Metamagician3000 (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 447: | Line 447: | ||
: Neutrility in POV means representing ALL the Points of View fairly, without taking side to any one of them, or giving preference to any one of them. Thus deleting specific POV's from the article and leaving others in, leads to a biased article. Thus, if a statement is aggresive, attacking, or otherwise unencylcopedic, the object is to word it to explain its POV, without attacking anybody else. I do not think Mdwh or yourself are trying to make a bad article, im trying to explain to you the way your going about it is a little backwards. [[User:Leyasu|Leyasu]] 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
: Neutrility in POV means representing ALL the Points of View fairly, without taking side to any one of them, or giving preference to any one of them. Thus deleting specific POV's from the article and leaving others in, leads to a biased article. Thus, if a statement is aggresive, attacking, or otherwise unencylcopedic, the object is to word it to explain its POV, without attacking anybody else. I do not think Mdwh or yourself are trying to make a bad article, im trying to explain to you the way your going about it is a little backwards. [[User:Leyasu|Leyasu]] 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
||
::I can see it's going to be hard to get agreement on this. Meanwhile, I've reworded some of it, yet again, purely for style and "flow". I think that it's still a bit clumsy, but I don't want to do too much while you guys are debating what ideas should be there. The sentence about goths not necessarily engaging in verbal and physical attacks seeems particularly odd, since it implies that they ''do'' sometimes do these things. I doubt that that was intended. I'm going to leave it alone for now, because any further attempt to reword it will probably cause more problems than it solves while this debate is going on. [[User:Metamagician3000|Metamagician3000]] 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:14, 4 February 2006
Changes
Made a General rewrite. Removed some stuff on gothic novel to gothic novel section and music to gothic rock and rewritten it so it is more about what arguments over nature of goth music than descriptive. Restored section on etymology which I think is important to prevent confusion. Added section on goth philosophy.
Machenphile 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a good article IMHO. I've just done a complete copyedit without arguing with any facts. One stylistic point I'm not sure of (I'm not familiar enough with wikipedia's house style) is whether the word "goth" and its cognates should be capitalised, or in what circumstances. The article is currently quite inconsistent about this. Someone who thoroughly knows the house style should go through and clean up this small point. Metamagician3000 01:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think the whole article needs a rework. It's pretty overloaded and includes multiple topics which have their own articles. Also there's a fair amount of weaseling going on, what with all those "some claim," "some authorities," "voices in the community" and stuff. I did some minor modifications, but I just don't have the patience for this. For every change we do ten goths are going to come around and change it back because "that's just not how it REALLY is."
- Really, I think the best would be to remove most accounts on current philosphy, religion and self image. Goth culture is a subculture, and as such simply changes too rapidly to give an accurate description of these topics without losing neutrality, which is already happening. Lingua should stay, but less authorative, because the use of the term is evolving after all. But on everything else cut the article down a notch or two, reduce it to known historical facts and common parlance, and cite resources and links by goths for goths. That's the best way of avoiding a subculture war like the "black metal vs. goth" thingy that has been mentioned farther below. --Stephan, 4th February 2006
Changes
I think that this entire article needs to be re-organized. There are already articles on gothic liturature, and gothic music. We should summarize both of these sections or combine them with the other already existing articles.
This article should be about the Goth subculture, its history, and what it is today. It should talk more about what gothic culture really is, and the sterotypes that oppose it.
This article is just becoming a mess of information, a lot of which doesn't particualarly apply to the topic. (the subculture) --Whatcanuexpect 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
"Many goths believe in open-mindedness, diversity, and the clarity of thought that gives rise to truthfulness." Is it me, or is this declaration a little to vague and broad? What supports this statement? From what can we assume a "clarity of thought that gives rise to truthfulness? Which members of the Gothic subculture have exercised thier massive powers of intellect to uncover truth like Plato or Einstein did? I think this phrase is a little to heavy to be attributed to the Gothic Subculture. Entropy Rising 02:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
"In recent years, the word Goth has often been used to describe a wider social group of youths. These might include people with a tendency to wear black clothes, listen to Death Metal or wear goth-style make up. Often, those labelled as Goths lack many of the characteristics historically associated with the subculture, and are sometimes called mallgoths." The major social group of goths, or "mallgoths" are usually linked with nu-metal, not death metal. Explain where this proof of gothic like youths listening to death metal comes from. Thanks. ~ Ryan
Shouldn't the band Typo O Negative be mentioned when discussing 90's goth music? Jason
Shouldn't Nine Inch Nails be gothic? --Cyberman 06:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC) :)
No, Jason, and no, Cyberman, neither were Gothic music, although I've heard Nine Inch Nails called Industrial music, which isn't quite accurate either. Type O Negative is a Heavy Metal band.
- Wow, i was jacking around back in july. Seriously though, Type O Negative should be classified gothic. I'm sure they classify themselves gothic, either way the song gothic girl was pretty interesting to attribute. --Cyberman 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cyberman (and others), the Gothic Scene isn't quite as variant as this article would suggest. While most movements have questionable and fringe members (sometimes outnumbering the serious community), Goth can be usefully oversimplified as having three outjuts: The Goth Rock Short List (Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, Cure), Ethereal/Darkwave Goth (4AD label stuff: This Mortal Coil, Dead Can Dance, His Name is Alive, and some Projekt label stuff), and Harder Goth (Kleopatra label stuff: Christian Death, Alien Sex Fiend, etc.).
