month now, and has recieved a much higher number of hits than the previous article. Comments have also been made about its comphrensiveness, and whenever it has found an issue with someone misunderstaning, or another article mentioning it, myself or another editor has contributed to the article to explain this. Such incidents being the problem withe term 'Faggoth', the splitting of the list of bands, and album links.

Danteferno now proposes after a lengthy absence that the article is wrong, and that only a version that he claims as 'his' was ever right. He proposes 'he' rewrites the article, to be the same as Version A. I asked Dante why we should do this, as did Parasti, and we were hurled with abuse, personal attacks, and harrasment, forcing requests for Mediation and Abbirattion. Consensus as such was reached in that Version B, although not RFA material, is actually accurate and fair, and shows what the genre and scene is. Danteferno however still proposes the version C and demanded another consensus, hence the RFC.

My question is, if version A was correct, then why has consensus been reached twice that version B should remain. And if version C is going to repeat version A, which was determined twice by conesnus as wrong, would there be any reason to post version C?

I await comments from other users on this matter, as i myself, am at a loss, and also tired of getting nothing constructive from Danteferno, hence the case of Abbirittion and Mediation. Perhaps another user will get more sense and reason from discussion with him. Leyasu 07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the matter is that Leyasu made a revised page adding unsourced claims and info; the original had proper citations for most vital info, but to Leyasu the information and citation was "POV". He never fully explained this, and now the article is completely misleading.

Danteferno still says this despite consensus being reached twice that the current version is the factually accurate one, and that Version A needed rewriting.

To be brief (but not going over everything)

1. The article states symphonic metal was derived from gothic metal. This is untrue, and the original version of symphonic metal (before Leyasu changed it) reflects that as well.

Consensus was also reached on changing the Symphonic Metal article, using the sources Dante provided to support his argument.

2. The article begins by stating that the genre started in Europe; this is also untrue; and later on, the article contradicts itself when stating that American bands from the 1980s played a part in its beginnings. Type O Negative's first album was from 1991, a few years before many well-known gothic metal bands in Europe would release their albums, and TON were also an influence for European bands. Leyasu thinks that they are "gothic doom" and belong in a separate category, but users that include myself, Idont havaname and Sn0wflake (see Leyasu's talk page) told him/her that gothic metal and gothic doom are essentially the same thing, regardless of TON'S "genre".

This is because the genre did start in Europe. Dante, also has expressed clear regard that he doesnt care about a bands music, they are the genre they wish them to be. (See archives). Also, many genre articles mention the influences that came before the genre, that doesnt mean the genre started then.

3.The article reads like someone's personal opinion, is very unclear in the way things are described (no examples for claims on the way gothic metal "sounds"), and doesn't seem to be in encylopedic reading format.

Consensus was reached twice that this was untrue, with Dante being the only person who claims this.

4. Moonspell are not from Scandinavia (see "Beginnings")

This was copied from the original revision that Dante claimed was his. As i and user Parasti said earlier, a minor error can be fixed with a minor edit, and doesnt justify a whole rewrite. Would you rewrite a whole FA due to a spelling mistake?.

5. Various Gothic Metal bands that were removed from the list by Leyasu, including Lake of Tears, Charon and TiamaT, simply because he/she does not want them there.

This is also untrue, when the only one of these bands music im not fond of is Tiamat. This is a personal attack and by Wikipedia's rules, is unacceptable.

Leyasu has been doing this with other Wikipedia articles, and has been treating other Wikipedia editors with similar disrespect, and one just needs to read his talk page to see that these same problems are going on elsewhere. IMHO, Leyasu has seldom (if never) been "constructive", and there was never concensus on this discussion - users on his talk page hinted him of that as well. Danteferno 10:07 18 January 19 (UTC)

At one point, the Cradle of Filth article was deleted by an anymonous user and replaced with 'Cradle are fags!!!', which i reverted as Vandalism. Dante has claimed that me reverting such edits are me vandalising the page, when in fact im the one, who amongst other users, has reverted these forms of edits. Also, if my talk page is checked, most all of the users who have come into contact with me, of only ever differed over methods of editing, such as how to merge a page, or the way to format it. Minor issues almost all editors come into discussion about at some point.

