Talk:Goth/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Vote to prohibit anonymous edits

This article is frequently vandalized by anonymous users. This vote is a non-binding poll to determine the Wikipedia community consensus on prohibiting anonymous edits as a method to reduce vandalism. The results will be forwarded to the WikiMedia Board of Trustees as a recommendation. You can copy and add this comment to other talk pages to encourage others to vote. Click here to vote.

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?

Birchtree

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

I have to say that i've seen both of these things happen on a regular basis; however dressing as a goth is sure sign of a person labeling themselves into the subculture. Ancienterf 07:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Most I think would agree with "Goth is a modern subculture that first became popular during the early 1980s within the gothic rock scene, an offshoot of post-punk. It is associated with characteristically "gothic" tastes in music and clothing. Styles of dress range from death rock, punk, Victorian, androgyny, some Renaissance style clothes, a combination of the above, and/or lots of black attire, and makeup." - and it does seem to cover what it actually is, which is a very difficult task to do with a subculture of any sort, really. 82.21.236.235 10:24, 24 February 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)
Sounds good to me. I think the article is overall pretty decent to. So how long do we have to wait to get enough votes to remove it?--Adrift* 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Twenty days maybe. ;) Getting close. I think it's actually the least of our worries. Metamagician3000 12:44, 22 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)
As no one has objected, I'm going to remove the tag. Hopefully, this section is now reasonably acceptable to everyone even if it's not perfect. I really hope my optimism about this is not premature. Metamagician3000 23:21, 4 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)
The oxymoron here is, they claim they dont do them, and then immediatly after start doing it. Their perception is they dont do it, they are 'expressing their views' or however they chooose to term it. Regardless, attacking others, is still attacking others, no matter how it is dressed up. In intrests of NPOV, the phrase should reflect that Goths tend to claim they dont attack others and are 'open-minded', yet are percieved by many as being very close minded individuals who attack others the same way as they themselfs are attacked, without showing preference to either view point. Leyasu 23:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how I've contradicted myself. There's a difference between "Some people claim that goths have hypocritical views" (or whatever) and "People criticise goths because they have hypocritical views". NPOV means that any POV must be presented in the former manner - and even then, it's debateable that such a weasel-word statement is worth mentioning. NPOV does not mean that all POV should be presented as fact. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting everyone's POV, it's about presenting facts neutrally.
It is only a statement of fact that some people ridicule goths; it is not a statement of fact that their criticisms are true (i.e., that goths make "foolish and oxymoronic claims"). You have provided no evidence for these claims, which go against anything which I have personally experienced.
You claim "they claim they dont do them, and then immediatly after start doing it", yet you have no evidence for your claims.
You say: "In intrests of NPOV, the phrase should reflect that Goths tend to claim they dont attack others and are 'open-minded', yet are percieved by many as being very close minded individuals who attack others the same way as they themselfs are attacked" - I suspect that some goths are open minded and don't criticise others, whilst a small number do criticise people based on purely on dress, and perhaps a very small number claim to be open minded whilst criticising, and hence are being hypocritical. I'm not sure that's worth mentioning though. Mdwh 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the idea is to give a fair and factual representation of what the criticism is and then a fair and factual representation of what goths (typically) say in reply, while not taking sides on the issue ourselves. Can we all agree on that? If so, I'll have a go, later on, at rewriting the para, based on what I've read here rather than any knowledge of my own (whatever vaguely relevant expertise I have is in fantasy and horror, not the goth subculture as such). Then you can attack me from both sides (joke). Even if no one likes my version it might give us something better to work with and help focus just what is disagreed. Then again, it might not ...  ;) Metamagician3000 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Heres a suggestion. Provide evidence in your own claims yourself. As such, both points stand, and both should be in the article. Leyasu 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, how about both "sides" please consider my new version. As far as I can see, it states what the criticism is, what goths typically say in response - and notes that not everyone accepts that what they say is correct. I don't see how we can go any further than that. Anyway, it's offered in good faith in an attempt to meet everyone's concerns. Whether I've succeeded remains to be seen. Metamagician3000 02:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Meta, yes i agree with your proposal, it was what i was trying to make the other user realise is the purpose of NPOV. I apologise if you thought i was being a bitch towards you, as that wasnt my intention. Leyasu 02:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The change is good with me; this is the way that this sort of thing should be presented in my opinion. To Leyasu, I'm aware of the purpose of NPOV, and Metamagician3000's edits demonstrate this: it's about making it clear that these criticisms are claims made by a group of people, and not that these criticisms are based on fact. (And FWIW, I don't see this as "two sides", rather, it's one group making a claim that isn't supported by any evidence that I can see.) Mdwh 03:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Im suppoting what was already there. Your the one taking it out. Thus omen is on you to provide sources just as readily as it is me. Until you provide sources yourself, the lack of sources on my end, is not an argument that will overturn anyone. You cannot call others for something you do yourself, which is what you are doing, much like what you claim Goths never do. Leyasu 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
quoting from the article as it stands now "In any event, this criticism is based on a tension that frequently arises in human social structures and can clearly seen in all subcultures." This is completely true, and so would seem to make the issue a non-issue. I say get rid of it.--Adrift* 05:12, 5 February 2006
I didn't "take anything out", I merely changed it from being represented as fact, to being a claim which some people make. If you want to present something as fact in Wikipedia, then the burden is on you to back that up with evidence - it's not okay to include it without evidence just because I don't have evidence to the contrary. By that logic, you could stick in "Most goths are satanists" or "Most goths listen to Britney Spears" until someone provides evidence such as a poll or survey that this isn't true! This is just the same as "Most goths claim to be different to everyone else".
I also agree with Adrift*, I don't think there's anything notable to mention at all here, and it's just causing disagreement. Mdwh 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Metamagician3000, did you really intend the change where you added in "do not"? I can understand "goths do not want to be different to everyone else" and "few goths want to be different to everyone else", but "few goths do not want..." implies that most goths do want to be different to everyone else, which clearly isn't what the counter-argument is - that's what the original claim is! (Also the sentence is a bit confusing with that out-of-place comma.) Mdwh 16:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sounds like I made a word-processing mistake. I'll go and have a look at what it now says and I'll correct it if I can. Metamagician3000 04:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, what's there at the moment looks right to me. Maybe someone else has already corrected my error. :) Metamagician3000 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I think I can see what's happened. When I made my last edit, my brain somehow skipped over the word "few". That edit was actually unnecessary, I think, so my apologies. Someone has now correctly deleted the word "few", and it looks to me as if it's all cool. Metamagician3000 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I think the section should probably just be deleted. A lot of the points presented by the paragraph are true of most subcultures anyway. WesleyDodds 10:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Done--Adrift* 16:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Make an RFC before any more action is taken. Then when a consensus is reached from users with no investment or biased view towards the article of subject matter, we shall act as that consensus see's fit. Leyasu 17:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
why would we need to open an RFC? There's no deadlock, you're the only one who's opposed to deleting the section, and as far as I can tell noone is biased towards the subject matter but you.--Adrift* 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Your biased, and im biased. The only two users i have any faith in this argument has being intrested in making the article better, as good editors, are Wesley and Meta, and they both are on opposite sides of the argument. Thus an RFC settles the issue, saves me and you revert warring and arguing, and gets the opinion of people in general on what to do, that have no bias to the articles subject, or the users involved in discussion. Its being fair in action. Leyasu 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the debate isn't based on a bias for goth music or against it. It's based on a decision to add or remove something that's common to all subcultures and is totally irrelevant to this article. That paragraph would be fine in an article on subcultures in general, but there's no profit in adding it to this one. I'm re-deleting it. If you want an RFC open on this, then I suggest you open one yourself.--Adrift* 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The specific section is about Goths, not all subcultures. A RFC has been made. Until then, the section can stay, and the RFC shall decide what will happen, be it left or taken out. Leyasu 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