- The bands mentioned on the short list that was originating and central, while This Mortal Coil took Goth in a new direction, being softer music and a focus on instruments not typical to Rock and Roll. Harder Goth often merged with Punk and Metal soundwise, choosing to alloy rather than continue to diverge. [anonymously septembervirgin, oka: september]
This entry on Goth youth needs editing to fit wikipedia's NPOV policy.
- Which part? user:Montrealais
I think this entry makes a good effort at being unbiased considering how much emotion people have invested in the notion of gothness. However, I think it could benefit by giving as much attention to gothic values (like individualism and creativity) and aesthetics as it does to gothic appearance and music. -- Frank
I think a standard is needed on Goth vs. Gothic. And why is Goth capitalized? I would go for 'goth music' rather than 'Goth music' or 'gothic music', to avoid confusion with other meanings of 'gothic' , and because I think the capitalization is inappropriate. However, I note that both goth and Goth are common outside of Wikipedia. Anyone have a good reason to capitalize? -- Olof
Anyone know where the word "goth" originates from? Goth in the gothic sense I mean, it seems to have little to do with historical Goths. --BL
From gothic novel, from gothic architecture, which also has little to do with historical Goths.
Actually, gothic subcultural in the early 80s was all about heavily devoted catholics express their devotion to god in ways generally unaccepted by the masses. This expression was often much darker in style, similiar to the more midieval eras of art and architecture. The term gothic was borrowed from the visigoths whom quickly accepted the newly froming christianity with the descent fo the roman culture. It became gothic, often said borrowed from the idea of gothic cathedrals, in that whole generations would work on a church they would die before ever completing just to show the devotion to god. More modern times the last two letters has been dropped, which is quite appropriate as now days their are goddless individuals who claim to be follow the subculture they are ignorant about. However, it is also often, and more so modernly, pulled from the fascination of death from the victorian era. Many people misconceive the darker expressions of gothic as that of evil, when it really has nothing to do with it. Darkness represcents obscurity, the unkown, mystery, and to some extent chaos. Evil is all about malicious intent, especially in christian based faiths, which is not tied to darkness in any way.
" Ultimately, the question is not "can a Christian be Goth?", but rather "can a radical atheist be Goth?". "
>The subculture comprised mainly of of disaffected intellectuals
Intellectuals? Who are you trying to kid? This is far too broad and weighted a claim, and contradicts the stereotype fallacy that is later on (rightly) criticised as being misleading. Claiming goth was founded by a collection of intellectual nihilists (as is suggested) is pure hyperbole. The only solid factual claim you can really make here would be to say the movement arose as an offshoot of the punk movement, but composed a darker and perhaps more feminine aesthetic.
More androgynous aesthetic, I believe, would be proper. Androgynous implies bearing characteristics of both genders. The word "androgynous" and "flamboyant" have both been terms used to describe heterosexual pop performers who wear women's clothing and/or makeup, but the term flamboyant would not be very helpful to describe Gothic clothing and makeup as it also connotates playful and happy.
- I expect you're right, Mr. Birchtree. I'm impressed again by your writing. Is this a complete rewrite? The "diff" function couldn't cope with your second set of changes at all... I hope you didn't remove any valid information! By the way, that strange "[[eo:]]" that you removed was an interlanguage link, to the Esperanto article on the same subject. Best not to remove them. :) -- Oliver P. 12:40 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Points noted, thanks for that. I didn't know about the 'eo:' function. It's a complete rewrite, which was perhaps a touch arrogant of me, but I'm convinced this entry is much better and avoids the usual circular, nonsensical debate and definitions which surround the term. All factual information from the previous entry (band names, celebrities, dates etc.) have been preserved. the general thesis of subjectivity and terminological problems is original. -- Birchtree.
- Okay. In that case, well done! I'm not entirely sure about the opening, though. "Goth is a term too-often more easily defined by what it is not, rather than what it is"... Yikes - you've got the reader baffled right from the start! Is there no way you can sum up at least some of what is meant by the term, in a way that won't confuse people, before mentioning the ideas about what it isn't, and whether or not the word should be capitalised...? -- Oliver P. 17:11 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)
Hrm. Maybe. Part of the intrigue of the term (I feel) is it's very tendency to shrug off definition though, so the opening paragraph is supposed to introduce the difficulties of defining the concept. I should add a link to 'not goth' there since that's its sister entry. Perhaps the paragraph that talks about the stereotype would better work as an introduction, but it's a bit of a flat opener... Also, how do you datestamp your entries?
- Ah. I see that defining a term for a movement that doesn't like being defined could be a problem. :) I can't really suggest a way of improving the opening, since I know about as much about the goth movement as I do about marmalade consumption in 19th century Russia, so I'll leave it in your hands; after all, you're the expert. ;)
- I was amused by the way you managed to wangle a mention of Wittgenstein into the article, in your somewhat ranty paragraph about Spooky Kids, but I see it was removed in Martin's NPOVing. Perhaps you could slip Wittgenstein's philosophy into the article on Spooky Kids, if you ever do one. ;) Incidentally, is there a difference between a "Mansonite" and a "Spooky Kid"? If not, then only one term needs to be linked. (Or perhaps the descriptions could just be added to the Marilyn Manson article.) -- Oliver P. 04:02 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
Heh. Perhaps it did slide into something of a rant, though I still feel the point is relevent to the topic. I may well do an article on Mansonites next. I've just covered Wellie Wanging and the Dynamo Open Air Festival... The world's my oyster, eh? ;) -- Birchtree
Ugh.
