Talk:List of gothic rock artists

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of gothic rock artists article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

A lot of these bands are not goth, and I don't give a tiny flying monkey's ass if they've been labelled as such "by reliable sources"

I am pleasantly surprised by the amount of people on here who have taken a stand to Evanescence, Manson, among others being labelled as "goth". The people editing this article clearly have absolutely 0 clue - and only care about if some article from 10+ years ago, has incorrectly cited some alternative metal, nu metal, or metalcore band as "goth aesthetic", "goth attire", or "goth-rockers". Does it not matter what's ACTUALLY considered goth? Because this list is an abomination and quite frankly goes against your mission statement of "highest possible quality" because it really, really isn't.

Misinformation is something we goths have to deal with every single day, I have people coming in to r/goth and other Facebook groups, and giving us abuse and calling us gatekeepers/elitists for not considering Death in June, Evanescence, and a random assortment of other dark/alternative bands "goth". None of you realise the knock on effort this has, and if you're editing an article LITERALLY use Wiki as a source - some bands on here are labelled "goth" yet there's no mention of goth on their actual Wikipedia, why? Because they aren't!

You can't expect the mainstream media to have an in depth understanding of underground genres such as emo, goth, punk, even sometimes they're confused on what's considered metal.

If a reliable source said Lady Gaga was dubstep, would you really cite that? It's the same with citing metal or neofolk or industrial bands as "goth rock" because they're completely different genres.

Not only that, but mislabelling and/or including these bands opens up the doors for other, similar bands to be mislabelled and excludes actual goth because they don't have Wiki pages. There's thousands of bands, I've got a list, and there's a tiny portion of actual goth bands represented on here.

Lastly, please stop with the "it's your opinion" bullshit. Compre the sounds of these bands to the likes of The Sisters of Mercy, The Mission, Faith & The Muse, etc. It's no one's "opinion" (which seems to be all the editors go-to on here). One article commenting on a bands appearance isn't a "reliable" source because there needs to be multiple citing the same thing, even then, that's not reliable because misinformation spreads like wildlife.

Siiiii

Re-added Siiiii now that they have a wikipedia article. They were a favorite of Mick Mercer, who included them in his Gothic Rock Black Book.209.136.161.135 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, deleted Evanescence

Since it's already established that Evanescence play some type of metal (Nu/alternative/MTV or what have you) I took the liberty of deleting it from the list. Kind regards - Rolighetsministern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolighetsministern (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also I deleted Lacuna Coil. Consensus really not required. - Rolighetsministern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolighetsministern (talk • contribs) 14:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also Within Temptation. (Really?) - Rolighetsministern —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolighetsministern (talk • contribs) 14:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also My Chemical Romance. Don't know what they were doing on the list.

Sourced, therefore it stays per WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to above - do not remove other editors' talk page contributions. As per every other list article, if a reliable source calls them goth, they can be included, and your perosnal opinion is irrelevant. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NME is not a reliable source. The guy that wrote it doesn't know much about goth bands! My Chemical Romance are more pop than anything else and the Manic Street Preachers are rock. It isn't my "personal" opinion. Many people dont consider them goth. Are they wrong and one guy form NME is right?

Go away, read WP:RS, return to the discussion. It has nothing to do with whether he is "right" or you are "right". It has been reported in a reliable source; the New Musical Express (of which he is a deputy editor) passes the RS criteria so easily I cannot believe you are even questioning it (unless you haven't actually read what "reliability" means on Wikipedia); for the record, the journalist also writes for The Guardian, so his credetials for WP:RS are untouchable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what reliability means but those are not goth bands! The mainstream press are considered reliable but can be wrong. They call Evanescence a goth band and MANY people have corrected that.Seriously read the discussion further up the page. Guess you'll now add Evanescnce to the list cos a "reliable" source called them goth! I have a feeling its pointless discussing anything with you or correcting any mistakes on this article. So I'll just let you think you've won. Don't message me again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.100.44 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to decide whether a source is wrong or not. We report what has been published by reliable sources, and that's all that counts. If you can come up with equally reliable sources that write how some band is clearly not goth, that's fine and you may perhaps add a tag and reference for bands whose style is debated. But as the introduction to this list says: "The definition of gothic rock is debated. All artists listed here are considered gothic rock by reliable sources." So that's what is listed here. De728631 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to working on metal pages [blackmetalbaz], you obviously aren't contributing to this page in a constructive manner. You also seem to be a troll adding bands who are well known to have the mislabeled "goth" tag by mainstream publications, but are in no way related to the genre, just to get a rise out of people on here.De728631 has been mislabeling bands for quite some time 99.54.188.176 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my user talk page: "All that matters is what professional critics have written in reliable sources. That is how Wikipedia works. Fan-based likings and what "true goths" may personally think has no place in an encyclopedia unless it has been published on a noteworthy level. Please see also this essay." De728631 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested editnote