RfC Comments

Perhaps you should cite your sources for these criticisms. I'm not convinced that these criticisms are really legitimate or specific to the goth subculture. Perhaps some people complain about "conforming to non-conformists", but how many, really? Besides, just about every subculture rejects some things while defining themsleves other things. They want to be different from others, but similar to each other. I'm just not conviced that this section adds anything substantial, or even factual.--Bayyoc 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In agreement. --Danteferno 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral about this. I guess if it's a fact that these criticisms actually are made, even if they are also made of some other subcultures, I'm slightly in favour of "retain". But I won't lose any sleep if it's deleted, and the main thing is to keep the section factual and not based on personal research ... if it is there at all. I think it's okay in its current form. Sorry this is such a wishy washy comment. Metamagician3000 01:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If any criticisms are made, and I'm sure you'll agree with me on this - sources need to show that they exist and aren't personal opinion. Many Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects do in fact have a "Criticism" section. --Danteferno 01:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should delete the section entirely. It's based on a misunderstanding of the term non-conformity to begin with. Non-conformists don't claim to be 'different from everyone else'. They claim to reject the predominant culture of society-at-large. That doesn't mean they reject culture period. Moreover, individuality does not mean you have to reject everything that anyone else does, says, or thinks. While, there are a number of people who try to conform to gothic subculture merely in order to be "popular" within that subculture, this is pretty much true for every subculture (and normally, those people are considered "poseurs" anyway since their acceptance of the culture is shallow). Hence, there's no reason why it's notable within gothic subculture, but not notable within any other subculture. --Jakob Huneycutt 13:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A few small changes

Other than deleting the individuality and conformity paragraph, I went ahead and made a few minor changes to the article that i thought needed a little cleaning up. I'd like a couple of the other editors to check on my edits and see if they look ok. Thanks--Adrift* 18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Goth is a modern subculture that first became popular during the early 1980s within the gothic rock scene, a sub-genre of post punk" The reason i originally reworded this is because the sentance doesn't make sense, how can a subculture be based on a scene? The subculture is the scene. --Adrift* 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The scene pertaining to a music genre is not always part of a subculture. Goths sometimes attend the shows of Gothic Metal bands, but Gothic Metal is not a part of the Goth subculture. Leyasu 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Because the subculture started as a group of fans who were into gothic rock, but has long since expanded to encompass more than the music. It's as simple as that. WesleyDodds 07:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, I've don't think i've ever heard a distinction between the two terms, especially within the underground music scenes. Even the wiki articles for scene and subculture/scene (youth) use the words interchangably and synonymously. But since the concensus is for it, i won't make a stink about it.--Adrift* 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A preoccupation with themes of death, romance, and generally macabre topics has caused some in authority to view them as having mental problems. Such conceptions are often reinforced by popular media, in part due to events such as the Columbine High School Massacre, which was carried out by two troubled youths that the media labeled as goths, even though many Goths disagree with this assertion. My aim was not to be biased by rewording these sentances. I'm sure people think this about individuals in the goth scene. I was merely trying to reword the end of the first sentance because it just sounds... I don't know, it just doesn't sound right. "...has caused some in authority to view them as having mental problems."??? Maybe someone can reword "mental problems" specifically. I tried, but apparently it was a no go. And the last sentance isn't true at all. I thought it was pretty much common knowledge that the Columbine kids were not goths at all. I can dig around for evidence if that will appease the other editors.--Adrift* 22:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

...has caused some in authority to view them as having mental disorders, such as depression and psychosis. - per example. Not something that would be perfect for the job, but tis an example for you to improve on. Leyasu 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think someone recently edited that Columbine statement, because I don't think it used to say that. But you're right ... there wasn't anything to suggest that they were goths at all. The media simply misapplied the label to them; the media has consistently misapplied the term, however. --Jakob Huneycutt 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
However. Your view is that they were not Goths. The media's view and the view of many others is that they were. Thus, the Columbine thing has to be mentioned, in nuetrality. Which means representing both sides argument fairly. A person said X, B person said Y in counter-argument. Easy enough to do. Leyasu 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There really isn't any argument about it. They never claimed to be "goths". They had no knowledge of gothic subculture. They didn't listen to any gothic music. There's no evidence to suggest that they were goths. The media mischaracterization should be mentioned, as it is, but it should be reworded. There really ought to be a whole section dedicated to media mischaracterization of the subculture. --Jakob Huneycutt 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On the counter argument. Most of their cd collection was typical of what 'Goths' listen to. They interacted with so called 'Goths' on a regular basis. And they also dressed and made themselfs out as 'Goths' to their school peers.
Your argument sounds more like you are a Goth trying to dissassociate yourself with the incident, in all honesty. If thats not your intention, please take a momment to think about the way your making your argument, as i dont think your a bad editor, i just think your bias to the subject matter is making you overlook the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Leyasu 16:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen any source affirm the "cd collection" or "interaction with Goths" or statements suggesting that they claim to be "goths". Please show some citations. The only real bands the media mentioned that they liked were bands with German members, Rammstein and KMFDM, neither of whom are goth. Some goths listen to them, but some goths listen to Duran Duran, Emperor, Blondie, and Beethoven, as well, so I'm not sure what that would prove. In any case, you need to freshen up on Wikipedia's standards regarding civility, assumptions of good faith, and etiquette. "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" are not appropriate. --Jakob Huneycutt 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Attacking me with policys isnt going to get you far, when you need to look up on NPOV. I also said i dont consider you a bad editor, i consider you very misunderstanding of the way NPOV works. Hiding behind policys to try to force your view on an article doesnt work with me, as for every policy you try to hide behind, there is always one your breaking at the same time. Also, your the one wanting to remove large sections from the article, as ive learned, the one who wants to make the large changes, is the one who has the omen to provide sources first. Leyasu 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 'attacking you with policys.' I'm asking you to simply keep in mind that "ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another" are not appropriate. Also, Wikipedia policy is that material in articles must be verifiable and not "original research." Hence, if most people feel that information in the article can not substantiated, it is supposed to be deleted. --Jakob Huneycutt 16:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Original Research = Anything that is the personal opinion of an editor. As long as it has sources, it goes in. Which means, you can make no changes until you provide sources, because its original research in and of itself. Leyasu 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's a non-sensical standard. Basically, you're arguing that once original research has been inserted into an article, someone must go out and find a source that discredits the "original research" to remove it. Of course, there aren't going to be any sources discrediting "original research" because it's "original research" and no one would've written to discredit it, as such. So, if I insert a sentence into the article that says "Most goths are known for their propensity to have sexual relations with various farm animals and their tendency to make Joey Buttofuoco jokes," it must be left in the article by your standard, unless someone can find a source explicitly documenting otherwise. So yeah, that's a bit nonsensical. --Jakob Huneycutt 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the Columbine massacre notes that the investigators on this case dimissed a goth connection. The link is here More details on the Columbine myths. I too have no problem with keeping the paragraph about Columbine in the article, but the end of the paragraph should reflect that there was no actual link.--Adrift* 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If the case is as Adrift has shown, then rephrase it, to show that at first an assertion was made that the two youths were assumed to be Goths for X reason(s), and then show that it was later dismissed by Goths/Police/Whoever, linking to the source using a citation. That way no loss of information is caused, and it fits in with the NPOV policy. Leyasu 18:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's kinda what we've been suggesting the entire time. You're the only one who seemed to indicate disagreement based on motives you had assigned to others. --Jakob Huneycutt 18:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The way you came off to me was that your argument was to delete the whole thing and rewrite it in defense of 'X person made X claim which is wrong because i said so'.
Either way, the dispute is over, and im glad we have come to an agreement. Hopefully no bad blood is between any editors involved. Ill leave someone else to edit it, and then ill notify Wesley and Meta to copyedit it after. Leyasu 20:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's reasonable to say that the media described them as goths, but I think the "counter-argument" can be stronger than simply than the vague "many goths disagree". For example, how about "...but this was based on their appearances, and there is no evidence that they identified as goths"? I don't think we need to get into a discussion about their CD collection, unless there evidence that this is why the media labelled them as goths. Getting into a long debate about whether X is a goth or not is always going to be silly - the questions are whether they identified as goths, and/or whether they were involved in the goth scene in any way (eg, hanging out at goth clubs), and also on what basis did the media decide they were goths. Mdwh 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As was in Newspapers here, on various News networks, and i think is said in film Bowling For Columbine - the mass media asserted them as Goths due to both their appearances and music collection.
Thus your comment with a little editing turns into this:
  • "...this was based on their appearances and music collections, even though there was no other evidence that identified them as goths."
Which i think pretty much sums that up all in one go. Leyasu 23:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
As soon as I have a little free time and energy, I'd like to take another go round on editing that topic now that we have some sort of concensus. I also agree with Jakob that this whole section could possibly be opened into a media mischaracterization section.--Adrift* 00:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Substantially reworded the Popular Intolerance heading. Still probably needs a little work and more added to it.--Adrift* 06:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edit, nice source. I copyedited for cross-sea gramma. But overall a very good contribution. You might want to copyedit what i put to make it more digestable to readers from your side of the ocean though :P. Leyasu 09:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thank you, the paragraph has again been slightly tweaked to include your edits concerning mental health and cults. I don't think it's going to get much better than this.--Adrift* 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Dead Can Dance - Gothic music or not?