I really dislike this article as it stands (though I don't know that what preceded it was any better. It's definately biased towards a deconstructionist view. The main problem I have with the article is that by conflating different strands of goth, it gets in the way of providing information.
For example, the article makes a great deal of how "Goth is an entirely subjective term". Indeed. In this respect it is like many, many other words. Yet this point is deemed so important we get several paragraphs going on and on about it, and in pretty negative terms. Martin
I think you're right to edit it into a more informative structure, so I generally like what you're doing here. The original article wasn't meant to sound at all 'negative' (in a derogatory sense). Which parts did you feel were negative? --Birchtree
- "Following the theories of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, one has to recognise that if a word is being used in a certain way by a community of people, then that makes a legitimate claim to its general meaning".
- That sort of comment is making some fairly strong assertions. I've met dozens of people who vehemently defend the idea that words have specific meanings independent of how the words are applied in practice. The article seemed to just reject the views of such people as not only wrong and misguided (wasting their time), but dangerous (causes more harm than good). That came across as pretty negative.
- That's not to say that there isn't some truth in what you're saying. It is clear that different people have used the word "goth" in vastly different ways, and the article is right to explore that (while remembering that wikipedia is not a usage guide). However, these differences in opinion have to be presented in a fair way, and I don't think the article does this. Martin
The Gun Club as goth? Looks-wise, yes, music-wise, no...
- Psychobilly crossover of the early 1980s did in fact rate them, even if they would have been revolted by the notion themselves. You know what these teenage notagoths are like. - David Gerard 13:12, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
There's a link to Visigoth that leads to a page on the Visigoths, not modern "goths." Is visigoth actually used to describe a type of goth, or should the link be removed? Sethoeph 23:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say remove it. —Morven 03:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's about the subculture, so I've redone the origins section focusing on the current subculture as its origins are: from UK punk through post-punk and US death rock. The stuff I've shoved into 'other influences' was accreted along the way, as I recall.
I've listed Hodkinson as a reference. Note this is a work of sociology, should we have need to get all technical and stuff about the process of subculture.
(I'm not a sociologist. I have been a goth interested in this sort of thing since 1982 and a music journalist popular culture commentator on and off since 1985, so excuse me if I think I know a thing or two about the subject.)
By crikey, I need to get Pete Scathe interested in editing this article. And Paul Hodkinson. And Sexbat ... - David Gerard 13:12, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
The picture should be changed -- at least the blurb. Medieval style? Who is being fooled with that? Also, spiked collars, while occasionally worn, aren't traditionally gothic fashion: that's more punk rock. A picture from the 'zine called Ghastly might serve.
(from my talk page)
Good changes on Goth. —Morven 16:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- You wait. I have hardly begun to ramble. Just see what happens if I draft any other twenty-year veterans ... - David Gerard 19:21, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it hasn't happened till now. Of course, I've witnessed the spectacle of several twenty-year veterans utterly disagreeing with each other on the whole lot, so ... —Morven 20:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- As Hodkinson's book amply demonstrates, if you ask any two goths you'll get four opinions, and those who've been in twenty years can give you ten without drawing breath. (As discovered during one entertaining round of "bait the sociology undergrad.")
- I expect Pete Scathe's said what he has to say on his site, which should be digested into the page if anyone wants to get to work on that. Sexbat and Hodkinson may be talked into it (Hodkinson's an academic, but he doesn't seem to have gotten pompous yet ;-). Now, if we could just talk Mick Mercer into visiting ... - David Gerard 21:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Now, if we could just talk Mick Mercer into visiting ... - Gods, what a scary thought!! Actually, the problem with getting MM involved is that he can hardly be said to hold an entirely NPOV. Whick Mick himself would acknowledge. Yes, he would have a great deal to offer - but we'd all have to dash around afterwards tidying it up into NPOV. Arkady Rose 15:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Nah, that wouldn't be a problem. I suspect the problem would be that he would probably prefer to be paid for writing, however ... - David Gerard 17:14, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
One suggestion to improve this article would be to edit it to be more expository rather than intriguing, especially in teh beginning. Consider this paragraph:
"The term is often more easily defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. This, coincidentally enough, goes hand-in-hand with its nihilistic associations. The word is variously capitalized. Its uses are manifold; to describe something as 'goth' is to confer praise or derision, notoriety or obscurity, worth or dismissal, depending on one's opinion of the matter. Goth is a term tied closely to identity and personal expression, and as such leads to debate."
Doesn't tell us much. Might be an interesting ending comment, but it suggests self-obsession rather than explanation ("people love me or hate me...")
A more informative lead would be along the lines of the paragraph that follows, though this too degenerates into personal feelings with the comment, "Others protest that these categories are stereotypical and generally cause more harm than good."
- DWS, 30 March, 2004
Expanded the section on the Gothic novel since there can be little doubt thats where the orginin of gothic as applied to goths comes from. I would think it should be at the top myself. Not sure about the number of references to Gothic architecture in the article which has very little to do with goth if you ask me.
