Talk:Goth subculture/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: evolution

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arianism and barbarians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  changes needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dispute: "Too much generalizing" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed the South Park goth image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  photos of goths 

message: I removed the following two links from the External Links section:
* VampireFreaks
* Mick Mercer
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed two links. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mall Goth redirected 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Goth State of Mind?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  What is Goth?  This article doesn't answer that question. 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sisters?

message: 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)
replies: text: The current version may not be perfect, but it's pretty good. Let's remove the tag. Metamagician3000 23:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religious Elements Section Edit

message: 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)
replies: text: In agreement. --Danteferno 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just a quick edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statements of opinion

message: 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)
replies: text: The same applies to the two band images you added to Gothic fashion. Mdwh 16:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Changed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: German Goth Pic/Punk Band Shirt/Whatever

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Philosophy/Ethics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Spanish Goths?