Recalling a recent "semi-discussion" I had with two other editors (or at least what I first thought were two other editors) was claim that the band Dead Can Dance have nothing to do with gothic music at all, eventhough the band is mentioned in this article (and their own) as having quite a bit to do with it. Comments? (For the record, I was not the party who made the "nay" claim) --Danteferno 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This question would be better suited to the Gothic Rock article. Leyasu 01:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, actually not. "Gothic music" is mentioned in the "Goth" article, so Talk:Goth would be an acceptable avenue. --Danteferno 01:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to mention them in this artiles section on what music is popular in the goth scene, but they don't belong in the Gothic rock article.

Seems to me that Dead Can Dance have always been an important part of the Goth subculture (as was just about every band on the 4AD label) even if they aren't specifically a goth rock n roll band.--Adrift* 08:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
SO let me get this cleared up. The band is popular with Goths, but isnt Gothic music? - is that correct? Leyasu 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, they are popular with goths, and they would be characterized as "goth bands", however, stylistically they're probably not what would be considered "goth rock". There are many instances of "goth bands" which are extremely popular with the subculture that don't exactly fall under the category of "goth rock", some would include even very popular bands in the scene like later Cure, and Siouxsie, as well as the Swans and Death in June. --Adrift* 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thats what i thought. Thank you for making your assertion clear. Leyasu 18:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


In Central Europe, Dead Can Dance were a part of the Darkwave-movement. It seems, there is a little problem with american or english people. They think, that every kind of dark music should be named with the stupid term Goth.
But there was generally a dark movement within the New wave music-era (incl. bands like Joy Division, Depeche Mode, Anne Clark, the Cure, Bauhaus & more).
Inside of this Darkwave-movement, the Goth subculture enveloped in the early '80s. That's a fact. --Menorrhea 20:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Dead Can Dance does not consider themselves to be part of either scene. Read their website. Sorry, I don't have it currently available. Goths may like the music, but if a goth liked the Beatles that wouldn't make them Gothic. Dead Can Dance thinks of themselves as sort of a neo-folk tribal world music type thing.--Reverend Distopia
I don't think there's any disagreement that they are not Goth rock. But just about every single popular band that Goths listen to have disassociated themselves from the Goth scene. DCD is very high in the Goth pantheon of bands listened to. The Beatles... not so much.--Adrift* 17:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick edit

I wouldn't have gone for quotation marks on the sentence below - as it's not an actual quote it seems a bit patronising:

However, many goths aspire to "free themselves from the limitations of traditional belief systems", and express a belief in open-mindedness and diversity.

Altered to:

However, many goths aspire to free themselves from the perceived limitations of traditional belief systems, and express a belief in open-mindedness and diversity.

Feel free to revert if you disagree.

sounds about right to me.--Adrift* 02:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Goth

There should be a section focusing on the many criticisms Goth receives from both outsiders and Goths themselves. Issues should be addressed such as elitism and Balkanization, intolerance for other subcultures and the status quo, the ambiguity of the word 'Goth' (hence the ambiguity of the Goth identity itself), the hypocrisy of conformist non-conformity, and the seeming shallowness of such strong self-identification with a subculture that lacks any substantial ideological cohesion, whether political, philosophical, or spiritual. Sources would be abundant, and material from the popular intolerance and media characterizations section could be easily incorporated. The creation of such a section would provide a more comprehensive view of the subculture. Ecto 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To be the better informant to you Ecto, i pushed the other persons comment down. Please understand that we recently had a section involving the information you mentioned above. The problem with adding this information, is wording things to be neutral to both sides of the argument, per the rules of Wikipedia.
Please understand, that if your provide sources below for your view, then the editors here who focus on this article will make every effort to include the information in a fair and neutral way.
Please also read the article in its entirity, and make specific notes about concerns you have in the article and post them below. This is the best way to contribute to the article, and allows your fellow Wikipedians to targer exactly what the problem is believed to be. Thank you for your suggestion, it has been noted. Good day and happy Wikipeding! Leyasu 07:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to make it clear that these critical views of Goth are not my own. I am just aware of them and think they should be included in the article. I was not aware that there was already a section on criticisms. I imagine that it would be rather hard to balance their inclusion, but I still think a valid way of including these criticisms would be to offer both sides of the criticisms. Goth is the subject of much internal and external criticism, and that fact should be better documented than it is currently. I will follow your suggestions and take a look for some sources and specific problems within the article. Thank you.Ecto 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a place to post some person's bitching about what they think about goths - criticisms are only mentioned if they are notable. There's already the "Popular intolerance and media characterizations" section anyway, if you want to add to that. The "hypocrisy of conformist non-conformity" argument was there, but recently removed, as it was a non-notable flawed strawman argument, and one that people make of any alternative subculture - see "Tensions between individuality and conformity" above; the rest of what you say here seems to be much of the same sort of thing as that. What abundant sources do you have in mind? Mdwh 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no complaint against Goth or Goths. I am sorry I gave you that impression. I apologize if I offended anyone, and do not wish to be thought of as that "some person". I have run into these criticisms on many occasions, and do think they are notable in so far that, as it stands now, the article states that Goths are victims of intolerance, but it does not provide the full motivation behind this intolerance. Mentioning these criticisms would tie up that lose end and balance the article. So, I disagree with you regarding the notability that these criticisms. They are as notable as the fact that Goths experience intolerance. Also, not all criticisms of Goth are from popular intolerance or the media, because many critics of the subculture are from within the subculture itself, so keeping the 'Popular intolerance and media characterizations' as the section title would not make sense. Though they may be flawed strawman arguments (which I agree that they are), that does not mean the criticisms of Goth should not be included. The fact that these criticisms are applied to any alternative subculture should be noted to give the criticisms context. For sources, I was thinking sociologists, cultural critics, and Goth media figures . I will now take a look for some specific sources. Thank you for your views. Ecto 08:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion it's fine to include notable views that have sources. To be honest, my experience has been that the arguments you talk about (eg, "hypocrisy of conformist non-conformity") are more usually ignorant arguments made by individuals, where as criticisms of the media tend to be things like associations with violence, satanism, or claiming that "Goth" is a religion, movement - ie, criticising that it supposedly has an ideology, rather than criticising because it hasn't, which is why I responded as I did. I agree that the section on media criticisms and so on is rather brief, and I don't object to in being expanded, just as long as it doesn't become a section full on "Some people say that [insert stereotype or poor argument about goths]". Mdwh 16:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Provide the sources and we can include what you have mentioned, otherwise we would be in violation of No Original Research. Leyasu 09:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few potential sources:

Analyses the current state of the subculture from a Goth’s perspective with mention of elitism and balkanization. “The war for Goth is being fought netwide with a great deal of savagery and hostility on all of the forums that the net provides. Elitism, prejudice and small-mindedness are recurrent themes...”
Discusses elitism and balkanization. ‘’As with any culture, it contains subdivisions, and can suffer from elitism. Each style often considers itself more authentic or superior to others, and it is not uncommon to see followers of one Goth clique consider those of another ‘poseurs.’’
Characterizes Goth as elitist. “Really, there's nothing more annoying to a burgeoning goth elitist than seeing his subculture co-opted by the mainstream and turned into a novelty, or even worse, a joke.”
A Satanist’s critique, which presents most of the major criticisms.
Another insider’s observation of elitism. “...elitism - which is another thing that I find is prominent in the dark scenes. People seem to be more concerned with being ‘darker’ than everybody else and turn their noses up at the plainclothes kids that come in off the street.“
Criticisms of stagnation. A lot of quotes from musicians in Goth bands and other Goth media figures.
Jhonen Vasquez made a widely known criticism of Goth in Johnny the Homicidal Maniac with the Anne Gwish strips, which parody Goth’s conformist non-conformity (further information in other articles). Insta Goth Kit site also makes a parody of the same subject. My friend has a college sociology textbook which criticizes both Goth and punk on the same grounds. I am just waiting for her to e-mail me the ISBN