Machenphile May 23
Some points not present in the article and possibly of interest: h2g2 on Goth (about music genres, et cetera) With a Sledgehammer (about individualism)
I think at least the medieval genre should be mentioned in the article as it is a very dominant sub-genre that oftenly intermixes with other ones (at least in Germany).
-80.135.215.163 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Per country?
Here's a gross overgeneralisation: the UK contributions to this page tend to the specific (in terms of a subculture with a clear and known history) whereas the US ones tend to airy-fairy "goth is a state of mind and it was invented by drug-addicted poets" stuff - which shows less clear or known history. Should we separate the subcultural history by country? Is it even documented in the US the way it is in the UK? (Several Mercer books, the Hodkinson book and a few others.) - David Gerard 14:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I haven't seen such documentation, at least. As an import to the US I don't know the older history here, though, but I do know a bunch of old goths and deathrockers who might be able to reveal more or point in the right direction.
- I do think the page should point out that, no matter how much goths TODAY might (or might not) feel that goth is a state of mind associated with drug-addled poets, that's not the origin of the subculture. The subculture came first; obviously, a subculture has to have some shared aspects, concepts, states of mind etc. but goth was not a philosophy. The drug-addled poets were co-opted later on a somewhat dubious 'I bet if these people were alive today they'd be goth' basis. Or on the 'Everything goths like is goth' basis. Such back-formations, adoptions and co-options should of course be noted (they are, after all, very much part of (some aspects of) the modern scene) but the facts of such assimilation should be also noted. —Morven 21:28, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)
- "Goth is a state of mind" is the mantra of kids who want to label themselves "goth" without listening to the music. ;-) This article is far too indecisive about what goth is/isn't: "oh, well, a lot of people think this, but some people think the exact opposite, and others would have thought this and that but they died 2,500 years ago", etc.. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 21:40, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)
- I just tried to de-fluff it a bit more. But those kids' POV has to be in there too ;-) - David Gerard 22:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Intro
I added the "nice boots" bit to see how long it will last. It's still less worse than the previous intro. I invite better attempts.
You realise what we're faced with here, don't you. We have to come up with an intro that is concise, inclusive, fits most national variations, is in inverted-pyramid form and, hardest of all, conforms to NPOV without being festooned with weasel words. *shudder* - David Gerard 20:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Just seen it, via stumbling from mediaeval lingustics and the Voynich Manuscript to Beowulf to Caedmon to Whitby. I had you spotted instantly. Amusing but it does not fit the tone. It ought to go, I fear. Liam Proven 01:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It's still better than what was there. I urge you to come up with a better alternative rather than simply deleting.
- I picked up my copy of Hodkinson to see if there was something usable there. He weasels out of providing one too. Dammit! - David Gerard 20:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Oh, I haven't deleted anything! And, as I said, it's amusing. I'm thinking, but it's not the sort of article I've been writing here (or in print) at all... (Also getting the hang of quoting. I hope.) Liam Proven 11:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Indeed. That's why I'm somewhat appalled it's still there.
- By the way - what is goth? - David Gerard 13:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Democracy in action. Innit wonderful?
- And the only answer I can give you to that is probably "mu". Liam Proven 02:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
evolution
The goth movement has certainly been going for a long time, and shows no sign of stopping. This owes much to its evolution, and the way this evolution has played out among the various scene factions, with a solid group preferring the movement's form during its beginning. Despite the latter group, the goth movement has grown to include a bewilderingly wide array of influences.
This notion of evolution was inpenetrable to me until I read it the fourth time. Rewritten for clarity, hopefully same sentiment retained. --Air 10:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arianism and barbarians
I reverted the following:
"Like most of the Germanic tribes that lived near the borders of the Roman Empire, the Goths were converted from "paganism" to Arian Christianity while the Roman Empire converted to Catholic Christianity. The latter considered the former to be heresy, further harming the Goths' image."
Back to this (though with a bit more clarification):
"Like most of the Germanic tribes that lived near the borders of the Roman Empire, the Goths were converted from "paganism" to Arian Christianity while the Roman Empire converted to Catholic Christianity. The latter considered the former to be heresy, not helping the barbarian association with the word 'goth'."
My reason for doing so is because the whole Arian heresy becomes irrelevant and therefore inappropriate without the barbarian association. Grice 10:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
changes needed
Does anybody else here feel that this page needs some serious revamping? Since there are already other pages that deal with gothic music (gothic rock, gothic metal, and so on), the section on gothic music, and the bands mentioned, should be moved to those pages while this page should focus on fashions, scenes, and interests. Grice 00:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Arian Christianity?
We in skandinavia (and we are a germanic tribe as well if anyone should be in doubt) have never had a religion called Arian Christianity. We were (sadly) converted to Catholicism, and later converted to protestantism. Besides, I have never heard of that religion before and neither of the legendary founder. It sounds like something from pseudo-scientific tv-show. So I think that the section about the arian christianty should be removed. (and the same goes for the whole arian christianity article)
- You are right that skandinavia was never converted to Arianism. However, the article never said skandinavians were converted to arianism. It said that the germanic tribes near the borders of the roman frontier (no where near skandinavia) were converted to arianism. It is especially well known that the ancient goths were arians when they invaded rome. Grice 11:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Right, just a few hundred years after the Nicene Creed!
