Talk:Goth subculture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Nihilism and Nuclear Annihilation

I was not a goth in the early 80's but I was close friends with many of them in the SF bay area where the goth movement was vital and well established. I remember the ready threat of being vaporized any minute was a constant threat on everyone's mind as a result of Reagan and the cold war. This was the time when people started talking about nuclear winter, comic books about the horrors of Hiroshoma came out, and President Reagan was cracking jokes about starting a nuclear holocaust. There were a lot of suburban white kids that didn't think we would make it to adulthood alive. Everybody was saying it only takes 30 minutes for the missiles to reach us and there is one for every city in America. Then there was AIDS, when sex, the source of life suddenly became deadly. We didn't know how far or fast it would spread and if we would all wind up in quarantine camps just because we loved someone. I bring this up because I feel that was one of the major psychological roots of the Goth movement. Embrace what you fear most. Vampires don't die of radiation poisoning or STD's. The dead have nothing to fear and answer to no one. I think it is important to include this idea in the article but I don't know how to approach it responsibly. Do you guys agree that it should be included in some form and if so how?Michalchik (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically the concern is whether a source can be found that supports this kind of idea (the roots of goth in the paranoia of the age of nuclear weapons and AIDS). Everything on Wikipedia should have a supporting reference. See WP:NOR. Aryder779 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In my experiences, I've never heard of any of this being associated with goth. But I find it very interestng. Perhaps if you could find a few links that support this idea, it could be posted. All of the "Dark Alterative" scenes embrace the socially rejected, of course within reason. Fear is a pretty big factor in that, but as to say that it's a root of goth is going a bit out of thatr way, I think. Maybe phrasing it in the way of rejected ideas are embraced by many goths would be a better way to put it.HearMeWhisper (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Timothy Jones, a scholar of the gothic subculture, the gothic subculture’s birth in America began much earlier than the eighties. In “Every Day is Halloween,-Goth and the Gothic” Jones declares that the goth subculture developed as a response to the scandal of Watergate during the 1970’s. People were frustrated and outraged by the U.S. government’s intent to cover up what had surpassed. The first subculture that immersed from this controversy were the punks. They responded to the political scandal by creating violent music that expressed their anger and frustration. Many subcultures stemmed outward from this—one of them being the goth subculture. The movement deviated from the violence, exemplified by the punks, into a more pacifist stance while still expressing their disappointment and despair from the incident. And so, the goth movement assumed a romantic outsider role seeking truth and beauty elsewhere.Tsvan (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have the book, you can provide references and add material to the article. Though I am somewhat skeptical that the Punk subculture can be seen as a byproduct of the Watergate scandal. Proto-punk is considered to have emerged in the 1960s. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

References

This Article Should Not Be A POV Essay

I just reverted the entire page because somebody rewrote MOST of the article according to their point of view. Please do not do this. If you have a personal opinion on what goth is, or isn't, and want it read by people you ought to create your own personal webpage because this isn't the place for it. Thanks.Crescentia (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I'll add to that is that "your own personal webpage" does not mean "your Wikipedia user page". Wikipedia is not a free web host. --Stormie (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that. :-)Crescentia (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Goth is too diverse a subculture for any Wikipedia page to adequately detail and classify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.154 (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This thread/comment is three years old, nearly. Does the original sentence still apply (to some)? Or is the Article here now OK? --- AstroU (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Jhonen Vasquez Criticism

I don't really follow the section about Jhonen Vasquez's Criticism. When it says, "At the same time, his work is also self-mocking, particularly when it touches on issues such as murder and depression..."

Does this mean that Jhonen Vasquez is a depressed murderer? Also, why does it matter if his work is self-mocking? This article is about goth subculture, not about the tendencies of Jhonen Vasquez's writing. I'm just saying, this particular sentence doesn't seem very clear to me. Deepfryer99 (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an apologist sentiment and should be deleted from the article.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This section is much too long. Aryder779 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

CyberGoth

There appears to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of a section of 'CyberGoths.' I personally think that anyone with knowledge of the history and origins of Goth and Industrial should know they are completely unrelated, but some people seem very insistent on this being added. Also, the tone of the content itself sounds like something that would be on a site trying to sell a line of Cybergoth fashion items, it just doesn't sound right. Hell, one of the sources is a site selling Cybergoth fashion items, the only other source is a forum. Zazaban (talk) 06:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO, CyberGOTH does not exist. I agree, there is a Cyberculture, born on the foundations of technoid music (such as Xotox, Shnarph!, Combichrist, Noisuf-X, VNV Nation and other bands). But this kind of music has nothing to do with Goth. The main music of the Gothic subculture is Gothic rock and related Post-punk/Darkwave genres.

Furthermore, the deleted picture gallery showed only a handfull of simple Goths:

• 
  Midnight Fallen
• 
  CyberGoth Mannequin
• 
  CyberGoth Boy
• 
  Wenchi & ViperJoe

- the first pic shows a fetish goth

- the second pic shows a variant of candygoth (?)

- the other two pics show a soft form of "batcave" (they look like fans of Cinema Strange ^^)

All these people have nothing to do with Cyber (see below).

Cyber fashion

Cyber people

A Cyber

A Cyberkid

--Ada Kataki (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with covering cybergoth, but there were problems with the particular piece of text which was being added (e.g., it created the false impression that goth subculture had turned into cybergoth). At the same time, I disagree with the idea that it doesn't exist, or that they are entirely unrelated (two themes that seem to be commonly raised on this article) - the topic seems to be reasonably well covered at Cyber_(subculture)#Cybergoth, and I see no reason to dispute the material as long as it can be supported by references. Mdwh (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That same text was being used in the article to linked to, I removed it. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I was thinking more of the fashion section, and didn't notice that bit. I agree with it's removal, as it seemed rather too much pov/unsourced/original research. Mdwh (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

":IMO, CyberGOTH does not exist."

Wow, what an ignorant thing to say. Sigh. 58.170.133.245 (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Not really an "ignorant thing", but a logical thing. All these kids have nothing to do with Goth music, Goth aesthetics, Goth literature etc. They're simply techno kids. --Ada Kataki (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, its a very ignorant thing to say. No "commas" about it. Its just ignorant and pointless. Because techno music isnt "Goth" (see, thats the correct use) then they are just "techno kids"? I see you have a hard time grasping what logic is. Especially as the Gothic subculture is not comprised solely, or always, of music, or a specific type of music. Nor is the Cyber culture always, solely or of a specific type of music. So Cyber Goths can quite easily exist, to say otherwise when you cannot grasp the concept outside of your personal subjective views on the subject is...as ive said...ignorance. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Have you read the article? Goth is a subculture based around music, that music being a kind of punk, not a kind of dance music. Although calling them 'techno kids' is a bit rude, calling them goths is not accurate. Zazaban (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really rude. In Europe, they listen to Techno music. But they think that this Techno music is Industrial music. Furthermore they think that Industrial music is a kind of Goth music. That's all. And that's the reason why CyberGOTH doesn't really exist. It is only a "pseudo subculture", developed on the foundations of mistakes, misunderstandings and a musical genre term swindle. --Ada Kataki (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking less about the 'techno' part and more about the 'kid' part. You're totally right though. Zazaban (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources, remember. Cyber_(subculture)#Cybergoth seems to have sources. I've never heard of the term applying to techno music anyway (typically it refers to genres like EBM and futurepop, in my experience), and the idea of people listening to techno whilst claiming it's industrial, and in turn claiming industrial is "goth music", sounds like a straw man. The only thing that seems unclear is how popular the term "cybergoth" is (how many reliable sources, etc), or whether the scene/fashion/bands are mainly known by other terms (bands and nightclubs tend to be labelled with genres like EBM and futurepop, as I say, and festivals like Infest are simply labelled "alternative electronic"). I'm not sure what is meant by claiming "cybergoth" doesn't exist - that the term doesn't exist, or that the scene doesn't exist, or that it has no relation to goth subculture? Or something else? If you mean that it does exist after all, but in your opinion it was founded on "mistakes" and "misunderstandings", then that sounds entirely like POV. (I'm also curious that the term "cybergoth" is disputed, but terms like "fetish goth" and "candygoth" are accepted, when these are surely far vaguer and less used terms...) Mdwh (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cybergoth doesn't exist in that there is no 'goth' that is 'cyber.' I however, do support cybergoth having its own article, and it did, but was deleted for some reason. I am for restoring it. Zazaban (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO the article Cyber (subculture) is sufficient. The contents of the CyberGOTH article were almost identical to the contents of the Cyber (subculture) article. And POV or NPOV - there is no plausible explanation of why a CyberGOTH subculture exists. Why are they called "Goths"? There is absolutely no relation between the subcultures. --Ada Kataki (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to refrain from getting into a WhatIsGoth debate, let alone one as vague as whether it can be "cyber". The only thing of concern here is what sources there are for different scenes (as defined by music/fashion/clubs/festivals etc), and whether the term "cybergoth" is used to describe any such scene. Whether we personally think the term makes sense or not is irrelevant here. I'm not sure it makes sense to ask "why" a subculture exists, whether it's cybergoth, or anything other. The most obvious connection to goth subculture is the fashion, as explained at Cyber (subculture)#Fashion_2. Another obvious connection would be the number of "goth" clubs that play alternative electronic music (e.g., Slimelight). Mdwh (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also curious that the term "cybergoth" is disputed, but terms like "fetish goth" and "candygoth" are accepted