I hope these can be of some use. Ecto 06:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. Ill leave it for Meta or Adrift to do something by the end of the week, if not ill add them in myself. Thank you for providing much needed sources! Ley Shade 08:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the topic of non-comformity and elitism is again a minor issue, one that we already addressed and a topic that's probably common to some extant in all subcultures. You'll find similar claims of elitism and issues of comfority under non-comformity held against punks, headbangers, hippies, comic book collectors, rag-time music fans, art movie critics, etc. The sources provided are pretty varied ranging from a poorly written college essay, to a biased POV based on the spiritual inclusion of Christian themes in the goth subculture. However, I do believe that the sources do note (maybe inadvertantly) a certain dissatisfaction between differing goth factions... namely old schoolers vs. new schoolers and how this dissatisfaction has sometimes caused riffs between fans of older goth rock and fans of electro-goth and gothic metal. This is a topic that should probably be included someplace in the article. The ambiguity of the term "Goth" and it's historical inclusion into a scene that was loosely based on an adjective to origianlly describe the sound and style is hinted at in the "Cultural significance and philosophy" section It could be argued many goths' use of literary and film imagery represents an example of the growing blurring between fiction and fact which is part of the postmodern condition., but I don't see any reason why this couldn't be expounded upon. --Adrift* 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Adrift, yew and that other user removed most of the NPOV from the article, removing anything that disagreed with your POV. Now there is sources, it all goes back in again. Hurrah. Ley Shade 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Having sources doesn't automatically equate to having accurate or reliable sources. There are no hard and fast rules about what content is appropriate and what is not. That is why we have talk pages. Content that is controversial is discussed here. It doesn't just stay in the article because someone put up a website. On that note, I haven't had time to look over any of this stuff yet, so I don't have much of an opinion on it yet. --Jakob Huneycutt 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've looked at the sources and they're diputable on most of the critiques except the issue of balkanization. The first article, from the perspective of an individual who's spent some time in the scene, isn't so much based on goth elitism itself, but with a dissatisfaction with a scene that's forgotten it's history. The quote presented specifically highlights hostile attitudes found in net based message forums by young goths who don't know the scene. The second source, as i've mentioned above, seems to be a poorly written college essay, and on top of that, the quote sited points out exactly what we've been debating "As with any culture, it contains subdivisions, and can suffer from elitism.". Source 3 again highlights, not gothic elitism, but a scene that's being riffed by the mainstream and by a modern audience that doesn't remember what goth originally was. The phrase "burgeoning goth elitist" is obviously tongue in cheek. The 4th source is, again, a biased POV based on a certain satanists distaste for Christian themes in the gothic subculture. It doesn't seem like a valid article to base "most of the major criticisms" against the goth scene. The 5th source also again points out that elitism is common in all dark scenes. The 6th source from Alternative Press is actually a pretty good article and i've seen it noted on the Deathrock article here at Wiki, however, it's not an article about gothic elitism. The last source is interesting, but it's a parody right? A parody on a scene that at times takes itself a bit too seriously, similar to many underground music based subcultures. I don't see how any of this changes anything what we've already discussed here on the talk page concerning comformity through non-comfority, intolerance of other subcultures, or elitist attitudes. However I do believe that a section dealing with the balkanization of the scene does seem relevant.--Adrift* 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I agree with you that a section on balkanization should be included. I tried to provide a wide variety of sources to give many different viewpoints so that they could all be used in the article, because I think criticisms that have a positive view of Goth should be included alongside those with a negative. I think your rejection of these sources is a result of your expectation of only negative views. I do not want to make a section that only details attacks on Goth and the defenses against those attacks, but also constructive criticisms. I think that these issues are absolutely vital to the subculture, so I disagree with those who have asserted that they are not important.
The first writer criticizes parts of the Goth subculture as elitist, but still recognizes them as part of the subculture. Hence that part of the source is a criticism of elitism within the Goth subculture, which is a major component of the balkanization you wish to include in the article. The whole source is not based on that theme, but it does not need to be. It only needs to offer that criticism and move on. It is a constructive, or positive, criticism.
The quality of a text’s writing is not a factor in determining whether or not it should be used as a source, so I have no idea why you would mention that. I hope that you would agree that it is up to Wikipedia editors to supply appealing style to the facts. It is our job to write well, not the source’s. As for your reaction to the quote, all I can say is that a criticism of Goth in aggregate with other subcultures is still a criticism of Goth. Your dismissal of all sources which criticize Goth because they do so alongside other subcultures (i.e. the college essay and the DJ source) is a bit hasty. They group Goth in with other subcultures for the purposes of their criticism, but they criticize Goth nonetheless. The fact that this grouping takes place should be mentioned in the Goth article to give this criticism context.
In the source about Marilyn Manson, the word ‘elitist’ is not used tongue-in-cheek. The author sets up a contrast between Manson as ‘the sticks’ and as Goth ‘elitist’, and argues that the Manson impact on the subculture is an involuntary deflation of Goth’s elitism through ‘riffing’ as you put it. The author characterizes the Goth reaction to this ‘riffing’ as elitism. The term is not used to attack Goth--the author does not take it that seriously, though it is far from tongue-and-cheek--but it is still an assertion that Goth is elitist, however casually, which reinforces the other sources. The reason why I included this source is that it tentatively offers the viewpoint that this elitism may be justified in the face of popular appropriation. It is still a criticism of Goth which identifies the subculture as elitist, even though it is not a negative criticism.
The Satanist critique offers a different take on Goth elitism as well. The author of that article also views it as a good thing (as one of the few good things, actually). This view is an assertion that elitism exists, which corresponds to the other sources I provided for that purpose, but it appraises it differently. I was just trying to provide another point of view of Goth elitism which could be included alongside the others for the purpose of fully representing the issue. The source also covers most of the other criticisms I originally mentioned, though in far more negative terms. The fact that it is biased is important because we are trying to neutrally document bias criticisms, and these are the negative criticisms to which Goth is most often subjected.
The AP article highlights stagnation in the subculture, not elitism. Your dismissal of it on the basis that it is not about elitism does not make sense to me. I never claimed it was about anything but stagnation. Since you agree that it is a good source, you will not object to it being used as a source for the criticism of stagnation in the Goth article.
I disagree with your assertion that if something is a parody or self-parody that it cannot be considered a criticism. Parody (including self-parody) is a form of criticism. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, parody is the sincerest form of criticism. Anne Gwish is a positive criticism of the issue of Goth conformist non-conformity, but it is still a criticism and should be included.
I hope that you better understand my reasons behind provided these sources, and that you will take another look at them in this new light. Thank you! Ecto 01:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying why you used these specific sources. I'm still apprehensive about a fair criticism based on these specific sources, but I have to admit that my apprehensions probably stem mostly from the original critique which was eventually deemed irrelevant. Even after a decent rewrite, the original critique seemed vague, unspecific, and mostly POV. My suggestion is for you, Ecto, to go ahead and rewrite the critique and I guess we can see where it goes from there. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue and for remaining civil. --Adrift* 02:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing trench coat picture