This was removed a month ago by an anon, so I'm reposting. - BalthCat (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following artists have been previously discussed for inclusion in this list and have been excluded by consensus as not representative of the gothic rock article. Before adding a new artist, please consult the gothic rock article. If you wish to add an artist previously excluded, please consult the previous discussion (the relevant section may be in the archives). In either case, please cite sources which describe the artists are notable examples of gothic rock.

The 69 Eyes (Sleaze Rock / Dark Rock / Metal)
Apoptygma Berzerk (Synthpop / Alternative Rock)
Ayria (Futurepop)
The Birthday Massacre (Alternative Rock / Pop-Rock)
black tape for a blue girl (Folk / Ambient)
Cradle of Filth (Dark Metal)
The Cruxshadows (Synthpop)
Dead Inside the Chrysalis
Deadstar Assembly
Deadsy
The Dresden Dolls (Cabaret)
Evanescence (Alternative Metal)
Frontline Assembly (Electro-Industrial / Electronica)
HIM (Alternative Rock / Pop-Rock)
Jack Off Jill (Alternative Rock)
Joy Division (Post-Punk)

Lacrimosa (Dark Wave on the first both releases)
Lacuna Coil (Alternative Metal / Gothic Metal)
Malice Mizer (Visual Kei / J-Rock)
Marilyn Manson (Alternative Metal)
Murderdolls (Horror Rock)
Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds (Post-Punk)
Nightwish (Symphonic Metal)
Nine Inch Nails (Alternative Rock / Industrial Rock)
Orgy (Alternative Rock / Synth Rock)
Rammstein (Neue Deutsche Härte)
Razed in Black (Electronica / Electro-Industrial)
The Smashing Pumpkins (Alternative Rock)
Sopor Aeternus (Folk / Ambient / Dark Wave)
Type O Negative (metal)
VNV Nation (Futurepop)
Wednesday 13 (Horror Rock / Glam Metal)
Within Temptation (Symphonic Metal)
Zeromancer (Alternative Rock / Synth Rock)