Do you know the history of Goth? Fetish clothes were a part of the Goth subculture since the early days of the Batcave club. Siouxsie Sioux, Ollie Wisdom (Specimen), Gitane Demone (Christian Death) etc. were dressed up in fetish clothes. Furthermore i don't really use the term CandyGoths. I read the term in a book of Voltaire (?). I don't think, it's an established term, but there is no other term for this kind of styling. --Ada Kataki (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No reliable sources to offer, but I can tell you that "Cybergoth" was an oft-used term when I was living in London in 2000-2001. Here is a Google Usenet search from uk.people.gothic at that time. There were people who were into aspects of the goth subculture and also aspects of other subcultures, cyber, industrial, rave, etc. Their taste in fashion combined elements of goth fashion with futuristic elements, their taste in music took in both goth music and various types of electronic music. Some of them were former trad goths who had become less interested in the trad scene. --Stormie (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but my point is that "cybergoth" is surely at least as common as term like "candygoth" - according to Goth slang, cybergoth is referenced in at least one book, for example. Mdwh (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added this to the cybergoth section of the Cyber (subculture) page:

Valerie Steele quotes Julia Borden, who defines cybergoth as combining elements of industrial aesthetics with a style associated with "Gravers" (Gothic ravers). Gravers hybridized "the British Raver look and the NYC ClubKid look with a 'freak show' spin." Borden indicates that initially the hair extensions and bright fishnets did not mesh well with goth fashion, but that by 2002 "the rave elements of dress were replaced by Industrial-influenced accessories, such as goggles, reflective clothing, and mostly black clothing." Steele summarizes:

“ Today cyber goths tend to wear primarily black clothing with hints of neon colors, as well as clothing made of reflective materials and PVC, and huge platform boots. Their hair extensions or falls often incorporate a bright color and multiple piercings are typical. Goggles are often worn. Some cyber goths also wear gas masks or (in what appears to be a kind of medical fetish) shiny PVC doctors' masks. ”

If Steele and Borden consider it to be part of the Goth subculture, it can be discussed here. Aryder779 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, Steele and Borden make it clear that the aesthetic emerged from a combination of ravers, club kids, and rivetheads, all of which are pretty different from goth as such. For reasons of brevity and consistency, this page should really probably focus on classic Goths. There's no way that we can talk about all subcultures that are somewhat dark or morbid here. Aryder779 (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, CyberGoth doesn't refer to Goth anymore than Steampunk refers to Punk Rock. Goths usually dress in that "elegant/turn-of-the century-retro/macabre" style and CyberGoths are more into the futuristic aesthetic. Musically speaking, 00ntz (EBM/IDM/Future Pop, etc.) and Goth (Goth, Darkwave, Ethereal, etc.) are two very different scenes. Very Old School Goth (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In 1980, Joy Division became New Order. We listen to The Cure, on the way to the club. We dance to VnV Nation when we get there, because it is more fun to dance to. Unless you want to claim that the goth subculture is a historical movement that no longer exists, it is preposterous to claim that EBM isn't a part of it. The group of people at every Depeche Mode concert is the same group dancing at every Combichrist show. It evolved, past the nineteen-nineties.

You are intentionally excluding where contemporary goth is. That makes this article far worse than irrelevant. It is intentionally inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.182.215 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's repulsive, how ridiculously skewed, this article is, towards people in their forties, who used to be involved in this subculture, and have long-since lost touch.

Goth didn't stop, just 'cuz you had kids and got out of it. It didn't end, the last time that you bought a cd at Warehouse Records. It evolved. It changed. Cyber is where we are, now. We've been there since 1994.

More people made music. Deal. Go to a goth club. It's not that hard, to discover.

This article is a terrible bastardization, of what goth culture is, today. We are about the egalitarianism. We are about the "girls can go to a club and, even if they're completely naked, can expect that not a single male person will ever touch them, without their permission." We're about the black and the velvet. We're about the not-being-mean to anyone, ever. But you're trying to say it is only about music that people that are forty-five thought was cool, when they were fifteen. Sorry, buck-o, but it evolved, past the time when you decided to not learn new things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.182.215 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Goth clubs are not an accurate representation of the Gothic culture. The clubs were taken over in the 90's (early, mid or late depending on where in the world and/or country you are)by an Industrial offshoot called EBM. Real Goths (of all ages) quit going to Goth clubs because Goth is not represented in the set list. It's all cyber, EBM, so called "IDM" and other such malfunctioning alarm clock music. There is nothing Gothic about the sound of R2D2 having a seizure. Just because you're 20 and think that dressing in Transmuters and goggles makes you Goth doesn't mean that you have a handle on Goth, the music or the culture. It just means you're trendy and haven't the slightest idea what Goth means. There's nothing Goth about VNV Nation or And One. Dark, creepy, haunting music is Goth. Thining that oontz, stomping and "futuristic" clothing is somehow related to Goth means that you (and your club's DJ) have completely missed the point. 71.79.242.209 (talk) 23:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So, basically, your point is that nothing ever changes, and you don't think that what goths like is cool, any more, so how dare wikipedia be accurate? Yeah yeah... clubs are such a TERRIBLE place to find out what hundreds of goths think of the scene. We should, instead, listen to you whine about how much you liked the Cure.

Things change. And, by the way, I'm ten years older than you gave me credit for. I just had the guts to learn new things, instead of being a little bitch.

I mean, really? Goth clubs aren't where you should learn what goth is? What? Should we all ask your mom, first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.103.18 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All you learned is how to be a poser. The Cure? Really? That's your idea of Goth? And "hundreds"? No, the last time I walked into a Goth club I saw EBM-tards, metal douches who were too stupid to figure out they weren't wanted there and fat people who thought that wearing fake corsets and jeans would lead to a social life. No Goths at all. Nothing "changes". Scenes become saturated with wannabes and posers when the general public figures out that it exists and flood said scene with their flawed idea of what it means eventually pushing out the people who created and cultivated the scene in question. Which is where you come in. A wannabe who has infected and bastardised a scene they know nothing about because nobody ever thought you were cool enough to explain to you that The Cure is about as Goth as Wumpscut. Which is to say "not in the least". Go dance to your faggy sythpop garbage and wear your stupid Transmuters with the rest of the EBM twats. I'm sure you'll fit right in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.115.94 (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I have to defend The Cure? Yes--really. We call it a goth club. Everyone, everywhere, calls it a goth club. It plays EBM. That makes it goth. The end.

Also, I'm just curious, here but, by chance, was "the last time" you "walked into a goth club" about fifteen years ago, by chance? 'Cuz you should try it again. We're actually pretty nice people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.25.80.237 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually? I walked into 1 about 2 weeks ago and that about sums up the crowd.

"Now I have to defend The Cure?" In fact, yes, you do. Goths do not consider The Cure to be goth and neither do they. "Smith has also expressed his distaste for gothic rock, describing it as "incredibly dull and monotonous. A dirge really." You are really embarrassing yourself with your spectacularly uninformed take on what goth is and your hilarious assertion that it is in any way connected to ebm. and... *ahem* "We call it a goth club. Everyone, everywhere, calls it a goth club. It plays EBM. That makes it goth. The end."... Seriously? Please. Do us all a huge favor. Never procreate. I'm afraid you would pass your poseur genes to your offspring and God knows we don't need more of your people running around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.52.25 (talk) 05:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC) z Wow. Haven't checked in months. But ok. You wanna cock-block accuracy in favor of what you and your friends think is cool? Whatevs. This article has fuck-all to do with goth, and that's your fault. But we really never needed your approval in the first place. Wikipedia being full of shit is your problem--not mine.