Image
This article needs an image. It'd be easy to get, too. Neutralitytalk 22:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
GothicPedia
[GothicPedia[1]]
Anyone here interested? The Wiki for all things gothic (I guess, there's not much there at the moment)
- Since the GothicPedia shares the GFDL license, I suggest you start importing some articles and then look for contributors. :-) —Stormie 10:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Dispute: "Too much generalizing"
On 10:49, 14 Apr 2005 'Grice' removed the following additions I made to the 'Goth' Article. The reason listed was that it was "too much generalizing." Instead of deleting my work please review it and make corrections where there are errors (although based on the pretext I understand there weren't any) or expand on it to make it more specific. The additions I wrote are as follows:
Goth Philosophy
Although not a philosophical movement in most cases Goth culture as displayed by Goths (esp. teenagers) has some general conventions of philosophy. Generally speaking Goths share a negative outlook on established society, such as government institutions (sp. the Police and the education system) and other (non-Goth) aspects of popular culture; these are often viewed with contempt as being opposed to the 'dark', and specifically individualistic Goth movement.
Criticisms
Goths and Goth culture are often ridiculed as being overly melodramatic and individualistic; typically this criticism is bound together with general criticisms of the current generation (specifically extreme self-centeredness and over-abudance of spare time).
Please review the above articles and state your opinions on whether or not they are innapropriate for the 'Goth' entry. Thankyou.
- Are you referring to the external links provided by user 80.135.215.163? The first one, the BBC article on goth seems a bit oppinionated and preachy. It does contain some small facts of interest though, such as goth being ridiculed by the British press in the late 80's and early 90's, which is why I left the external link to it on the main page alone. The second link about "individualism" provided by user 80.135.215.163 was a dead link, but if your Criticism paragraph was an accurate summary of what was in that link, I don't think we are missing much. As for why I removed your contributions completely instead of fixing them up is because I haven't found anything salvagable in them. The so called "goth philosophy" as described by your recent edits (dislike of the police, government institutions, education system) can be said of many other youth cults that existed between now and the mid 20th century and are far more prevailent in other youth cults such as punk rock and rap. As someone who had been listening to both punk and what is labeled "goth" for many years, such philosophies are virtually non existent in contrast to punk. Keep in mind how much the goth scene confused music journalists when it first became visible, how they labeled it "positive punk" compared to punk groups like Crass or the Exploited (the goth thing certainly was much more positive than those groups and very apolitical). I do not see much evidence of any unified philosophy in goth. There are many disagreements on politics, religion, and philosophy among people within the scene. The only thing that keeps them lumped together are similar tastes in music and fashion. I do not feel that wikipedia should be used as a medium to promote any particular point of view on what "goth" is about or what they supposedly believe. I think it should simply stick with the facts as best as it can. On the issue of "individualism", I think that is a controversial claim. It is certainly true that this describes many of the pioneers of the goth scene, since many did not consider themselves goths, on the other hand, I think it is disputable whether those who consiously label themselves a "goth" are truly "individualistic". Basically, the "goth philosophy" paragraph looked like a strawman to be attacked by the "criticism" that came after it, a criticism that made some rather bold assertions. Many in "this generation" were not even born yet when the goth scene first came about, so what does their supposedly "extreme self-centeredness and over-abudance of spare time" have to do with goth? The source sounds rather jaded and bitter and says more about them than about "goth" or "this generation".Grice 12:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed the South Park goth image
This is a copyrighted image. While copyrighted images can be used under the Fair Use doctrine under United States law, I don't think any good argument can be made for this here. If this article was on South Park, or that specific episode, it might be defensible, but it is not here. In any case, nobody even made an argument to consider it so.
Besides, is an image from a satirical cartoon show really the best representation of Goth that can be thought up? I don't think so. —Morven 10:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
photos of goths
out of the current four images, i'd argue that only the first and third could be described as goth. unfortunately, they're not very helpful given the fact that the subject in both is facing away. come on, there has got to be some proper goth cam whores out there who would be willing to supply suitable (preferably professionally taken) images of stereotypical goth attire. --MilkMiruku 21:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Removed two links.
I removed the following two links from the External Links section:
These don't seem to be important to the Goth movement as a whole. They were probably added by the webmasters of those sites for cheap promotion. --Josh, October 19, 2005, 4:22 AM EST.
Vampire Freaks is just a dating site. There is no importance to the goth movement on there. Thanks for deleting it. TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mick Mercer, on the other hand, has an argument to be here. One may very well have issues with what he writes, but fact is he's one of very few people to have published books on the gothic scene. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Mall Goth redirected
I redirected Mall Goth to here. The Afd was closed as "no consensus" but several people suggested a merge to here, so it seems a reasonable compromise. I have not merged any content- it was all original research. If this article wants to talk about "mall goths", hopefully some sources can be found. Friday (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Added Morbid Outlook as link, alphabetized language sidebar
I'm not a goth, but I hope this link is okay for this article. User:Greatgavini, 6 November 2005
Goth State of Mind?