This is a prime example of untrue personal attacks, and fits well with Dante's earlier claim during the second consensus that 'nobody on Wikipedia likes me'. As since, i am indeed involved in dispute over two more articles, Alternative Metal and Metal music with the perfectly good editor WesleyDodds/Aj Ramierz, with our conflict simply a differing view of how to go about things, and i dont remember us at any point flaming each other or making personal attacks, as Dante has done with me. Again, i wait for comments from other users, bearing in mind twice conesnsus has been reached against Dante's revision. And that Abbirrition and Mediation both had to be requested against him. Leyasu 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. My recommendation at this point is to pick one single page change that is in dispute, such as "Did the genre start in Europe", and to discuss each one individually, being sure to cite sources. For example, when on this page someone says that "consensus was reached", it would be wise to link to the page and section that proves this. I have to admit that I'm also having some difficulty telling which paragraph here is by which person, so I would recommend keeping replies short (no more than one paragraph) and being careful to sign each one with four tildes: ~~~~. Elonka 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Elonka, I would like to extend sincere thanks for your intervention in this discussion! :)

Starting with "Did the genre start in Europe?", here is one source that talks of Goth(ic) Metal's history:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:11955

This summary reflects that the genre started in both Europe and the U.S. almost simultaneously (but further back connections in the U.S.). In addition, it confirms Type O Negative as being a gothic metal band (not "gothic doom", or whatever) and that they belong in the gothic metal category, which was a topic of further discussion, because they were segregated in the article as being "gothic-doom" as if there was a difference (there isn't, and this had been discussed a bunch of times here.) Since the history is already discussed in the article (the article just contradicts itself at the beginning) I await feedback from others.---Danteferno 18:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is some sources that say what i have said:

• The first link
• Second link

Also, if Gothic-Doom and Gothic Metal were the same, you wouldnt have pages such as this one that list a difference. Nor would the bands work in two independent scenes, with the two fan bases and music scenes being independent of each other. Leyasu 19:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am still trying to drill down to one of the core disagreements here. Is it correct to state that everyone agrees that "Type O Negative" is one of the originators of a goth genre of music, but that there is dispute on whether their style was "Gothic Metal" or "Gothic Doom"? Elonka 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Type O Negative didnt originate anything to do with the Gothic Metal scene, because they are not part of it. They did heavily help contribute to part of the Gothic-Doom scene, but they are not part of the Gothic Metal scene.

The Gothic-Doom scene and the Gothic Metal scene are somewhat independent of each other. The Gothic-Doom scene is a somewhat mish mash of fans from the Gothic Metal, Doom Metal and Gothic Rock scenes, that support bands that play a combination of these three forms of music, Type O being one of them. The fans of this tend to intergrate themselfs into the three scenes, whilst not being a core part of any of them.

Gothic Metal has evolved and grown its scene completely independently, growing more in on itself in contrast to expanding its reach. Its a very specific genre, and its scene is very self centered, and disliking of the Goth Metal name often given to Gothic-Doom bands, due to the confusion it creates between itself and the Gothic-Doom scene.

Musically, the differences are explained in the article. Which clearly shows the difference between the two forms, Gothic Metal and Gothic-Doom being quite different from each other. Musical Fact says this. You wouldnt say Hip Hop and R&B are the same thing due to them having the same origins. Nor would you for any of the forms of metal.

On the subject of TON, they may have influenced some bands. However, the progenitors of the Gothic Metal genre have claimed no influence from them, and the only bands that have claimed influence from them has been the Gothic-Doom scene. As such, with the fact that the two scenes are seperate, and work mostly independently of each other apart from conjunctions in the music industry, there is no reason, or musical reasoning, behind any claim that Type O Negative are Gothic Metal, let alone them creating it. Leyasu 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Leyasu. Could you please also list some sources for this viewpoint? Not fansites, but actual books or articles which say this? I also recommend reading the Wikipedia guide on original research, to assist you when you cite sources. Thanks. Elonka 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There isnt really any on the scene that havent been produced by people in the Gothic-Doom or Gothic Metal scenes. This is what i mean about the scene being so in on itself, it cuts of most media connection as well. Its true that Gothic-Doom is often seen as Goth Metal, and is a lot more popular, but that is through no fault of either scenes nor bands in either. One is outgoing, the other is introverted. Finding sources as websites for either point is hard, books and articles is almost a wild goose chase. The only thing i can really offer at hand, is the advice of immersing one's self in the two scenes for a while, as sadly, that is the only truley effective way to understand. Dont take that as me being annoying, im not, im simply stating their is a lack of sources for either argument, so, yeah. Leyasu 20:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)