Wow, I would have assumed that The Cure was unanimously accepted as a goth band, along with Sisters of Mercy and Fields of the Nephilim. Just because Robert Smith thinks goth is a drag doesn't mean his music isn't widely accepted in the scene. Take Andrew Eldritch, he hates the "g word", yet Sisters is definitely considered goth by most European gothics, and has also been booked accordingly at gothic music festivals, like the M'era Luna. So regarding the topic, if the organisers and 20K+ crowds attending M'era Luna and Wave Gotik Treffen consider cybergoth and The Cure to belong to the goth scene, surely can we too. Or do we know better than all these people? That would be quite presumptuous. Mister Denial (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

References

Metal

It seems a bit lame to simply dismiss the whole of goth metal as being a misconception by outsiders - confusing metal with goth. When bands such as Cradle Of Filth are covering Sisters Of Mercy it seems that there is some cross over between Goth Rock and Metal that is worthy of a bit more than the dismissive suggestion in the main article. Granted that metal is a very wide term that includes things that are definitely not goth - that borrow heavily from Californian, Biker, and Rocker fashion - but there is an increasing number of bands and fans that are borrowing and adopting goth fashion and blending metal with goth rock influences. In the 1980s you could count the number of 'true' metal bands that used keyboards on one or two hands but goth metal borrows heavily from the keyboard styles of goth rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.225.181 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Goth is for sophisticated people. Metal is for hillbillies. Unrelated.71.79.242.209 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, not only did your statement contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion, you've also made a complete ass out of yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.73.175 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No. They spoke truth. In no way does that make an ass of them. 2605:A000:1103:196:9020:69F7:E68D:9625 (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Social class: White Collar / Middle Class?

It has always seemed to me that goth has been a white-collar/middle-class subculture. Is this just me, or has anyone else noticed? If it's a reasonably widespread view, even if a minority, then I'll spend some time digging for references. It always seemed that, in the 80's and 90's when I was part of "the scene" in the UK, the goths and indie-kids were always white-collar/middle-class, and the metallers and clubbers were always poor/lower-class. Whether this is a function of money (goth clothes cost more) or social viewpoint (goths as "soft" or intellectual) would be interesting to pin down. A good starting point might be this Guardian article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it quite works that way though, it's just how you viewed the social groups, though it does seem that the goth sub-culture is mainly made up of middle-class (the ones who can usually afford to but everything, and so stand out a bit more), there are many working class (and dole-scum) goths in the world! And I have personally known many middle-class 'metallers'. The Guardian news paper isn't really a good place to find out about anything to do with the Goth Sub-culture, besides for a good laugh!  Doktor  Wilhelm  13:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr Dunja Brill Would agree with evilandi, A piece in the telagraph, agin from around mar 2006 when her study was published [1]

She published th study as a book [2] 78.146.236.135 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you are going to read this... but I'll tell you my experience (from the late 80ies early 90ies when I was in the goth subculture). Every goth I met in Spain was what you might call "middle class" in England, not necessarily coming from families with more money than others but definitely with a higher education than average. Every goth there would have an university degree. Goths were by far intellectually superior to any other subculture "tribes". When I moved to Eastern Germany -where the goth scene was really huge- I realized that many Goths there -in fact most of them- were working class. So, generalizing about the Dark Wave or Gothic culture is always wrong, because it has always been very different in every country. Meeting goths from all around the world I would realize again and again that I had nothing in common with American, English or Scandinavian goths, apart from an unconditional love for Dead Can Dance 92.227.83.106 (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism"

The article current contains this as the only item in the "criticism" section: "In contrast to postcolonialist literary and cultural critics who see goth as eurocentric and laden with racist connotations, film historian David J. Skal argues that horror cinema has always served as a socially acceptable outlet for subversive social criticism, and thus neither horror imagery nor (by extension) the Goth subculture adhere to the description suggested by these critics."
The trouble is that the article doesn't cite any of these postcolonial literary critics, and this sentence addresses horror cinema. It then attempts to discuss the Goth subculture "by extension" from horror imagery. Which is an enormous stretch. I'm going to delete this, and the "criticism" section as a whole. Aryder779 (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Mdwh (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Love Mercer's "no true Scotsman" part. If something is clearly a fallacy is it considered a good source simply because of who writes it? 75.191.151.75 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

References

Controversy section

Is it just me, or is the controversy section much, much too long? I mean, it really belabors the point that a few people with distant and tenuous connections to goth have committed crimes and been associated with the subculture by the press. I understand the need to locate some of this information here, but I really feel it's much too detailed. I might try to clean it up in the near future. Aryder779 (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It's needed. The average person's image of what 'goth' refers to is so skewed that we need to explain it in detail. Zazaban (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This section now seems heavily biased against goths. 82.24.93.170 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Of note?

This was posted in the Goths article. I thought it might be relevant here although it's unsourced. "Some people misuse 'Goths' and call them 'Emo.' 'Emo' is short for "emotional" and is a new teen trend similar to 'Goths.' Don't worry be happy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because goth and emo are not even remotely related. Zazaban (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are actually some connections between emo and goth, but both are so broadly defined in popular culture that it's difficult to address on this page. Early emo (Rites of Sping, etc.) has only a thematic similarity to Gothic rock (emphasis on personal drama and references to European modernism) and some slight musical similarities (common debts to post-punk). First wave screamo groups, like Antioch Arrow, Heroin, and Swing Kids, actually do have a pretty strong debt to early Goth bands (the references are on that page). More recent groups like Thursday also borrow from Joy Division and other early goth groups.

Sources are not clear enough on this overlap to include much of a reference here, and I wouldn't advise any mention of emo on this page. The early screamo groups are still pretty underground and marginal, so discussing them here would probably violate WP:UNDUE. Aryder779 (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering their influence, probably not. Zazaban (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Vampyric Goth Subculture

London is seeing a rise in the number of people and groups defining themselves as "Vampire Groups". At present I know of at least three that have regular monthly meetings.

• London Vampire Meetup Group (LVMG)
• Vampyre Connexion
• The London Vampyre Group (LVG)

The scene is portrayed as romatic, and are starting to attract non-goths to the scene. Many members wear professionally made fangs and dress more theatrical than other goth events. Red wine tends to be the drink of choice and music played at events often includes Baroque and Classical. More recently Steam Punk styles have started to be incorporated into the ideal as the new subculture develops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.70.124 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like tit could work as a separate article. But go ahead. Zazaban (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Points of Contact section

By the mid-1990s, styles of music that were heard in venues that goths attended ranged from gothic rock, death rock, industrial music, EBM, ambient, experimental, synthpop, shoegazing, punk rock, 1970s glam rock, indie rock, to 1980s dance music. This variety was a result of the eclectic tastes of the members of the subculture.

Not a phenomenon of the 1990s. In fact, there were points of contact between (Post-)industrial and Goth since the early 1980s, since the beginning of the Goth movement. Besides Gothic rock, Goths also preferred Post-industrial music such as Einstürzende Neubauten, Cabaret Voltaire and Skinny Puppy. Bands such as Test Dept. and Foetus played in the Batcave club in London. Cleopatra Records in the US released Goth AND Electro-Industrial releases. It was not a pure Goth label. There're also points of contact between Goth and Psychobilly. The early 1990s-Propaganda Magazine from New York dealt with themes such as Neofolk, Gothic Rock, Death Rock and Dark Wave.

The German Goth article contains an interesting section about the musical and subcultural "relationships" between the Goth scene and punk, industrial, psychobilly and other movements. --Ada Kataki (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

self-harm study

This study on goth's self-harming was removed because "it was discussed previously & a few months later a study was published completely contradicting the resaults":

• Robert Young, Helen Sweeting, Patrick West (2006-05-06). "Prevalence of deliberate self harm and attempted suicide within contemporary Goth youth subculture: longitudinal cohort study". British Medical Journal (332): 1058–1061. doi:10.1136/bmj.38790.495544.7C.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• report at New Scientist magazine

However I could only find this thread: Talk:Goth/Archive_2#Recent_University_of_Glasgow_study. It doesn't mention a second study, it just cites the comment on a livejournal blog to disprove a BMJ study. I think that this is insufficient, I don't think that Livejournal commenters are trained to spot stadistical fallacies. Can someone find a link to the second study, or a better source?

The Glasgow report was later reported also by the American Academy of Pediatrics [3].

On BMJ a month later two authors complained on a letter about the size of the sample[4], and a post-graduate student another letter complaining about the sources used on the study [5]. The authors replied later on another letter [6]. That means that the study was criticized, not that it was disproved, I would like to see a link to the study that contradicted it. Letters are not usually considered reliable sources, but I think I'll add them to the article to point out the study's flaws (letters on BMJ are certainly more reliable that Livejournal comments).