I'm trying to get some opinions from other people. I believe goth is really a state of mind and doesn't depend on the way you dress. Others say I am wrong and dress is what cotributes to it. I'm constantly arguing with people because they say that if you dress in Tripps and Morbid clothing you are goth. I'm trying to prove that isn't true. Anyone care to help with my protest? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Demonican
- Unfortunately the goth subculture is tied deeply into fashion, since it developed around bands like the Cure, Bauhaus, and Siouxsie & the Banshees that had distinctive, identifiable looks. I wouldn't say that being a goth is all about the clothes one wears, but it can't simply be said that goth is merely a "state of mind". WesleyDodds 04:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The goth state of mind and gothic fashions usually go hand in hand, though they don't always apply to one another. For example, there are plenty of people who dress in gothic styles because they think it looks "cool." On the other hand, there are people who dress "normal," yet they have the gothic mind-set. The gothic genre encompasses more than just those with the state of mind and/or style. ethernaut
Biased
The "Politically" section of this article is quite biased, either this section needs to be deleted, or edited
- If the source is the news and the police who actually made the allegations, there is no bias. direct facts without opinion cannot be biased. - as far as "Unsourced Claims" are concerned, I don't remember the exact news channel, but the New Brunswick RCMP sound like a source to me, what with them being the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and such. I'm not sure when police statements stopped being a source of information, particularly when the information is used to state what they said.
- This is also NOT original research, because it is regional information, and others in the area could easily acquire the information, from the police or the district or another source. The information may or may not apply to other countries because Moncton New Brunswick is in Canada. They made these claims to all of School District 2, and school District 2 is larger than the Moncton Area. However, The RCMP made their claims on a provincial basis, not a municipal basis, meaning they said this applies to all of New Brunswick, and is not a Municipal matter.
Of course the news can be biased. It wouldn't be biased to say "So-and-so made these allegations", but that's not what the section does. Currently, it presents the allegations as fact. Mdwh 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
What is Goth? This article doesn't answer that question.
I want to know what it is and means to be goth. This article only explains what goth is not. Can someone make some changes and explain what goth is? If goth has no underlying philosophy, but is only a style of dress and music, then that should be made clear. --Gavin 05:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Goth is (IMO, and in many others' opinion too) not just dress and music, but ever tried getting four goths into a room and trying to get them to agree what goth means? Tends not to work too well. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Definition is too narrow
This is a very strong entry in some respects but on the whole it is too skewed towards what some would refer to as 'trad goth' and, in general, it ends up conveying an over narrow, over exclusive definition. Purely by way of example, it strikes me as absurd to suggest so categorically that NIN are not goth, given the massive and sustained global popularity and influence this band has had upon the music and stylistic tastes and characteristics of goths for a decade and a half. Indeed I would imagine that, for many (and perhaps most) goths, Trent Reznor has been significantly more important as an influence than much of the literature which (rightly) is cited in the article. On a similar note, while it certainly is important to recognise differences between the goth scene in its more traditional sense and newer variations (whether in terms of EBM and synthpop or 'spooky kids' and 'emo'), it is surely equally important to note the extensive similarities and overlaps between these. Further, it should be acknowledged more prominently that there are fairly profound disagreements between different generations and indeed between different factions over the precise usage of the term. (Paul, 11 Jan 2006)
- It doesn't say that NIN aren't goth, it says that they aren't _musically_ gothic, which is a correct judgement on music genres - feel free to extend it to say how the bands have influenced the subculture in other ways. The related scenes such as cybergoth and spooky kids have their own articles. Mdwh 11:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Injustices??
Whilst no doubt some Goths do experience trouble at high school this seems a bit extreme. Hundreds of kids experience difficulty at high school. to me injustice would suggest being dragged away and beaten by police - not clashes between fashion groups
The Satan Stereotype
Just wondering to what extent this is a real stereotype. In the UK relatively few people would believe that Goths are satanists - though it is something of a tongue-in-cheek running joke. the satan thing gets mentioned a lot in the article so perhaps this is different, or more serious in the states? or maybe the stereotype has dampened in recent years as the mallgoth subculture has become more dominant amoungst young people.
Also - not sure to what extent it would be relevent to the article, but should there be a section dealing with criticisms of the subculture? I say this because Goth criticisms of other subcultures seem included on the site.
Sisters?
Just curious, would adding a reference to the Sisters of Mercy to the section on early goth music be appropriate, or does that belong in the goth music article? I'm not sure how in-depth this overall article should go. -Kasreyn 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
English Usage
I wasn't the one who deleted the English Usage section of this article, but I sort of agree that it seems frivilous to have it here. If people want a dictionary definition of what Goth is they can always check out the wiktionary. I feel this article would be better served if it simply focused on the subculture itself and not the use of the word.--Adrift* 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. :)
- I didn't write the section (though I did some style editing on it a few days ago). It seems to me that it discusses issues of usage that it would be easy for someone to screw up, so I think it's useful ... and harmless at worst. I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other, but I'd rather not see it deleted unless there's a consensus that way here on the talk page. If that turns out to be the feeling I'll be relaxed about it. I actually think is a pretty good article (I mean in structure, style, detail, relevant pics, etc., though I'm not able to judge it as an expert on the goth subculture). I wouldn't really want to see its content changed too drastically without discussion. Just my two cents. ... Metamagician3000 05:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Black metal
Even if there is some well known hatred between some members of the scene, "many goths dislike being compared to" is still weasel words, and creates an untrue image, in that most goths don't dislike the scene at all, and some may like black metal music; and there may be many goths and black metallers who happily mingle, or even people who consider themselves to be both.
If there is notable hatred between the scenes, then that's what should be documented, not "many goths dislike".