Trench coats are more to do with kindergoth culture, sometimes nicknamed "trenchcoat mafia", these people are usually fans of KMFDM, Rammstein, and similar groups, it isn't part of actual "gothic" culture. - Deathrocker 04:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have had the same thought before. Though, I guess I don't have as much of a problem with the picture so much as the caption which suggests that it is THE gothic style. I suppose a few goths wear trench coats, but I honestly don't see it that often, and I don't really think they are "typical". --Jakob Huneycutt 14:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this just a case of some goths looking down on parts of their subculture, and insisting it's not "real goth" because they don't like it? I don't see that there's going to be a good way to define "actual" goths versus any other kind. Friday (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sources above, its called Elitism and Friday hit the nail on the head. Thus i see this whole article going backwards and lacking NPOV the further this whole thing goes on. Ley Shade 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really going to comment on the posters' motives, but regardless, the image is misleading. It suggests that trenchcoats are part of some sorta "typical" gothic look, when if anything, they are quite rare. I'd said if you went into a goth club with 100 people in it, odds are you see somewhere between 0 and 3 people wearing trenchcoats. It is more associated with the industrial scene (rivetheads) than goths. There is, of course, some overlap between the two scenes. Still, the picture is misleading because it's not a 'typical gothic look' or whatever the caption says. --Jakob Huneycutt 16:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah i agree it isn't a typical goth look. I think it hit a surge of popularity with some goths and industrial rock fans right after films like Crow 2 and the first Matrix, but other than really old Fields of Nephilim fans, the look isn't very popular within the Goth scene proper (in fact, i'd say it's downright unpopular). I've been wanting to see that photo replaced with maybe a group club photo and I'd also like to see a photo added that maybe highlights the Ren Faire or Victorian goth look which should help round out some of the styles represented in the scene.--Adrift* 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that here, the trenchcoat very much is a typical goth look. I'm aware of many other cities in which it is, also. However, I will concede that it is predominantly a fashion accessory of mini-goths or whathaveyou, BUT, must also point out that it is perhaps the closest most goths (real/fake/mini/fully-grown/whatever) in my experience get to a holy grail of sorts. While I realise this is obviously not the case everywhere, given the very debate going on here, it is predominant enough in a large enough area here that I feel it shouldn't simply be dismissed as misleading. Yes, the trenchcoat did receive a popularity boost thanks to Mr. Reeves and Mr. Lee, but hey, it's part of the de facto dresscode for many people now, so legitimacy qualms aside, it should be regarded as such, if only in certain areas. Talkingpie 01:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I suppose if you hang out at Hot Topics enough, you'll see enough pseudo-goths or goth metal types who do incorporate that style into their look. But when it comes to the Goth scene at large, and you go to clubs that play goth music or actually hang out with people who are involved with the scene, you rarely see people dressing up like that at all. It just doesn't happen. Perhaps, for a short time in the 90s there was a slight infatuation with that look, but for the most part real world RPGers and Marilyn Manson fans seem to have more in common with that look than most goths do.--Adrift* 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Part from your Neoglism Adrift, Gothic Metal fans dont typically wander around in 'mini-goth' fashions. Also greatly to your discredit, here in England, Goths make a staple point of wearing Trench Coats.Go to Slimelight for instance, UK's leading 'Goth club' and the place is rife with people wearing trenchcoats. As such im readding the picture with a new tag, on the basis of your attacks at Gothic Metal fans, and your blatant bias towards other POV's. Ley Shade 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe you are misapplying the word neologism Leyasu (spelled with two o's by the way). A neologism is when you make up a new word or expression or use an old word in a new way. So... in context with the above post, i have no idea what you're talking about. I'd also like to point out that I never said gothic metal fans wander around in mini-goth fashion (you must be confusing my post with the one above mine), however here in the USA the only people that commonly wear trenchcoats do happen to be those who have a penchant for gothic metal and heavy metal. Maybe that's not been your experience on the other side of the pond, but here it seems fairly common. I haven't been to Slimelight (and yes I am familiar with the club), but I'm 30 years old, been involved in the scene for over a decade here in the States, spent 3 years hanging out in various goth clubs throughout germany and I can tell from first hand experience that goths don't typically wear trench coats. I find it odd that someone who seems to have such a strong distaste for the goth scene would be hanging out at the UK's "leading goth club", but i suppose that's your business. Anyhow, about biases and POV's, sharing POV's on the talk pages is the whole purpose that the talk pages exist, so... don't know where you're going with that. I'd also finally like to point out that I haven't deleted the picture yet so i'm not certain what you're re-adding. Also, please point out where i attacked Gothic metal fans, i'd like to apologize for that if I misadvertantly have. Thank you.--Adrift* 17:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Ley summed up my point perfectly. Here, it is a part of gothic fashion, very fundamentally so, even. Since we are observing what it is to be 'goth' on a comprehensive level, we cannot afford to ignore this. And, I should add, I too have a general disdain for the gothic scene, which has come about from being in it for so long. The best way to dislike is to know, and the best way to know is to experience. Talkingpie 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To quote Adrift; Well I suppose if you hang out at Hot Topics enough, you'll see enough pseudo-goths or goth metal types who do incorporate that style into their look. Thats an attack at what you deem people as not Goths, thats neoglism. In the way i understand Neoglism, it means to be discrimantory against others due to a decidance that ones view is the only correct view and that anybody doesnt agree is unworthy. You made a direct attack at Gothic Metal fans, and those that you deem 'ungoth', which isnt the first time as you made the same attacks on the talk page for Gothic Music. Also, i dont have a distaste for anything, if i had a distaste for it, i wouldnt visit Slimelight or Wave Gothik Treffen, nor would i have such intermitten knowledge on the subject matter.
America doesnt define the world, and yew being 30 years old and trying to summon the old Im older than you so im right argument wont be working either. As such, from now, this article demands citations for EVERY edit from the article in its current state. If citations are not provided when something is added or removed, i WILL remove it as Original Research until a citation is provided. That applys to both criticisms of the articles subject matter, and arguments against those critiscisms. When citations are provided, wether any person on either side of the argument finds them skeptical or not, what comments they make WILL go in the article, and will be cited in line, and they WILL NOT be left out simply because one part disagrees. NPOV represents all views fairly and un-biased, and NOR states that all information must be cited.
This ends petty arguments. From now on, all additions must cite sources on the talk page before being made or have the citations in line, or they will be removed until citations are provided. Ley Shade 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
To infer that i'm attacking anyone who isn't goth for shopping at Hot Topics is ludicrous. I've shopped at Hot Topics on occasion. I wasn't attacking, i was making an observation. I don't know where you're getting your definition of Neologism, but as it pertains to Wikipedia, Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been "coined" and generally do not appear in any dictionary. [[2]] My comment on your distaste for the scene comes from your quote in this talk page under the Black Metal heading "Sorry if i appear biased, partially because i am. My expertise lie in metal, not so much here". For the record, I've never said that America has the hallmark on defining the scene... I don't know where you're going with that and establishing my experience in the goth scene helps validate my opinion, however, my opinions are just that, and that's why we have talk pages so that we can discuss opinions openly in order to obtain all points of view and build a fair representation of the subject matter. I've never been opposed to citing the article. I agree that the article needs citation, however, you are not the end all be all to this article. This article is made up many editors, and we all have a part in it.--Adrift* 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
And the further this article goes on the further its becoming Group A vs Group B, with each trying to completely emmit the others POV. Thats why, by enforcing policy, this patethic opinion warring will end. Ley Shade 10:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If there is a "Group A" and a "Group B", then "Group B" is yourself and "Group A" is pretty much everyone else. To be honest, Leyasu, the rest of us seem to be working together fairly well. Disagreements are not uncommon between people, but that's why we have talk pages. On the other hand, you're convinced that any time anyone wants to make any minor change, they're trying to 'suppress all other POVs' or some non-sense. Most of your arguments are non-sensical (such as the 'you must find a source to delete an unsourced claim' one) and you can not seem to make a statement without assuming that others are operating under bad faith. It's getting to be rather tiring because nothing productive can happen because of you. --Jakob Huneycutt 12:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
So far ive seen Group A (Yourself, Adrift, Deathrocker) trying to supress all critiscims and POV's that dont agree with their own. Then ive seen Group B (Meta, Myself, Talkingpie) pointing out NPOV. What you call minor edits might be minor edits. But minor edits deleting any POV that isnt your own, and then proving no sources for them, is still POV Pushing. Deleting and Adding unsourced claims from how the article stands now works both ways, as there is unsourced claims in there from your POV, as well as from others POV. Making circular arguments and trying to call me for bad faith, when your ignoring WP:NPOV, Wp:NOR and WP:Cite, the three core policys, doesnt get you very far. These policys must be upheld and the actions of certain users, mainly Adrift, is violating all three of these. If editors to this article can follow the policys on their own, then i will simply enforce them. Ley Shade 13:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Meta and talkingpie have been civil, whereas, you have not. No one is trying to "suppress" anything. I've already told you to freshen up on Wikipedia guidelines in regards to civility and assuming good faith, but you continue to ignore those in almost every single post. The thought that someone might simply have a legitimate disagreement with you never seems to cross your mind. The type of paranoia you bring to the talk page only makes reasonable discussion more difficult. Moreover, you are not endowed by Wikipedia with unilateral powers to "enforce" policies. That's really the core of the problem here - if there are five people discussing an issue and four of them agree on something and you're the odd man out; you absolutely refuse to ackowledge this; instead implying that your own view seems to supersede everyone else's. You do contribute to Wikipedia in many ways - there's no denying that - but it's getting tiring having every discussion on this talk page turn into a mini-war because you can't go two paragraphs without leveling an unfounded accusation at someone. It's not very productive and you seem to be the only one that creates such an atmosphere. --Jakob Huneycutt 14:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Policy overrides conensus. 4 out o 5 people deciding to do one thing doesnt work when the rules say they cannot do it. No i dont have any god given powers to do anything, but that doesnt stop me doing it either. Ive read the NPOV policy in detail, and i even work for the enemy sometimes. Thus is NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, so wether you like something or not, it goes in the article if their is sources. I do not care what you think about that, or what your view of me is. However if you want your POV represented in the article, the opposing one shall also be equally represented. And if you try to dodge around that, i shall simply hammer on with the repetition of Wikipedia's Three Core Policys.
And as for being civil, as far as im concerned, i am being civil. Im not swearing or calling you names, nor directly or indirectly insulting you. I speak my mind in the way i talk. If you cant deal with that, that is your problem. Ley Shade 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually according to the Undo Weight policy here at Wikipedia a majority view does count for something "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." [[3]]. That said, concerning this particular issue over trench coats, we're still in the discussion phase and I don't think anyone at this point (since we seem to be so off topic) has decided if there is a majority opinion. I have to agree with Jakob, though, that everyone here has remained fairly civil but you Leyasu. You have a tendancy to consistantly incite arguements rather than cool debate.--Adrift* 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
If yew wish to call a refusal to be put under peer pressure or bully attitudes uncivil, then yes, im uncivil. Ley Shade 18:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
No, Leyasu, you're not being civil at all. It's true you don't call people names (or I haven't seen it anyway), but you do constantly question the motives of others' with no evidence to back you up and you constantly assume bad faith any time you have a minor disagreement with someone. Hence, you are in violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding civility. Whether Wikipedia policy overrides consensus or not is completely irrelevant. The fact remains that Wikipedia policy is not unilaterally declared and interpreted by you. You are not at liberty to disregard consensus because of your own interpretations or misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy. If everyone adopted your attitude towards the matter, there wouldn't even be a point in having talk pages. --Jakob Huneycutt 18:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Your attacking my character which is a personal attack. I suggest you stop. Also, your not allowed to ignore policy because of a conesnsus, which is exactly what the group you are part of is doing. Ley Shade 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not 'attacking your character'. I'm attacking your belief that you have some sorta unilateral power of interpretation over Wikipedia policy and that your word on it is final. If you continue to insist on taking this approach, rather than engaging in civil discussion with your fellow editors and abiding by consensus, I feel that the only available option will be to join in on the request for arbitration regarding you. It has gotten to the point where I've almost concluded that no reasonable discussion can occur so long as you are involved in it. --Jakob Huneycutt 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we're going to reach any consensus on removal of the image itself, but I went ahead and changed the caption for the image. If someone has better wording, feel free to change it. I'm not completely satisfied myself, but the older phrasing was even worse and seemed to suggest that nearly every single goth on the planet wears trench coats and has long hair. --Jakob Huneycutt 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Statements of opinion