There was later on 2008 study from the Journal of School Health. It says "[goths] have a higher prevalence of depression, self-harm, suicide, and violence than non-Goth teens". Unfortunately, it's closed content so I can't read it and see if they made investigation of their own or if they are blindly quoting the Glasgow study :( --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Even without the second study, this first study only included 25 goths, which does not seem notable. I think we need better studies supporting such a link, in order to be worth mentioning. Mdwh (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but it meets notability well enough: it was published on the BMJ and reported on the New Scientist, BBC[7] and ABCNews[8], and picked up by some random reliable source like the Canada's Hospital for Sick Children website[9], it's also cited by a few papers[10]. None of those sources indicate any problem with the study's reliability.

Btw, it would be more like a total of 100 goths and ex-goths. from the NS article: "Just 2% [25 young people] of the adolescents in the study identified with goth culture, although 8% [100 young people] said they had identified with it at some point in their lives (...) The authors recognize that it's based on small numbers and needs replication." I have added the NS and BBC articles and expanded a bit. (btw, online copy of the full paper[11]). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

By notable, I mean compared with goth subculture as a whole - if we included every mention of something related to goth that had ever made a mainstream media article, then this article would be vastly huge. I wonder if this would be more appropriate to place under the self injury article? - However, we shouldn't just mention goth, but we would list all the factors that studies had claimed to show some correlation (e.g., homosexuality and bisexuality, as listed in the paper).

As for including 100 goths - the study showed that for those who identified as goths, 8 out of 15 (53%) had self-harmed. However, for the 78 who identified as goths just or quite a bit, then only 14 of them ( 18%) had self-harmed. So in other words, if we claim all of these count as goths, then any correlation is far lower. Mdwh (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, we shouldn't put everything that get got a news article, but this was published on the BMJ and there are no studies contradicting it (that we know of!). (You can bring it to WP:RS/N to get a outside opinion on this).

The study concludes that identification with goth subculture was the best predictor, we shouldn't be listing all factors when the study only gives preeminence to one of them. See "Goth identification remained the only subculture which significantly predicted self harm after adjusting for other subcultures".

You can also read "Of 25 participants with a high identification (at some point in their lifetime) with the Goth subculture, 12 had harmed themselves" (emphasis added), there were 10 people on the study which had high identification with goth subculture but had stopped having it before reaching 19 years old. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

merge proposal from Goth girl

This new stub seems not to merit a separate article but could form a section of this main article. PamD (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete it. There are different kinds of Goth styles with undercut, mohawk and teased and pleated hair. The Goth girl article only describes a Morticia lookalike. And the Nemi comic charakter is definitely a Metal girl. --Chontamenti (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kill it. Very Old School Goth (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Eden Prosper and Razor Candi are lust. POV. I know. But seriously. Cheers!Very Old School Goth (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Goth girl? Swift deletion. Please.76.181.245.123 (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Different types of goth?

There are sub-types of 'goth', ya know? I mean, this article is fine for your run-of-the-mill everyday goth, but there are other, less well known, types. I, for example, am a Perkygoff. This website should be of assistance: www.blackwaterfall.com . Honestly, Cybergoth has it's own article, why shouldn't the others? Or at least a section...~Sana (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Find enough referenced information - more than say Voltaire's book or a single website. If enough WP:RS references can be found to cite descriptions, history, and musical influences, then they can likely be developed as subheadings. Though I suspect they might fit better under Gothic fashion.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not nessecarily, Some of the types are purely fashion based, but others (Yes, like perkygoff...-_-') are more of an attitude thing. Like, an outlook on life. We even have a manifesto!! http://www.obscure.org/~vlad/gothic/perky.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanatherandom (talk • contribs) 15:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In a very, very quick survey of Google Scholar using "Perky Goth" [12], I pulled up the following references: Little Book of Goths by Dan Vice[13], The Goth Bible by Nancy Kilpatrick[14], Goth Craft by Raven Digitalis[15], and Goth: Undead Subculture by Lauren M. E. Goodlad and Michael Bibby[16]. There was also a thesis disertation From mopey, to perky, to poseur: context and its affect on meaning in gothic subculture by Ed Purchla, but can't locate anyplace to access it. It looks like there might be enough WP:RS material out there to start developing an entry. Some one with access to a few of those books might consider devloping an article on the topic.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perky and Mopey aren't really "sub-types". It's only a human disposition. It has nothing to do with fashion, music, ideology or aesthetics. Sub-types of the Goth subculture are Batcaver, Romantic/Victorian Goths, Bonanzas (Nephilim & Sisters Goths), etc. --Chontamenti (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bonanzas"? Never heard that one before. What's the etymology of that? --Stormie (talk) 10:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom, the band members of Fields of the Nephilim called themselves "Bonanzas". Shortly after, their spaghetti-western-dressed fans also had taken up the term. But here in Germany, we didn't use any term for this kind of Goths. They looked funny and their preferred bands (besides the Fields) were The Sisters of Mercy with Wayne Hussey, The Cult and New Model Army. You also can find the term in Dave Thompson's book "The Dark Reign of Gothic Rock". --Chontamenti (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Goth Religion

I would like to add something about an association with Wicca, under the religion heading. Yes, I get it.. Goth support diversity and it's not specifically associated with a particular, formal religion. That said, in America there is an undeniably close association with Wicca and the article should reflect that.

A. "That said, in America there is an undeniably close association with Wicca"... no, there isn't. There is a close association with hippies and wicca and most Goths I know (myself included) despise hippies. B. "Goth(s) support diversity"... since when? Most of us are actually pretty judgmental and the majority of us who are judgmental are fiercely proud of the fact that we are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.250.188 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to suggest The Fountain (film) is the best symbolization of what Goth could be on its surface. Hope you people well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.88.5.58 (talk) 00:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

---

"Gothic is a fairly open-minded culture when it comes to exploring anything that is "not of the norm." Religion is no exception. Many Goths are likely to explore alternative religions and forms of spirituality rather than following a dominant organized religion. Some find paganism and Wicca to be appealing."

http://www.gothicsubculture.com/religion.php

"Many Goths are atheists and a sizable minority are new age spiritualists, Wiccans and members of other alternative religious groups. There are Christian Goths. Basically Goth is not about religion, but with the imagery of religion. May goths wear crosses or ankhs, and there are many religious references in goth songs, but it is not a religious movement."

http://www.vamp.org/Gothic/Text/gothic-faq.html#13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.240.204 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The first one does not seem to be a reliable source - what references or research are the claims based on? Also you didn't quote the first paragraph which gives important context, stating how there isn't much connection between religion and goth:

"There is no set belief system for Goths, although many seem to be agnostic. A person's religion and his or her gothic involvement have little to no affect on each other. Christians, atheists, Jews, agnostics, Satanists, pagans, and so forth are all represented within Goth. While there is an incredibly wide variety of religious beliefs and views, most Goths do not follow any sort of organized religion. Their personal spiritual beliefs are of a private nature."

The second source surely seems to say the opposite to what you propose to add - i.e., it states there isn't any specific connection to Wicca or anything else. Where is your source for "undeniably close association"? Note that we already cover religion in the article, under Ideology, where we say:

"Similarly, there is no common religious tie that binds together the goth movement, though spiritual, supernatural and religious imagery has played a part in gothic fashion, song lyrics and visual art. In particular, aesthetic elements from Catholicism often appear in goth culture. Reasons for donning such imagery range from expression of religious affiliation to satire or simply decorative effect.[8]" Mdwh (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no connection between goth and Wicca, other than the fact many Wiccans call themselves goth, dress dark, etc. . .but don't, in actuality, dress goth or listen to actual goth bands. Further, Wicca is becoming so mainstream that a large number -- perhaps even the majority -- of Wiccans I have met dress completely "normally" and don't consciously identify with any sort of subculture. You might as well say goth has an association with Thelema because a large number of Thelemites are goths, or Christianity because a lot of goths wear crosses. 74.46.62.235 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought wikipedia rules were pretty simple on this. Don't use original research (like "I think Wicca is a part of goth culture, I can feel it in my belly") and don't confuse your POV with research (like "I am a goth and I hate hippies and am judgmental, so let's exclude that from the article and bash anybody opposing me."). And always provide sources! Provide a source that Wiccans appear significantly more often in the Goth scene than anywhere else, and we'll write about it.

Cross-Continential Goth culture.