Also, was there a reason for reverting "misconception" to "perception"? I don't see how the goth subculture can be considered a religion in any form. Mdwh 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- First i changed many to some, someone else changed it back - its a comprimise between editors.
- Second, i reworded what i put as to better explain what i was trying to elaborate on, as you raised the issue of misunderstaning, i respect that and consciously work harder to better show the meaning. Leyasu
- (Edit) I forgot to mention that the intention of non of the editors editing this is to create weasel words or a maligned article. The issue itself is a sore one and trying to play to all pov is a hard thing to do. If you have suggestions, please raise a view on what the problem is, and propose a soloution for by which the editors mainly editing the page can work together to better the article. Leyasu 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, my first suggestion is the edit I made;) My second suggestion is that if hatred between the scenes exists, then examples of this is what should be documented (I can't do it myself, as I've never experienced any dislike between the two; only the usual "it's annoying to get mistaken for another scene"). I'm not sure which change you mean by "i changed many to some, someone else changed it back"?
- Any thoughts on "misconception" vs "perception"? I still don't see it is a valid perception to say that the subculture is a religion. Mdwh 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- When you say misconception you imply that one party is right and that the other is wrong. Thus saying a perception of X, Y, and Z groups of T Subculture is due to A, B and C reasons.
- The Black Metal scene and Goth scene have a strong hatred of each other. The Black Metal scene even has an insult towards the Goth and Gothic Metal scenes known as 'faggoth', mentioned in both the Black Metal and Gothic Metal articles. Leyasu 00:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, the black metal scene and goth scene do not have a "strong hatred of each other." First off, they are scenes, not thinking beings. It's not possible for a scene to hate another scene, because intellectual constructs are not capable of thinking. More importantly, just because some elements of a scene dislike some elements of another scene, does not mean *EVERYONE* (or even most people) in a scene feels the same way. The statement seems a bit absurd to me on the face of it since I have been involved in both the goth scene and the black metal scene and have never really seen this supposed mutual hatred. --Jakob Huneycutt 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- But the claim that goth subculture is some kind of religion is wrong. Perhaps there is a better word than "misconception", but "perception" is certainly unsuitable as it implies that it is a valid and reasonable point of view. Mdwh 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, I don't find the section about satanic imagery to be factual. What satanic imagery? I'm sure a few goths wear stuff that could qualify, but it's not exactly prevelant, so why even have that statement in the article at all? --Jakob Huneycutt 00:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree - in fact, it originally said that it was unfashionable, but was changed recently by Leyasu. Perhaps that should be reverted, though I feel that the entire sentence about satanic imagery and black metal would be better off deleted. It doesn't really say anything useful anyway, and it's not going to be easy coming to an agreed conclusion. Mdwh 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok first, the black metal scene does have a strong hatred for it. The hatred is a lot more based from the black metal scene's self imposing view of itself, which other scenes tend to react to.
By scenes, i mean such things as musical genres, and the subcultutes that surround them, Goth being a scene.
For what i mean by satanic stuff. I mean prints, accessories. Clothing prints, wristbands, necklaces, and other such similar things. These are considered part of the fashion, rather than the religious elements. However, due to the wearing of these products, most people who do not understand their purpose have an expectation they associate with the object, and so assume that X person is part of Y group due to them wearing this object.
I understand my wording isnt exactly brilliant, so if you guys can make the point in more concise, clear and obviously less biased wording than me, i emplore you to do so please. But my edits were not in bad faith, and i apologise if i came across this way. Leyasu 00:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- It really has little to do with your wording. There is very little "satanic imagery" in the gothic subculture and it's not even clear what would qualify as "satanic imagery" in any case. And you seem to just be spouting out your own personal opinions on the black metal scene versus the goth scene, because I don't see any widespread "hatred" between members of the two. Certainly there are people in each scene that despise the other, but it's hardly like an epidemic or anything and there are people that belong to both scenes with virtually no conflict. I think the satanic imagary thing and the black metal versus goth scene thing should just be deleted unless someone can cite a legitimate source sustaining this because it sounds like "original research". --Jakob Huneycutt 01:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if i appear biased, partially because i am. My expertise lie in metal, not so much here. if i made a misconeption myself, then i apologise, but it seems these practices tend to vary from place to place. As for the Goth v Black Metal, i didnt mean it to come across that way. I just know Goths dislike being associated with the practices of black metal on the whole, and black metal see's Goths (and most everything as that matter), as inferior to itself. Meh, remove it if you want, i was just trying to elaborate further on something that was previously vague. Leyasu 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I guess it could be said that there are certain elements in goth fashion which are assumed to be "satanic" by the mainstream, when they are often just worn as part of the fashion. I think it's misleading to refer to it as "satanic imagery", as that implies that those elements genuinely are satanic. Mdwh 03:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think a better way of phrasing this would be "dark imagery (which goth undeiniably has) that is misconstrued as being satanic or evil". WesleyDodds 07:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Religious Elements Section Edit
I went ahead and reworded and reorganized the entire section. There were way too many problems with it, including several POV insertions, original research, out-of-place statements (it's about religious elements - black metal is completely irrelevant), poorly worded phrases, and to top it all off, the entire section lacked any form of coherent or rational structure. It could probably still use more improvement, but this is a lot better than what was there before (which failed to conform to Wikipedia standards in any case). --Jakob Huneycutt 05:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- The current version may not be perfect, but it's pretty good. Let's remove the tag. Metamagician3000 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Tensions between individuality and conformity
I think this needs rewriting, or possibly deleting. It's basically one big strawman attack - assuming that goths all want to be different to everyone else, and then attacking that idea. But this assumption simply isn't true.