This article is not the place for our own opinions, speculations, or theories. Hence, I am inclined to remove at least the following sentence: "It could be argued many goths' use of literary and film imagery represents an example of the growing blurring between fiction and fact which is part of the postmodern condition." It is not a question of what "could be argued". If someone has actually argued this, and assuming it was someone important enough for it to be notable, then it needs to be said that. "Solomon Grundy has argued in Goths and Green Lanterns that ...", etc., and there should be a proper citation. Metamagician3000 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

good point. I have seen a similar point of view sourced in a couple online articles. I say go ahead and delete it and I'll see if i can't dig up that information later on. The whole article is in dire need of citations.--Adrift* 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. I deleted the offending sentence and a few more words. I agree that the whole article could do with more citations. I still think it's a good aricle, but it would be nice if we could polish it up to featured article level in quality, maybe even nominate it if we can get it good enough. Unfortunately, though, I don't have enough expertise with most of the relevant subject matter to do referencing, etc. Metamagician3000 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed

Added a photo of several '80s' goths, which was not photographically documented here.

Does that image (Nd7.jpg) count as fair use? It's not being used to illustrate the work or product in question (i.e., the band), nor is there an absence of free images to demonstrate images of goths. Mdwh 16:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The same applies to the two band images you added to Gothic fashion. Mdwh 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't feel the images represented the goth scene I am know in fair fashion. In fact, a lot looking pretty goofy. I feel this is a fair use.

The gothic fashion had no accurate representing of real gothic fashion, instead was Lolita Style.

I am not questionning whether the images are suitable for the article, I am questionning whether use of these copyrighted images here counts as fair use, since they are not being used in the context of the bands. Mdwh 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If edited to make note of how bands influenced fashion, fair?


German Goth Pic/Punk Band Shirt/Whatever

Has anyone else watched the caption for this one particular image be edited like a gazillion times? Is there any particular need for this image? We've got quite a bit of photos already and this one seems to stir up controversy more than anything else. It's not particularly clear to me what purpose the image serves in any case. The original caption was a bit confounding (something like 'goth and punk culture merging' - but since goth has punk roots, it didn't make much sense). Would anyone else favor just getting rid of this one picture? --Jakob Huneycutt 13:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

absolutely. Not to mention that the guy is wearing a German pop-punk band shirt. I have no idea what the image has to do with the article, but i didn't want to see another flame based on non-topical photos.--Adrift* 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with deleting it. I removed the original caption, which was "Some Goths like this one, have conflicting musical genre affiliations. In this example, the conflict is between cybergoth and punk." I think it was trying to show an example of crossover between subcultures, but I don't think it shows this particularly well, and it's not clear which subcultures (even the original author seemed unclear, describing him on the image page as also a "Mansonite" and an "Industrial fan". Also, the statement about "conflicting musical genre affiliations" seemed nonsense, both in that fashion doesn't always imply music tastes, and describing them as "conflicting" could imply the opinion that it's wrong to like more than one genre. Mdwh 23:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is confusing. This guy doesn't look all that gothic to me. I'd go with deleting it, or keeping it deleted if someone has already done so. Metamagician3000 08:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy/Ethics

A reader of the article may be interested in the philosophical/ethical stance of the 'Goth' movement - an aspect which is not comprehensively covered in my opinion - and I am not myself sufficiently informed to make a value judgement. For example, may Goths be regarded as philosophical pessimists? pseudo-pessimists? Nietzschean nihilists/solipsists? It is noted in the article that they are commonly of an atheistic/agnostic persuasion and have aspects in common with the Romantics but again I am not sure this tells us much of their ethics, e.g. Camusian absurdist/optimistic atheism or Schopenhauerian pessimistic atheism. Any thoughts on this issue would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Nicander

I think the reason the issue is so vague is because, unlike the punk scene Goth sprung out of, generally speaking the Goth subculture has no concrete universal philosophical or ethical stance. If anything, I believe the Goth subculture has more in common with Aestheticism than with anything else. The note about the Romantic aspects probably stems from the influence of the Gothic novel, the strong connection to sensuality, an aversion to rigid religiousity, and reverence for the Byronic hero. I'm uncertain why the article notes a common atheistic/agnostic persuasion in the scene. Probably compared to the mainstream in general there's a stronger "persuasion". I'll edit that today.--Adrift* 15:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

after re-reading the article it simply states "A large number of goths adhere to atheism or agnosticism" which is true and not exactly the same as stating that goths are commonly atheists/agnostics. I know that may just be semantics, but i think it works in favor for the article.--Adrift* 15:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point regarding the semantics but when vague or arbitrary phrases are employed one almost invites misconstrual. Concerning the ethos of the Goth culture, or "state of mind" as it is referred to above, it may well be as elusive as the Romantic philosophy then with an ambivalence and confusion through the different identities and fortunes of the poets (e.g. Byron's pessimistic turn in later life). That was my view but I thought perhaps someone else may be able to shed light on the matter. --Nicander 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i can see where you're coming from, and agree that it is pretty vague. Would you be up to clarifying points in the paragraph yourself, or would you be more comfortable with another editor tweaking it?--Adrift* 21:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I believe it requires slightly more than a mere rewording and as I do not consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable on this subject it may be better edited by someone with more information regarding this scene; in particular, a more specific identification of the philosophy to which the movement adheres. If I were to venture I would suggest a Nietzschean aspect to the Goth movement, possibly with absurdist elements, but with the emphasis on transcendence of orthodoxy rather than pessimistic denial. I do believe the article would benefit from an angle such as this looking at the essence of the movement beyond the ostentation. --Nicander 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Goths?