I think we've hit a major snag in this whole article. There is a large difference between American Goth culture and Goth culture around the rest of the world, especially Britain. Trying to form an article about a subculture that exists around the entire world isn't going to work if it's all written by American's who draw on their Goth beliefs and values without consideration of what Goth means somewhere else in the world. I understand that Wikipedia is American itself, but please stop making very sweeping statements that you assume apply to everyone else; that is imposing emics. 78.149.12.247 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Goth subculture → Gothic subculture — To match related articles such as Gothic rock and Gothic fashion, among many others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Text (e.g. lead sentence) will need adjustment, post-move. Move is blocked by an edited redirect. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• To my ear, this has the idiom right, and the others wrong; if both are used, we could do worse than disambiguate the modern subculture from the kinsmen of Roderic and Theodoric anyway. Oppose therefore, pending overwhelming evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think PMAnderson's right on about this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - As far as I'm aware, most goths refer to it as the the 'goth' lifestyle/subculture/whatever, not 'gothic'.~Sana (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Both common usage and the ability to disambiguate support maintaining the current name. --Bejnar (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - to be honest, I don't think either term is used significantly more than the other (and a Google test agrees with that: [17][18]), so I don't see any good reason to change the status quo on such a heavily linked-to article. --Stormie (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism

Vandalism on this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.0.60 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Acknowledged and reverted. 202.63.50.108 (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I'm confused. How were the last few changes to this page vandalism? It looked better to me/made more sense. Somebody tinkle in someone's Weetabix? RJS59 (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't. Chalk up to idiocy on the part of the reverters. IP's reverts looked better. Tathbreaker (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP's edits removed referenced information, and were made without edit summaries. After the first revert, he became increasingly combative, finally insulting editors and asking to be blocked. At any point, he could have made a case for his edits, but chose not to. How were his edits, and his behavior, helpful? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Nitpicky. All you have to do is go to history and click (diff). The way it's written now it looks like a child wrote it. Who makes a case for tidying up an article? "Goth fashion is stereotyped as", honesty. Does that look better to you? Really? Granted anon was rude and used dirty words. So block them and keep the edit.RJS59 (talk) 04:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, not "nitpicky." His edits removed cited information without any reason or explanation, which is vandalism. I notice you made no response to that. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Emo" misconception?

Shouldn't there be at the very least a small notation stating that the "Emo" scene is not a part of the Gothic culture? Far too many people have this misconception, and it causes a lot of confusion and anger over the subject both online and offline. While many "Emo" kids claim to be Goth, I have never once heard a member of the Goth culture consider themselves "Emo" or even verify any link between the two. "Emo" started as a sub-culture from the modern-day Punk scene, and it's really obvious, visually, yet people constantly mash "Emo" and Goth into the same stereotypical group. Most shrug it off, but for others it's a constant problem. "Emo" ideals are far from those of the Gothic culture, another misconception people make. The stereotype of Goth being based on misery and suicide is one that has followed the culture for far too long, and these "Emos" trying to push themselves in is only furthering the misunderstanding. If I had any resources or articles I could cite, I would. But sadly I'm lacking any kind of written proof, and though it is wikipedia, a mash of so-so information with no bases to prove anything wouldn't do any good, and would most likely be deleted. 98.21.93.56 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

People also think that metal is in some way related to Goth, which it isn't. So you'd have to include that as well. Or the misconceptions that Marilyn Manson, EBM or Industrial is related to Goth or that Goth is ever played in Goth clubs. The laundry list of genres that are not truly Goth or a part of the Goth scene is so lengthy that maybe the article should just be about what Goth is and not what it isn't. Do we really need sections on Vampires, nonconformity, Hot Topic, Transmuters, goggles, Tripp pants, HIM, The 69 Eyes and all the various things that are in no way Gothic that wannabes incessantly rave about in the hopes that they'll somehow be considered Goth for knowing about? PS - "emo" is an adjective, not a noun. ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.58.8 (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Goth" is not a genre of music, and this article is not about a genre of music (you may be thinking of gothic rock). So this isn't really related to what the OP asked about the emo subculture. (Not that I think what the OP wrote should be included, as it seems a load of opinion and original research.) Mdwh (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"emo"

Whoever added "emo" under a separate "see also" section. 1. There is already a "see also" section. 2. "Emo" is completely unrelated to Goth. Please do not add to the article. Merci.71.79.249.245 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this was recently added, without comment, by an established user who should have known better. His reasoning is a mystery to me. Thanks for removing it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What?

"By the mid-1990s, styles of music that were heard in venues that goths attended ranged from gothic rock, death rock, industrial music, Psychobilly, EBM, ambient, experimental, synthpop, shoegazing, punk rock, to 1970s glam rock." I'm sorry, but as a patron of various Goth venues in the 90's I have to take issue with this. Industrial, EBM, Psychobilly, Synthpop and so called "shoegaze" were not welcome in the Goth scene. Clubs that played EBM, Industrial and Synthpop no longer had Goth patrons. Psychobilly had nothing to do with anything Goth and shoegazers simply got their asses kicked. Did whoever wrote this actually go out in the "mid-1990s"? 71.79.249.245 (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Your not having gone to a goth club within the last twenty years not withstanding, WOW. You're pretending to write an encyclopedic article on Goth, and completely disregarding everything that has happened within the last twenty years? It simply leaves you looking like idiots, entirely out of touch with Goth culture. Yes--EBM is Goth. We listen to the Cure and Depeche Mode on the way to the club, then Combichrist and VNV when we get there, because dancing is fun. Google Goth Clubs, in case you actually have any intention of knowing the least fucking bit of what the fuck you`re talking about. Goth turned drum-machine and cyber fifteen years ago, you fucking morons. Oh, it is ok for goth to be an offshoot of punk, but it`s so bad, that it has evolved since Sou and the Banshees took a picture with Rob wearing makeup. You people have written the worst article on Goth that I have ever seen, and it is entirely because you discounted the contemporary, techno nature, as being relevant. Get out of your house. Learn something.

Your incivility notwithstanding, do you have any reliable sources to substantiate your claims? If not, then we're talking original research that's inappropriate for inclusion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Erm. Goth is Goth. EBM is EBM. That's not an "evolution" of Goth. Goth is still Goth. EBM is an Industrial off-shoot. The only thing Goth and Industrial have in common is they once shared a club night (Goth/Industrial night). Otherwise they are two completely different scenes/genres. EBM is not a "part of the Goth scene". It simply replaced former club Goth nights. And your only example of Goth is The Cure and Depeche Mode (only one of which is actually a Goth band) which tells me you have no idea what you're talking about so your POV isn't all that compelling. There have been thousands of Goth bands since Siouxsie and they are still playing/recording music. Just because the only version of the (supposedly) Goth scene you are aware of the cheap knock off version that sell out DJs are playing to keep their clubs packed with trendy patrons in transmuters and yarn hair doesn't mean that that's all that exists. It means you have a very limited understanding of the culture you seem to want to pass yourself off as an "expert" on. Thanks and have an awesome day. 71.79.242.199 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands of Goth bands, still? Please tell me about them, I beg you. I'm serious! But please, only good bands not Nosferatu, In/Sukkubus or LaM, "neoclassical ethereal" or the like. Pink turns blue and Fields are the only band I can think of at the moment. Anyway, Goth was only able to stay alive (and barely) in central europe by fusing it's scene with non-Goth scenes, such as EBM. Maybe there should be a section about that crossover, even though you don't like it? You could still make it clear that is a separate subculture, or at least started out as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfxf (talk • contribs) 23:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In Central Europe? Most bands in Europe disappeared in the mid-1990s. Goth was pretty much dead in late-1990s' Central Europe. It was the time of Techno beat and cheesy Heavy Metal bands. IMO, Goth survived primarily in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.5.247 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Goths and the original gothic tribe

Is there some kind of connection, even trivial, between the old ancient gothic tribe people, from Götland, and then the goths we see this day? Didn't see anything in the article pointing this out. Is there some kind of relation between those two currents? Just interested. Regards, Thomas 87.50.10.92 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.50.10.92 (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No. 71.79.253.63 (talk) 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Greeting Photo

I believe that the current greeting photo is unrepresentative of the Goth subculture. Forgive me, but I believe it to be an extreme example of someone who likes to overdress.

I believe it to be unrealistic as a universal greeting photo for the Wikipedia Article for "Goth subculture".

I'm sorry, but I believe it to be much more reminscent of a stage performer, rather than universal for the "Goth subculture".