- As someone recently edited in, though some may say they don't want to conform to mainstream culture, this doesn't imply they claim to not conform to anything. (And many goths don't talk about non-conforming anyway - they just like the subculture.) (As an aside, it's false to characterise goths as all listening to the same music.)
- As I understand it, individualism is about forming an individual moral and social philosophy rather than taking one from authority, and has nothing to do with this argument (not to mention that many goths don't identify with individualism anyway).
I've tried to fix it up - we should describe what the argument is (rather than suggesting it is actually a valid argument), and then explain why it doesn't apply. Mdwh 16:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- This article is about factual accuracy. Your argument seems extremely biased. The article is meant to reflect ALL POV, not just one. Thus, i suggest the paragraph be left as it was before, as it is now, it seems even more biased than it previously was. Leyasu 16:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, Wikipedia:NPOV is about presenting views neutrally, and not saying that "ALL POV" must be given. But anyway, I haven't removed the point of view, I've just made it clear that it is just a point of view, so I don't see how that's biased. As you say, factual accuracy is necessary - e.g., we can't say that goths' individualism is fake (that's biased pov), we can only say that people claim that.
- Which particular parts of my change do you think are biased? Do you claim that most goths do in fact claim to be different to everyone else? Mdwh 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- In ym experience, its one of their key assests; claiming they are different to everyone else. In the process of trying to be NPOV, youve gone about making things sound like your stating that Goths arent this or arent that.
- IN all honesty, the declaration of individuality is faux, for the reasons previously explained before you removed them: its called any Oxymoron.
- I think the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten, and that when i dont feel so fog headed, i can better show my meaning. I think youve accidently gone about making it seem like its part of the oxymoronic argument that Goths make, instead of making it more NPOV. Ill elaborate better after some sleep. Leyasu 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- "its one of their key assests; claiming they are different to everyone else" In my experience, this tends to be true only of a small minority - but a vocal one, and so one may be mistaken to believe it's true of most goths. (These goths tend to have the piss taken out of them by goths just as much as anyone else...) It's a pov unsupported by any evidence to suggest that most goths claim to be different to everyone else.
- And I'm not saying that we should say that this isn't true - just that we shouldn't claim it in the first place (or make it clear that it is just that - a claim).
- As I said, individualism doesn't appear to mean "being an individual entirely different to everyone else", especially when it comes to fashion or music tastes, so I don't see how it applies. Mdwh 19:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I totally agree with Mdwh and in fact, I was actually thinking about mentioning something about that section the other day. Mdwh is right - the entire section was one giant straw man. (But I haven't read over the edits yet - will do so sometime soon). --Jakob Huneycutt 19:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument has just contradicted yourself. Firstly you say In my experience, this tends to be true only of a small minority and then go onto say, just that we shouldn't claim it in the first place '. Firstly, its a statement of fact. Most people ridicule Goths based on these things, its as a reaction to their attitude, and their self proclaimed superiority and individual features. Im not debating the use of the term Individualism, im debating the fact your trying to rewrite the whole article, and in the process, your emitting POV's to essentially say 'Goths never do this, they are happy little people who are perfect, live in rainbows and keep frogs as pets'. I dont if this is your intention or not, but your seriously going about things the wrong way, and your coming off extremely biased towards one POV, and thats defending Goths from any criticism, and refusing to accept the fact the criticism they get is brought on by their own foolish and oxymoronic claims. Leyasu 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- You're not making any sense. Why would it be a contradiction to say that 'something only happens amongst a small minority' therefore, 'it shouldn't be given prominence in the article'. Mdwh is not coming off as biased at all. You're the one who seems to come off as biased, constantly asking for original research to be included in the article even while there's little evidence to sustain it, and then making statements that seem to reflect your own hostility to the subject matter (as your last sentence does). Wikipedia policy says that articles should be NPOV, so why do you keep insisting that deleting POV statements is a negative thing? In an article about Jews, do we have to keep in a section on 'Jews all being rich and greedy' because that constitutes one POV about them? That would seem a bit silly to suggest that. Mdwh has not tried to defend all goths from criticism. He/she is merely trying to make the article more neutral in its point of view. --Jakob Huneycutt 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neutrility in POV means representing ALL the Points of View fairly, without taking side to any one of them, or giving preference to any one of them. Thus deleting specific POV's from the article and leaving others in, leads to a biased article. Thus, if a statement is aggresive, attacking, or otherwise unencylcopedic, the object is to word it to explain its POV, without attacking anybody else. I do not think Mdwh or yourself are trying to make a bad article, im trying to explain to you the way your going about it is a little backwards. Leyasu 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- I can see it's going to be hard to get agreement on this. Meanwhile, I've reworded some of it, yet again, purely for style and "flow". I think that it's still a bit clumsy, but I don't want to do too much while you guys are debating what ideas should be there. The sentence about goths not necessarily engaging in verbal and physical attacks seeems particularly odd, since it implies that they do sometimes do these things. I doubt that that was intended. I'm going to leave it alone for now, because any further attempt to reword it will probably cause more problems than it solves while this debate is going on. Metamagician3000 23:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)