An anon recently switched the name given to goths in Spain from Tetricos to Cuervos. Is there any way to ascertain which label is correct?--Adrift* 15:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that's a difficult one. Barring someone coming forth with some sorta credible knowledge of the subject, I say just delete it entirely since we can't really verify it. Both insertions had a Wikilink, but there is an article for neither one of the terms, so that doesn't really help us much, either. --Jakob Huneycutt 16:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


Cultural significance and philosophy

This section seems to miss the distinction between philosophy and ideology. Philosophy is the domain of philosophers, and goths, like almost all people, are not philosophers, because, as far as I know, goth has never contributed anything to the philosophical tradition. It has incorporated various philosophical stances into its ideology, but that does not mean there is a goth philosophy, like the title of this section suggests. The place of goth in the world of ideas is best described as ideological, not philosophical.

Also, I have to take issue with the statement that, "The goth subculture is best seen as a late offshoot of romanticism and neoromanticism, with its fascination with the importance of the individual defining themselves through experiencing extreme emotions." I remember goth having an extremely antagonistic relationship with the actual New Romantic movement back in late 1970s London. Goth actually developed in part as a reaction against the New Romantics, as I recall. Also, there are certain incompatibilities between romanticism and goth which I think disqualifies goth from being any kind of "offshoot". Goth lyrics and romantic poetry have little in common in terms of theme or diction, for example, and the cybergoth subculture especially is about as far from romanticism as you can get, with its rejection of nature in favour of technology. Goth has far more in common with certain strains of existentialism, which also focuses on “the importance of the individual defining themselves through experiencing extreme emotions”, or perhaps aestheticism or decadence because of its similar fashionable, artistic and countercultural tendancies. At any rate, goth and romanticism have almost nothing to do with each other. Ecto 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this section has been discussed a little bit higher in the talk pages under the subheading Philosophy/Ethics. I agree it's probably better to call this ideology rather than philosophy, and also agree that the word "offshoot" might be a little too strong. But I disagree that Goth lyrics and mood have little to no tie to Romantic poetry and writing. While the nature and revolution themes of Romantic era writing isn't necassarily abundant in goth ideology (unless you count certain neofolk and dark world music bands), supernatural and mystical themes, like those found in Byron, Coolidge, Keats, and Shelly (both Percy and Mary) are very well reflected in Goth music. The satanic/Byronic hero is a big part of the scene as well as individualism and the "infinite striving" aspects. Heck, Goth music is named after the Gothic novel, which was a staple of Romantic literature. I'll give you this though, Probably it's more true to say the goth scene as a whole has more to do with the Decadence movements (including the Aesthetic movement) which sprung up from Romanticism and the Neoromantic movement (which is noted in the article) than with Wordsworthian style Romanticism, but isn't that nitpicking. If you can reword the article to make it plain to the average reader than i say go for it, but i'm not sure it's going to be that easy without adding undue focus on this particular subheading. I don't think the New Romantic scene has any connection at all with the British literature Romantics. New Romantics are probably more comparable to modern rave/club kids. I couldn't even guess what kind of ideology they held... maybe aesthetic... i don't know, but the article never directly compares Goths with New Romantics other than to say that one scene had more lasting power. As for cybergoths, I'd say their more of a niche subculture of the goth movement as a whole (though it might be a rather large niche). Again, it might be getting the whole subheading off focus we chase around the splint movements and try to define their ideological motives. You know what though, i don't think it'd be a horrible idea to maybe merge the current Cybergoth article with this article and then go into the ideological undercurrents of that split there.--Adrift* 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
PS. I just noticed that you might be confusing the term Neoromanticism with New Romantic. Understandable mistake, but the two have little to nothing to do with one another.--Adrift* 19:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I will change the philosophical terms to ideological ones, and also alter the term ‘’offshoot’’ to something more appropriate, if that is all right.
I would argue that nature is the definitive theme of romanticism. So, to me at least, goth misses the very heart of romanticism from the get-go. Goth does have the supernatural and mystical tastes of romanticism, I agree, but the ways goth expresses these supernatural and mystical themes are very different from how the romantics expressed them, on the whole.
The influence of the gothic novel on the original goth subculture came mostly by way of horror films, which were tenuously connected to the literary genre at best. “Bella Lugosi’s Dead” is not a direct reference to “The Giaour” or anything by Bram Stoker, I hope you would agree. At any rate, I thought goth music was named after gothic architecture rather than the literary genre, so really that would be a coincidental similarity between the two rather than the gothic novel being goth’s namesake. I understand that there is some controversy as to where goth got its moniker, so maybe we should refrain from kicking that dog anymore, for argument’s sake.
I did have Wordsworth in particular in mind, but to consider something in reference to romanticism without reference to Wordsworth seems a bit shifty to me. I agree that goth does have some things in common with non-Wordsworthian romanticism, but I think some of these things developed independent of romantic influence, and most of what influence there is cannot be considered all that direct. I think the dots between goth and romanticism were connected after goth emerged in its original form. Most likely these similarities were picked out during, say, the mid-1980s.
Decadence and especially aestheticism are very different animals from romanticism, you have to admit, so I disagree with you that making such a distinction would be nitpicking. If goth has more in common with those movements than with romanticism, which I think it does, then we ought to say so in the article. We ought to be exact.
Ah yes, I was a bit ignorant as to what the New Romantic subculture was about. I assumed from the name that it was based on some kind of neoromanticism. My mistake on that count. Thank you for setting me straight there!
I would not go so far as to incorporate the cybergoth article into this one. If cybergoth is so different from goth as a whole, then it certainly should have its own article. A sentence and a link to the cybergoth article would be all we would need to differentiate it in a paragraph describing goth’s similarities (both derivative and coincidental) to romanticism, and the split can be examined more closely there. You have to admit, though, that it is not such a large split, as mainline goth does not emphasize natural themes that much more.
Anyway, thank you for responding so intelligently! I love discussing this kind of thing. Ecto 12:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Reading this exchange reminds me of something that's been bothering me. We tend to downplay the relationship between the goth subculture and contemporary literature except for Anne Rice and Poppy Z. Brite. But my peripheral contact with people who certainly look like goths to me is actually through literature, not music. The people I am talking about are indeed often fans of those two writers, but also (in fact especially from what I've seen) of Neil Gaiman ... and maybe of a lot of others for all I know. This article is very oriented to a musical scene rather than to a wider subculture which surely connects with many other art forms. Or are people who are primarily fans of Rice, Brite, Gaiman, etc., and who dress in the clothes described in the article, etc., not considered to be real goths unless they also go to certain dance clubs? If not what are they? Maybe, just horror/fantasy fans who like dressing in black? Where does the goth subculture end and this branch of horror and fantasy fandom begin? Metamagician3000 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well people "who certainly look like goths" could be counted as goths due to how they look, whatever books they read. I think the article emphasises the importance of fashion on a similar level to that of music. If you think that literature alone is important, then the sort of people to consider are people who like Rice, Brite, Gaiman, but have no connection either through music or fashion. Mdwh 21:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy discussing these things too Ecto. As you've probably already noticed I've already taken the liberty to make the tweaks we've talked about. I think removing absolutely all traces of any connection to the Romantics is wrong, but I don't think that's exactly what you were intending, so yeah, I say go for it if you want to downplay that aspect and explore the other connections. It'd be extremely helpful if we could find some sort of documentation on all of this though. The first half of that subheading already suffers from Original Research, so we shouldn't add to that if we can help it.