Hypocritus (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever met an actual Goth? They all look like that. All the time. They always have. It's not "unrealistic". I know people who look like this every day. Lots of them. "Overdress"? Anyone's "style" can be picked apart and insulted. Even yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.115.117 (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

"They all look like that. All the time. They always have. It's not "unrealistic". I know people who look like this every day." Sorry, IP, I disagree in a general way. Not all Goths "look just like that" even though so many do look like that. Don't shove your misconceptions down the throats of others. There are 'levels' of Goth. I've been in and out of the scene since the early 1970's. How long have you been in it? Djathinkimacowboy 06:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It is necessary for me to clarify, there were Goths back when there was no real name for it and I was one of them. In fact a lot of kids tried stealing Peter Gabriel's look, back round 1969, when he wore Goth makeup and had long hair. Since growing old I have leaned toward Steampunk, even though until recently I did not know it had a name. Djathinkimacowboy 06:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

EXCELLENT new lead photo. Djathinkimacowboy 18:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am offended by the lead photo being replaced. I myself dress like this on a daily basis, and I was proud to see another "extreme goth" such as myself being portrayed. People like us are often beleaguered persistently, or else not taken seriously. And while this is irrelevant, my actual main point is that I feel every sort of goth ought to be represented. Even if there are objections to it as a greeting photo, (And frankly I don't see what the problem is.), at the very least it should be included SOMEWHERE within the article, to better represent goths everywhere. While not every goth type can possibly be included, I do agree that "levels" of goth should be included. This is not merely to satisfy my own wishes, on the contrary, I genuinely feel that this is very important to the integrity of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newt Toad (talk • contribs) 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Your general point is well-taken. The only problem is I don't think a photo of each 'type' Goth can be included. Perhaps the present photo and the older photo together, with a slightly improved label for each. Otherwise, don't get so worked up ("offended") just because the person in the photo looked like you. Djathinkimacowboy 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, were you alive back when they thought we all looked exactly alike? We were hated equally no matter what we wore. So I am happy no matter what is done on this article. Djathinkimacowboy 23:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

added "West Memphis 3" to see also section

I added this entry since it was known at the time that the main perp of the three, Damian Echols was into Goth sub-culture. It has been speculated that the investivation was done in haste, and the three convicted on flimsy evidence, and a "Salem Witch Hunt" type of mass hysteria to find perps of the ghastly crime. As of August 2011, the Three have been released from imprisonment, but again, the details of the true reason why this occured is open to speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 21:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Those kids were metal heads. Not Goth in any way. Reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.114.11 (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Damian was a self-professed Goth during a period in his life. While I agree the WM3 do not belong here at all, don't say Damian wasn't a Goth, because I heard him say that he was. Djathinkimacowboy 06:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"don't say Damian wasn't a Goth, because I heard him say that he was"

Sticking feathers up your ass does not make you a chicken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.124.130 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Some care in editing please

Please read what the article actually says before "correcting". In "Controversy" sec. it says, "The mass media has made reports that have influenced the public view that goths, or people associated with the subculture, are malicious..." Restated, it says goths or associated people are malicious, according to the mass media. The edit that changed "are" to "as" was in error. Djathinkimacowboy 06:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning to IP 75

I also have warned the IP here[19]. There is no point in wholesale blanking, no explanations, and disguising subsequent edits as minor. Djathinkimacowboy 01:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Goth is not a subculture.

Goth is not a subculture, for it is a group of people who simply do not fit into any cliques. Not that they haven't tried, but they just don't. Goth is a counterculture.

--DonCaptain (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A group for people who do not fit into other cliques? So, in other words, it would be reasonable to argue that non-Goths are people who just never fit in with the Gothic community? "Not that they haven't tried"? Seriously? What, like Goth is a fallback plan for people who are "shunned" by other, less interesting cultures? Really? (<-- Miz voice). That's like saying "I tried really hard to be a vagrant wino... but when that didn't work out for me I just settled for being a 6 figure CEO. Those are the breaks, I guess." Are you familiar with the phrase "weasel wording"? 65.204.124.130 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

'Subculture' is a technical term from sociology. It doesn't imply anything about the culture under discussion, other than that it is a subdivision within a broader culture, just as a subspecies is a subdivision of a species. (Therefore 'subculture' and 'counterculture' are not mutually exclusive terms.) There is clearly a Goth culture, and it clearly exists as a subdivision of broader Western culture, in the sense that it wouldn't have come into existence without that culture (without the existence in Western culture of youth styles in popular music and dress, for instance); therefore it is correct to call it a subculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayvey (talk • contribs) 11:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Goth attitudes / mindset

I feel the article in it's present form focuses on fashion and music preferences, and doesn't really explain what it means to be a Goth. Regarding Goth behaviour, it seems to be very much reporting from an outsider's perspective.

If you are reading this and are or have been a Goth, please consider adding something to the article which sheds some light on a representative 'Goth' mindset or approach to life and other people, so far as it may be possible to generalise. I would be happy to do it myself, but as a non-Goth I have no confidence that my understanding would be accurate!

David FLXD (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Because "Goth" is not a religion or a philosophy, but rather a jumble of cultural phenomena (there is not even a consensus, what belongs to it, and what not), there is no "Goth" mindset or approach to life. For example, there probably just as many nihilists (or any other philosophical relative of existentialism) who don't see any higher meaning in life as there are occultists, Wiccans or platonic idealists who do.

Not describing Goth behavior from an outsider perspective would just be describing your own behavior as a goth, wouldn't it?

Perhaps, if you could be more specific in what questions you would like to see answered, we could develop the article accordingly?

Mrfxf

Music styles associated with the goth subculture

In the article several music styles such as EDM or Gabber are mentioned which are not derivative from gothic rock nor influenced it in any way. I strongly question the inclusion of EBM also. There are no sources provided for any of these questionable associations with dance music styles. If you include everything that is played in "goth clubs", then you will have to include industrial metal, goth metal, Neue Deutsche Härte, anything derived of electro-industrial and several other styles as well, and you will still have to provide sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfxf (talk • contribs) 22:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh by the way, for the last claim I can in fact provide sources myself. Namely, the set list of a few popular goth DJs from our scene in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfxf (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

"Violence" Section filled with Spurious Sources

Hello! Many of these "sources" are dubious at best. If one of my students turned in a paper with these sources listed as "proof," I'd give them a D- at best. I find it challenging to believe a Christian webpage does not have an outside agenda in making Goths seem "violent." I also find it odd that this is being talked about at all. Is this an encyclopedia article, or a sermon.

If you don't get back to me on this, I shall just have to fix the problematic sources.

Thanks!

LadyMcBain (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)LadyMcBain

• The article is currently quite a stinker. I'll look into it. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree.

And it is WP:UNDUE to have this information here. There's no point to add random news items in an article that is about culture (music, arts, fashion).

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE: Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. Woovee (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This section was removed per the above section, but I disagree with the assessment, all references were reliable sources. I request the section be reinstated. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also of note, there is a header on this talk that states a consensus was previously reached concerning a Paul Gibbs merger into this article. If the information on that page was determined to be relevant to this subject and notable, it should be mentioned. As far as the Sophie Lancaster situation, it has received continuing media coverage. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, This article introduces readers to the subject of the gothic subculture. It is the perfect place for information reguarding actions taken against its members. Were it in the article on gothic fashion, I would agree with you. As far as undue goes, I don't see how it applies at all. The article on African American's includes information on slavery and discrimination, the same for the article on Homosexuality or the Hippie subculture. I think this would make sense on any encyclopedic article about a people or culture. This section did not claim that the information was more important than any other. The information is backed up by reliable sources, if you can demonstrate why specifically the sources are not reliable, or how they give undue weight to a certain viewpoint, I will listen to it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Which sources exactly do you take issue with? The only "dubious" looking ones seem to be christiananswersforthenewage.org and The Daily Mail. If there is in fact violence and discrimination against Goths (as there seems to be), this is the perfect place to put it. 50.195.91.9 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I also for the reasons listed above by Sephiroth storm request the section be reinstated. Holyguyver (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've requested that the 2 users who originally discussed this to take a look at this discussion. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the section could be retitled something more neutral? Abductive (reasoning) 00:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Any suggestions? Looking at the articles I mentioned earlier, the homosexuality article has a section titles "Discrimination", the hippie article does not have a separate section, but it is mentioned inline with the history of the culture. Thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Abductive, The section in this article was called "Controversy" I don't see how you can get more neutral than that. Holyguyver (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps "Perceptions" or "Public perceptions"? Abductive (reasoning) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