Having such a list is entirely conntrary to the core Wikipedia policy of WP:RS. If a band has been described as "goth rock" in a reliable source, then its inclusion here is perfectly justified, regardless of other editors' views. Other discussions of consensus are essentially irrelevant, as the consensus was reached as to what WP:RS constitutes. Feel free to take it up there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goth is one of the MOST misunderstood genres in music. Having a "source" describe Evanescence as "Goth" means nothing. There was a consensus as many people understand that the bands on this list, "source" or no, are in no way shape or form Gothic anything. All having a source, in this case, means is that 99% of people claiming to have even a cursory knowledge of Goth are full of crap and misinformed. Hence this consensus. And, with all due respect, you're a self described "metalhead". Your presense in the edit history of a Goth article, much like the Goth scene, is not welcomed. Mind your own genre and kindly ask your genre-mates to bugger out of ours. If I sound uncivil, it is because I am not interested in the opinion of a metalhead. Especially where Goth is concerned. Stay out of our genre, headbanger, and take your Evanescence and Marilyn Manson with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.237.65 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously need to go and (re?)read WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V (you know, our core policies), not to mention WP:CIVIL]. This is quite aside from the fact that you bizarrely seem to be under the impression that one cannot like more than one kind of music. Regardless, I may well not personally regard Evanescence as a "goth band", but it is undeniable that they are regarded as such by a proportion of the music press, and that is what we use for sourcing articles - not fan opinion, which is by definition breaking WP:NPOV. Whilst these bands are sourced in reliable sources (remember Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not "truth" as you may see it), they remain on the list. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they do not. WP:CIVIL] aside. There was and has been consensus. That and the dit history should tell you something. Records companies are not reliable sources as they deal in sales, not truth. Again, seek consensus before adding non-goth bands to this list.Klarion L-7 (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is second removal of sourced material. The sources cited are not record companies, but professional journalists, whose opinions we use for sourcing genres. Nobody else, just professional journalists, preferably in print where possible, but in the absence of that we can use Allmusic biogs (although not the style bar). Consensus about using reliable sources for articles is as long-standing as WP:RS is. Anon above (which may or may not be you) has already stated that 99% of people disagree with your version of the "truth" (goth purists are remarkably similar to metal purists in this sense), which would surely make your point a minority one, that can be safely ignored (in the absence of contradictory sources). Goth bands are goth bands if they have have been described as such by the music press, not because purists say they are; ditto with metal bands. It's not like there is a universal arbiter of any given musical genre. I repeat: do not remove sourced content, simply because you disagree with the journalists in question; Wikipedia works on verifiabilty, not "truth". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to add Evanescence, The Doors and Interpol to this list will ultimately result in it being scuttled as useless. If that is your goal, please state it openly, and argue the merits of scuttling this list as undefinable, rather than engaging in a game. -BalthCat (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not contrary to any other rules, as it is not a permission list. It is a list meant to encourage people who may not understand the core nature to recheck its purpose, and past discussion about select artists who have already been discussed. The entire reason the text was put up for analysis was so that it could be presented as such, not as law. I don't think it is at all unreasonable for editors to say "We've already been over topic X, so provide a source and explain your rationale before adding topic X to the article." - BalthCat (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list may not be contrary to the rules, but it's true that goth is a missunderstood genre, "gothic" is an adjective and in many cases when a journalist says a band like Marylin Manson or HIM is "gothic rock" its not because they are actually gothic rock its because it is rock music that has a gothic image or gothic influences, its kinda confusing sometimes. there are alot of bands that i dont know of on that list,.... however, Craddle of Filth, The 69 Eyes, Nightwish, Evanescence, HIM, Within Temptation, Lacuna Coil, and Type O Negative are listed and mentioned on the Gothic metal page, with Ev, HIM, LC, and WT having sections to themselves, so they really have no place on the gothic rock bands list, however the denial of The Birthday Massacre puzzles me, to me it sounds pretty goth rock, if anyone could explain to me how Massacre isnt goth rock id appreciate it 24.227.9.114 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us to define the genre of a band, we are limited to skimming the sources. And if one reliable source says that a band plays metal and another equally reliable source says they play rock then it may be just that and we should reflect it, adding them to both lists – because a lot of bands aren't just limited to one genre. Bands also keep evolving over time and what once started as rock may have turned harder while bands like Covenant, Samael or Cryptic Carnage have reportedly taken the other path, going from black metal to dark rock. WP:RS is all that counts. De728631 (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal is also a subgenre of rock, and gothic metal has gothic rock as an origin, so is it really that inaccurate to label goth metal bands as goth rock? They kind of are gothic rock just by the nature of their stylistic ethnicity.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^^this is exactly why people have a problem with those unfamiliar with Goth editing Goth pages. I'm actually stunned that someone would say that.98.31.20.15 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depeche Mode

I've heard it said sometimes that Depeche Mode is a gothic band, or has influenced the gothic music movement. Should they be added? They sound similar to, for example, the Cure, which is added. I'll see if I can find a reliable source for it. 71.192.90.255 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be added. Pop or New Wave but not gothic. If source calls them goth then source is not reliable.WJKovacs (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just read this... nonsense. If the source passes WP:RS, it is reliable. Sources do not pass reliability if they agree with your POV! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed "sources"

Mick Mercer, author, noted music journalist, and world's leading historian of Goth music stated, of Kimveer Gill, that he was "not a Goth. Never a Goth. The bands he listed as his chosen form of ear-bashing were relentlessly metal and standard grunge, rock and goth metal, with some industrial presence.", "Kimveer Gill listened to metal." "He had nothing whatsoever to do with Goth," and further commented "I realise that like many Neos this idiot may even have believed he somehow was a Goth, because they're only really noted for spectacularly missing the point." Mercer emphasized that he was not blaming heavy metal music for Gill's actions and added "It doesn't matter actually what music he liked."^[1]