Meta, I agree that there needs to be more attention given to Goths and contemporary pop fiction as well. Maybe a new subheading? The reason why there's more focus on the music is because it's the common root and it really is the scene. I think a potential problem with a new subheading focusing on this might be that it could tend to make blanket statements about the whole scene (that's a problem with any subheading that isn't historical or music related though i suppose). It seems more than a few Goths eventually out grow certain pop fiction writers, and that might need to be mentioned as well, but yeah, i'm all for it.--Adrift* 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just raising the issue for you experts, though. As I keep saying, I'm no expert on the goth subculture, I mainly just share some overlapping tastes in literature with some of them them, and I've somehow become one of the resident copyeditors on this article. Metamagician3000 23:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I began the 'Philosophy/Ethics' discussion above I thought I should make a contribution here. One may say that Goths "are not philosophers" but one can label their "ideology" with a philosophical term (such as "pessimism" or "absurdist" for example) as an aid to understanding. Of course, the movement is so broad - "Goth" in itself is really only a convenient label - and there is no definitive Goth 'constitution' that it becomes difficult to nail down a school-of-thought to cover the range of perspectives in the Goth subculture. As an outsider with a desire to know more about this subculture I naturally sought to discover the outlook of its followers as I had failed to truly grasp it previously. Are you saying that the subculture is more about outward style than principles? Nicander 20:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, i'd say goth is more about aesthetics (music, fashion, art) than principles. From what i've experienced, the goth subculture does share common themes with specific cultural and intellectual movements, but not so much purely philosophical movements (out side of maybe aestheticism). The stereotype of the serious, gloomy, introspective goth has substance, but as the article points out, sometimes this is just 'tongue in cheek' camp. Some Goths are introverted pessimists, some are extroverted rationalists. It would seem to me that the makeup of the scene is too diverse to appropriately blanket the scene with a common philosophical label. Course, I haven't taken a course in philosophy yet, so maybe i'm wrong... if anything, like most modern/post-modern bohemian type movements, i'd say that the goth scene probably leans a bit towards existentialism... i don't know...--Adrift* 22:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I take no issue with using philosophical terms to describe goth, and I think that indeed we must in order to describe goth in any depth. I do have a problem with describing goth in terms of it being or having a philosophy, though. Goth does incorporate views of various philosophies, but goth is outside the philosophical tradition, and has never entered it. So, when we use philosophical terms to describe goth, we should use them in such a way so as to make it clear that there is no "philosophy of goth". That does not mean that goth is based only on outward syles. Goth does have a system of ideas which includes various beliefs, outlooks, values, and ideals, but since that system is outside the philosophical tradition, goth is best described in terms of it having an ideology, which is a much broader term than philosophy. Principles are not solely the domain of philosophy. Any system of ideas can have them. Ecto 03:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
To me, a philosophy suggests a systematic set of beliefs based on a process of rational inquiry, intellectual argument and debate, etc., which may be too narrow a concept. But I do wonder about the word "ideology", which is often pejorative (suggesting some kind of false consciousness). Aren't you talking about an attitude to life, or a worldview, or something? Metamagician3000 09:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I think your definition of philosophy is too broad, actually. There has to be that connection with the philosophical tradition for something to be philosophical. A set of ideas has to seriously address previous philosophical inquiry and be treated by established philosophers in order to be philosophical. Science, for example, is "a process of rational inquiry, intellectual argument and debate, etc.", but it would be wrong to confuse it with philosophy because science is outside that tradition. I think the term ideology stopped being pejorative many decades ago. It has been defanged, even among some Marxists (at least in my experience). Worldview is a very similar term to ideology, but worldview is much broader. A person can only have one worldview, but multiple ideologies (at least if they are sufficiently compatible). Worldviews are all-enompassing, whereas ideologies are more like major components of worldviews. Goth alone does not stand up very well as a worldview. It has to be combined with some political ideology (usually liberalism) and some (non-)spiritual ideology (usually secularism or Christianity) in order to be part of a full-on worldview (that of your typical liberal secularist goth, for example). That is a very crude way of describing it, but you should get the idea. Of course, this is one of three or so definitions of ‘’ideology’’ in popular use, but its context in the article should make it clear which definition is in use. Ecto 12:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, science is not outside the philosophical tradition. Science and philosophy are continuous ... or so many philosophers would argue. Still, I was agreeing with you, or whoever originally made the point, that the word "philosophy" here would probably not be appropriate, so we don't need to debate the finer point of how philosophy and science relate.
I'm also not really suggesting "worldview" seriously, or any other particular phrase ("value system" or "system of values" occurred to me, but they could not be used in the heading and probably have other problems). But I do still have a bit of a niggling problem about "ideology". Again, it doesn't matter that much, but I always think of something like communism, fascism, or capitalism, or maybe liberalism when the word "ideology" is mentioned ... or else I think of the Marxist meaning of a kind of false consciousness. I do still encounter those usages. Use it as a heading if there's no other way, but still... I don't propose to re-edit anything you write just on this basis. I'm just suggesting that you might be able to avoid, or at least qualify or explain, such an ugly word that has a lot of historical baggage. Good luck! Metamagician3000 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
'Philosophy' is a term that is used for a plethora of different areas but we are not referring to First Philosophy, viz. Metaphysics, here of course but rather trying to identify a broad ethical basis to the Goth subculture. 'Ideology' does hold connotations of political campaigning for me; 'Philosophy' seems to direct the focus on to a more ethical and less practical level (even if this frippery does appear to be the proverbial de lana caprina). Nicander 19:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
A stop over at [www.dictionary.com] yielded these definitions for ideology:
  • A systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture.
  • A manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.
  • The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
  • A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
  • The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, a group, a class, or a culture.
  • An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation [syn: political orientation, political theory]
  • Imaginary or visionary theorization.

Nicander and Metamagician, I think the first six definitions fit the topic at hand perfectly. Philosophy does have a defintion which means generally the same thing (though without the emphasis on culture), "A system of values by which one lives", but that use is informal and usually applied to only one person at a time (I always imagine a cowboy leaned back saying, "Well, that's just my personal philosophy about life"). The other definitions of philosophy have no place in an article about goth, because they deal with philosophy proper. The political connotations of ideology are because of the importance of political ideologies in everyday life, but they are not the only type of ideology. Ecto 01:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty happy with the way it is worded at the moment. I made some very light copyedits, but they were things like adding a "however" in one place, or deleting one in another place, to try to clarify the logical flow of the section. I hope this humble copyediting work has been marginally helpful. If anything needs further tweaking, go ahead.
Although the word "ideology" has certain connotations for me, as I explained, I agree with you that it's all quite clear in context, especially when the section is actually denying that there is anything that could meaningfully be called a goth ideology! Metamagician3000 05:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the significance and need for the last few edits on this part of the article, but reading over it I can't help but think that it still sounds a bit um... lumpy in places. Here's a line I have a question about "The goth subculture shows a fascination with individuals who define themselves through experiencing or expressing extreme emotions." I believe this was here before the recent group of edits, but i think it's sticking out like a sore thumb now. What does this sentence mean exactly? Obviously passion runs deep in the scene and that should be noted in connection with the romantic influences, but this sentance sounds like a jumbled mess. Here's another older sentence i have problems with "Also, most goths tend to prefer a certain amount of separatism. It is often their goal to create a somewhat elite societal alcove — a place of refuge or solace." Who says? Even if this is true, is it verifiable? Never mind the wording sounds cheeky and silly. Finally, I've never liked this paragraph: "Occasional attempts at cultural appropriation by the mainstream of elements from gothic fashion have left the subculture largely intact. While moviegoers love to see people dressed like goths, there is little sign that the majority of people (as opposed to some teenagers and students) wish to join them on a permanent basis." Isn't this statement contradictory? Maybe It's the wording, but i'm confused... Have the attempts at cultural appropriation left the the scene intact? or is it inspite of? I think the edit to "moviegoers" sounds better, but I feel the whole sentence itself is a bit irrelevant. Besides, how do we know that moviegoers don't want to join what they see in film on a permanent basis? Is there any polls on this? I figured I'd discuss this here while edits are currently going on in this section so that I don't step on any toes.--Adrift* 18:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Adrift*. After my last comment on this talk page I read the section again, and found that it still seemed okay but just not very smooth in its flow - and there seemed to be some ambiguity here and there - so I had another go at the style and the order of the sentences ... just to try to make it read more smoothly and clearly. Your latest comment obviously postdates those changes, and you've raised issues of substance. From my viewpoint, you won't tread on my toes if you deal with them by editing the section more boldly than I have been doing. Metamagician3000 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)