PVC clothing in the link section

Is it still relevant to only include PVC clothing as a link in this article? This trend in clothing might have been very popular some years ago, and I admit that for example in 2003 a good chunk of the people attending the WGT were dressed in PVC; but this is simply not true anymore, it has been strongly vaning, and as of 2012, hardly anyone does still dress in PVC. Some wear rubber and latex, but that's not PVC. So the question is, should we remove the link because it evokes the impression that PVC is still THE main clothing type for goths, or should we complete it with links to other relevant looks, the Batcave style, the cybergoth styles, the romantic and neo-classic looks, Victorian and steampunk, etc... ? Mister Denial (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at WP:ALSO, i'd remove it. While clothing would be in an encyclopedia, thats why we have the Gothic fashion article. I'll make the change. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

people of color in the subculture

I'd like to add a section on this subject either here or on the gothic fashion article. There is a perception that blacks dont exist in the subculture, or it is very small (it may be). In any case, it is an interesting topic, and I am working on getting a few photos for use, but I need to know if anyone would have an issue with adding a section, it wouldnt be well referenced, i've found an entry on Jillian Venters's blog on the subject, which also mentions discrimination against black goths, which is news to me, but anyway, as a blog it is not a reliable source IDT. other reporting is scarce. I could use citation needed tags, something to note the information is informational rather than encyclopedic... thoughts? Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Poseur issue in goth scene

I had previously added a whole paragraph on the topic of poseurs in the goth scene. Admittedly, most of the content was weakly sourced. I've now pared it down to solely the material from Nancy Kilpatrick's Goth Bible, a published book — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.246.80 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Images from Wave-Gotik-Treffen

Some weeks ago I import a lot of images from Wave-Gotik-Treffen last years. There you can see a lot of different styles and nice outfits and I like to get help to categorize this images (i.e. what is a cyber, what is a steam punk, ...). Maybe you like to help.

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Import_by_User:Slick-o-bot/Wave-Gotik-Treffen_2008
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Import_by_User:Slick-o-bot/Wave-Gotik-Treffen_2011
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Import_by_User:Slick-o-bot/Wave-Gotik-Treffen_2012
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Import_by_User:Slick-o-bot/Wave-Gotik-Treffen_2013

--91.221.58.5 (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Poseur goth content from the Goth Bible

An editor deleted the paragraph on poseur goths, which is sourced from the Goth Bible. The editor stated that the Goth Bible is not (WP:NOTABILITY) notable enough. If you go to this Policy, you will see that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." WP:NNC says that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I would appreciate it if editors would not delete content sourced to a published book on the topic.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

{Transferred from my Talk page}There is no need to put the same content on many articles: wiki links show where extra information on a subject is available.

The edit about Nancy Kilpatrick is suitable for the article about goth fashion: mentionning the name of a low profile writer who is not a journalist/historian is not encyclopedic. Woovee (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't rely on the blue links. Some WP users print the article or save it as a pdf file. On the second issue, there is no requirement under WP policy that the authors of a source for a music article be a journalist or historian. That may be your view, but it is not a requirement. Authors of music articles may be musicologists, composers, music theorists, or sociologists. You call her low-profile, well, she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article and she has published a number of books. As well, the publishing company that published the Goth Bible, St Martin's Press, is "considered one of the largest English-language publishers, bringing to the public some 700 titles a year under eight imprints..."(sourced from WP article on St Martin's Press).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Woovee, Could you please respond to my comments. The idea of WP:BRD is that we are supposed to have a discussion. I am attempting to discuss the article, but you are not responding. Thanks, OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Creation of new section on subculture

The previous structure of the article had three sections: Music, Art, and Fashion. With this approach, the only place that information about the subculture could fit was in the music section. Moreover, only some types of subculture information were appropriate for the music section (e.g., information on clubs and events). Within this three section approach, there was no appropriate place to put Reliably Sourced content on sexuality, gender roles, authenticity, drug use, media concerns, etc. Thus a new section on the subculture has been created to provide a home for diverse information about the subculture.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It's really strange...

...that traditional Goths are completely missing. The pictures show some fancy-schmancy fashion girls from the late-1990s and 2000s, but no Goths from the 1980s and early 1990s, the boom years of the subculture. So where are the trad-Goths and their Punk-ish/New Wave-ish style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.5.247 (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of content sourced to published books, news articles

Hi, Woovee, You have deleted content from VampireFreaks.com. At the same time, you have deleted statements about the goth subculture from BBC news, Salon.com, and university press books. You say to put the sociology content somewhere else. Well, this is the goth subculture article, so this is where information about goth subculture goes, including material with sociology content. Nice deletion of the goth promo event, claiming undue weight. You can delete away quite a lot with the undue weight argument.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Just put back a sentence about a moral panic being created in the wake of Columbine, from the New York Times. What is wrong with that source?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that unreferenced content like this is fine from your perspective: "Throughout the evolution of goth subculture, classic romantic, Gothic and horror literature has played a significant role. E.T.A. Hoffmann (1776–1822), Edgar Allan Poe[23] (1809–1849), Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867), H. P. Lovecraft (1890–1937), and other tragic and romantic writers have become as emblematic of the subculture[citation needed] as the use of dark eyeliner or dressing in black. Baudelaire, in fact, in his preface to Les Fleurs du mal (Flowers of Evil) penned lines that could serve as a sort of goth malediction:[citation needed]".....but if I put in content about the subculture from BBC.com, New York Times, etc, you delete it. Why do the unreferenced sections not face your judgement?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

@Woovee: I have issue with the removal of the image and the commentary of "goth's policing the boundaries of the subculture. On the image, I feel it is useful in showing the subculture crossing boundries of gender and age. Excluding the picture of Bauhaus, there are no depictions of men in the subculture here. I do note that the image is in use on the gothic fashion page. As for the commentary, I feel it is relevant, the community is known for having opinions on the various offshoots of the genre, whether music fits within the boundaries of the subculture, ect. I read this article through the other week, and I felt this statement matched well with my experience and adds to the user's understanding of the culture. OnBeyondZebrax, the issue with the Columbine content was they didn't have permission to copy the NYT content. If you can find the original NYT article, feel free to re-add it. I support re-adding of relevant, sourced content, but i'd like to see this article brought up to GA standards if possible. Sephiroth storm (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I love the line about goths "policing" the boundaries of the subculture. Woovee raised a concern that this was hard to understand. I think readers can understand what "policing" the boundaries of a subculture means. It means they are judging whether a person in goth attire passes muster as an authentic member of the subculture. The picture of Whitby Goth Day illustrates an event discussed in the section, plus it shows that goth isn't just a teen trend. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding music to lede

Hippie subculture and Punk subculture don't have bands listed in the lead. But these articles differ from Goth subculture in that they don't also have an entire section on music. If the body has a section on music, like Goth subculture does, it is pertinent to mention some of the most important bands in the lead. Not to be tiresome and quote the MOS:LEAD, but it says basically that the lead should serve as a standalone introduction to the subject. I think that mentioning Bauhaus (band) and a few others would give the reader a general idea.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

goth subculture has lasted longer than other subcultures- statement in the lead

The lead states that the goth subculture has lasted longer than other subcultures. ("The goth subculture has survived much longer than others of the same era...") This is a bold statement, and I think it needs a source. The punk scene, for example, continues to have an active subculture.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know, now eight months later, the sentence reads: " The goth subculture has survived much longer than others of the same era, and has continued to diversify." Is that OK? Just asking, AstroU (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It ignores the fact that it practically died out in the mid-1990s (later, the term Goth was adopted by people associated with Heavy Metal and pseudo-Industrial music, e.g. Marilyn Manson, the cyber trend and all this stuff).

But it came back to life accompanied by a musical revival. Take the Wave-Gotik-Treffen in Germany, for example. Each year, 20.000 people arrive at the meeting, but only a small group of approx. 20 percent are really connected to Goth. All the others are Metallers, Cybers, fashion kids, LARP, Steampunks, EBM- and rivetheads etc., and tons of rubberneckers. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Rescued comment by another user from Archive of a different article, but it was about this one

This problem is being looked at from the wrong end of the binoculars. The modern expressions of the 'Gothic' as a cultural phenomenon dates from the end of the 18th century. By the 1830s in Britain, France and Germany, and even America, almost everything we associate with that term had already come to existence. French bohemians were eating and drinking out of skulls, dressing in exotic pseudo-Renaissance style, hanging their rooms in black velvet and tinting their windowpanes purple, and decorating their walls with human and animal skulls and antique weapons. This current of dark, sinister Romanticism was known as 'Gothic' fairly early, and never really went away. Even when not fashionable it persisted as an undercurrent, beloved of certain sensibilities. It is a cultural tradition that has had many twists and turns and varieties of expression, while still remaining recognizably 'Gothic' over the nearly 250 years of its existence. So when 'people of a certain age' (over 45) insist that the term 'Goth' apply only to a certain form of post-punk music from the 80s, they are running counter to cultural history. Even in rock music, the emergence of a gothic sensibility predated the formal recognition of 'Goth music' by several years with Black Sabbath and Pentagram. A very solid argument that these bands, and the Doom Metal they inspired in the 80s and 90s, are much more representative of The Gothic Aesthetic than any post-punk band. This is where the 'Trad Goths' fall into a terrible error. The 80s New Wavy drum-machine music they champion is is representative of only a very small and narrow expression of the entire Goth Aesthetic, and they are, without justification, trying to make their preferred music and the scene of their youth paramount, which is absurd, and a mere act of poignant mostalgia for aging Goths ( please understand i am not denigrating this music; many fine albums came out of it). I believe this can be solved by a change in nomenclature, with 'The Gothic' representing the general aesthetic of this dark romanticism, and its various trends in various arts ought to bexplaced under sub-headings. Thus those who were influenced by 80s Goth are best called either Batcavers or, if American, Death Rockers. Those who melded the influences of Black Sabbath and the Batcavers/Death Rockers can best be described as Gith Metallers or Doom Metallers interchangeably. Those who lean towards Dark Wave and Dark Ambient are Darkwavers, etc. Etc. ALL are 'Gothic' because all draw from that same cultural, artistic tradition in their own way. But the thing to remember is that this tradition, this aesthetic is greater by far than any pop-cultural embodiment-of-the-moment of it. Another source of confusion arises from regarding it as a 'subculture'--which has very specific sociological implications--rather than an artistic aesthetic that one makes one's own. It is far more if an artistic and cultural phenomenon than a sociological one.

The above comment was posted in an archive by Modredd, presumably by mistake. --Rubbish computer 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

2016

Editor User:Woovee deleted information published by Lauren M. E. Goodlad and Michael Bibby in the book Goth: Undead Subculture, published by Duke University Press (2007). Editor Woovee stated in the edit summary: "(This work of two professors is not serious. Fans of Bowie and Iggy Pop also had this sexual behaviour, this hasn't got anything to do with the goth subculture.)". On another deletion of text from Goodlad and Bibby, edit Woovee stated in the edit summary "(Lack of wp:notability. Professors of universities are not journalists or music historians.)". # Dealing first with Woovee's claim that "This work of two professors is not serious": WP:RS states that "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. (bolding added for emphasis). Goodlad and Bibby's book on goth subculture was published by a university press. WP:RS states that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Duke University Press is a university press from a major, respected university (Duke University).

1. Dealing second with Woovee's claim that Goodlad and Bibby have a "Lack of wp:notability. Professors of universities are not journalists or music historians.", As I have already informed Woovee in previous discussions on this article, WP:Notability only concerns whether a topic is notable enough to merit it's own Wikipedia article. There is no requirement that WP:Reliable sources (authors or books) be themselves notable and have Wikipedia articles about them. WP:Notability states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article"..."The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people)."....Regarding Woovee's statement that professors are not journalists or music historians, there is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that only journalists or music historians can be used as sources. For one, music historians, when they are musicologists, are often professors at universities. However, sociologists, cultural studies professors, critical theory professors and many other types of professors study subcultures. As already cited under WP:RS, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Who writes scholarly material published in academic and peer-reviewed publications? Most scholarly authors are professors.
2. I believe that if Woovee removes the Goodlad and Bibby sources again, given that this is a reliable source (a book published by a respected university press), this could potentially constitute WP:Disruptive editing. I draw editor Woovee's attention to the following section of the Disruptive editing guidelines:"A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. " (bolding added for emphasis). WP:Disruptive editing is stating that an editor can't repeatedly delete reliable sources posted by other editors. We are trying to create an encyclopedia, and to do so we must use the most reliable sources available. University press books, along with academic textbooks and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are considered to be among the most reliable sources, according to WP's WP:RS guidelines. Thank youOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 04:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposite point of view: This article is not an essay for cheap low sociology. One can't make poor generalities about a group of people who are very diverse, from only taking an article about a murder published in the local paper of x town.

• Certain edits of OnBeyondZebrax don't stand for an encylopedia, for a blog yes but not for wiki. His definition of subculture like this one is to create sections in this article that are not about arts, music, theater, photography, fashion designer, films, performances. OnBeyondZebrax apparently wants to create longer sections that are about gossips, local murders in tiny English towns but this is not encyclopedic. If a classical music fan commits a crime, does this mean that all the classical music fans are violent ?
• All is a question of wp:UNDUE WEIGHT and this article is more and more becoming a lame essay about sociology. Instance. If someone who had been tagged as goth by a journalist in year 2002, commited a crime or has been bullied, the gossip is mentioned as if the event is as important as an film or a painting.
• Best instance in this section "Violence against goths" with this part "In 2006, a Navy sailor, James Eric Benham, and his brother attacked four goths in San Diego California. One goth, Jim Howard, had to be rushed to the hospital. The perpetrators of this attack were found guilty in August 2007 on four related accounts, two of which were felonies, though Benham only spent 37 days in jail. During the trial, it was made clear that the goths were assaulted due to their subculture affiliation.". This is cheap gossip, there isn't any analysis or a concise resume of the content of the source. It is copy/paste. This devalues wikipedia.
• OnBeyondZebrax wrote here on this talk on 30 April 2016: "University press books, along with academic textbooks and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are considered to be among the most reliable sources". This is just his opinion, this kind of texts is certainly less reliable and poorer in content than an article published in The Times or The Guardian.
• To finish, please, don't drop names of unknown writers in an encyclopedia. This is poor content.
• OnBeyondZebrax looks like a goth fan who doesn't have any distance on the subject and makes oriented research to push his own personal view about what looks like a goth according to him. I may be wrong.

Woovee (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Problem of contribution. This edit is so poor, the user copies/pasted the title of the source, and it now appears like this in this wiki article "SO FULL OF MYSELF AS A CHICK" whereas it should have appeared "So Full Of...".

This following source in the article appears like this at the bottom of the page, this is not admissible for an encyclopedia :

• Wilkins, Amy C. (June 2004). ""SO FULL OF MYSELF AS A CHICK": Goth Women, Sexual Independence and Gender Egalitarianism". http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.413.9162&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Gender and Society Vol. 8, No. 3. External link in |website= (help) !!!!

OnBeyondZebrax doesn't even know how to format sources, he/she lets the url apparent. OnBeyondZebrax wrote: We are trying to create an encyclopedia, certainly not with this kind of contributions unfortunately. Woovee (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Woovee: you indicated that the following sentence was just my opinion: "University press books, along with academic textbooks and peer-reviewed academic journal articles are considered to be among the most reliable sources". That was my paraphrase from WP:Reliable sources, a Wikipedia content guideline that we are expected to follow. Here is the exact quote: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." That is what WP:RS says.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

OnBeyondZebrax seems to make mistakes on purpose while entering the sources. "External link in |website=" appears in red in The Notes section for this. The entire url is also shown, he is a longtime wikipedia user, I have already warned him on this talkWoovee (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

-----

---

Other sources below from previous discussion ... :: Woovee (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pictures

Stop removing pictures without any reason.

• "showing flesh is not suitable for a page about an article about a youth subculture movement which attracts young people"

...is a lousy argument. We don't live in the Middle Ages anymore. What is this? PuritaniPedia? --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Not to mention that a subculture that (at least partially) revolves around nightclubs can hardly be censored for 'showing flesh' or attracting 'young people' when it just depicts what you'd see at a hundred goth clubs across the globe (which would usually have a minimum entry age of 18 or 21, depending on jurisdiction). sheridan (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you stop removing pictures that have been present for years without any reason?. I compromised. There wasn't any picture with a male figure, you added one, now it is fine.Woovee (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

It was ONE picture of a girl sitting on a suitcase like a wooden doll. I had nothing to do with the girl in the lead. It was removed by someone else and was replaced by this CyberChick and later by the so-called "Evanescence fan".

Moreover, pictures are not carved in stone. The gallery is expandable. An article about Goth describes different types of Goth fashion and styles, including basic types such as Tradgoth (the more punky and dark-wavey style), Romantic Goth (from the wispy elegance of Ethereal Goth to the aristocratic pomposity of Victorian Goth) and maybe some others. Our personal taste is not relevant. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)