This absolutely suggests that misinformation is widespread. None of the bands that keep getting added are Goth. Sources are flawed and not always 100% accurate. The revert history and consensus should tell you something. Please do not add non-Gothic bands to this list. Seek consesnsus again before readding.Klarion L-7 (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a grave error in the understanding of WP:RS. Mick Mercer may well say one thing, but he is not the sole authority to which we kow-tow when it comes to genrification. We, of course, have similar purist arguments on other lists as to whether, say, System of a Down or Led Zeppelin qualify as heavy metal. I'm sure it's great forum fodder, but there's no place on Wikipedia for someone stating "this is the one truth" about something so massively subjective. There is no "true goth". It's a journalistic term that has been applied to bands from the Doors to Marilyn Manson, and that usage should be reflected in any list article. I'm sure there are similar No True Scotsman arguments about whether Green Day are a punk band, but this is not the place for them. The best you can hope for is a disclaimer in the lede stating that "this is a list of bands that have been described as goth by professional journalists", which is exactly how we dealt with it on the metal lists. At the minute, you are removing bands exclusively based on your own POV without justification using the sources you would need. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing discussion here, just genre warring. "Please cite sources which describe the artists are notable examples" - NOTABLE, let alone "examples". These bands are not goth. Period. Not even close. I will not see wikipedia become a worse example of misinformation based on your POV. And Mercer IS an expert on Goth. A notable one. Metal, and whatever the Doors are, is not goth and does not belong in list. Again, seek consensus before re-adding or this will go to notice boards. Klarion L-7 (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I strongly suggest you do take this to a noticeboard, as I am not getting into a WP:3RR situation. I should point out that you have misunderstood another core policy in the above - WP:N. However, let's leave it to the admins; I'd appreciate it if you could point me towards the relevant noticeboard when you've posted there. Cheers, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Mercer may well say one thing, but he is not the sole authority to which we kow-tow when it comes to genrification No, but he IS an expert and you are not. So we will "kow-tow" to him long before we kow-tow to you. You ignore a source disproving your POV and readily accept those that support your POV which, of course, is a tell tail sign of a genre warrior.

There is no "true goth". It's a journalistic term that has been applied to bands from the Doors to Marilyn Manson - check your sources, you're wrong again. There are books by anyone from Mercer to Voltaire who, again, are reliable sources and, again, you are not. There is a goth culture, scene and genre regardless of (once again) your POV. Lacking insight or feeling exlcuded does not give you the right to make such outlandih claims that they do not exist or are simple "media terms". Decades of goth nights, concerts, WGW, local/global communities exist and have for many years. Your inability to understand that or weasel word/cheap shot the scene by calling it nothing more than a "journalistic term" suggests that you are unwilling to listen to reason, check reliable sources that disprove your POV and you are certainly not willing to seek or adhere to consensus. Hence, this is nothing more than POV and genre warring on your part and there is no place for that on wikipedia. Klarion L-7 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RS

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves.
I.E. Mick Mercer and not some record company or magazine that is NOT a reliable third-party source.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree.
Again, "some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field" and "Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available".

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;''
2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
- a record company or magazine, as you say, "kow-tows" to the music industry. They are not reliable sources. :Again "Mick Mercer, author, noted music journalist, and world's leading historian of Goth music".
In other words, he is a reliable source. An entity that does and writes as their clients (a band, a Hot Topic, what have you) demand is unreliable.
Klarion L-7 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS would naturally include Mick Mercer, but also print magazines or Allmusic. You're claiming that an article addressing this very issue by an editor of the NME no less fails WP:RS, which seems highly unlikely. You're trying to defend a position that if Mick Mercer says something, that is The Law, and if anyone disagrees with him, even other established music journalists, they must be wrong. Simply not true. I agree that bands, record labels and "Hot Topic" are not reliable sources but those are not the ones that you've removed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is not a reliable source, "the more genres, the better" is not a proper nor professional way to label music. You admitted you were adding false information "Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not "truth"", you were proven wrong, there was a censensus to leave these bands out because the sources were flawed, suspect and just wrong in general long before you stuck your nose in. YOU are the kind of people Mick was talking about when you said "they're only really noted for spectacularly missing the point". Stop editing this article. This is why metalheads have no place editing Gothic anything on wikipedia. You think it's OK yo ad Marilyn Metaltrash or The freaking hippie Doors to this list. Go away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.237.65 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you're away, the whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. You may disagree with the concept pf WP:V, but if so, you've definitely come to the wrong project. Allmusic does indeed pass WP:RS, a policy you definitely consider reading at some point. My personal views have nothing to do with it, although I do suspect you could easily find a whole bunch of other sources to back up the inclusion of MM; I'm less sure of the Doors - note again, my personal opinions (nor that of any other editor) have no relevance to this discussion, although I find it quite ironic that you might easily find a similar discussion about the inclusion of MM on a list of heavy metal artists :-) I'm a Bauhaus, Siouxsie and Neffs fan myself, but there you go. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I offer, once again, as a counterexample to your One True Voice of Goth argument, this article written by Luke Lewis. He writes, about the same event you referenced Mercer writing about above: "Similarly, Marilyn Manson, despite having long ago ceased to be relevant, has become the go-to guy for US moral guardians seeking a scapegoat for the 'corruption' of the nation's youth. But these misunderstandings - like the outdated notion that goth 'equals' The Misssion, Bauhaus and cider-and-black – arise from people seeing only the cartoon version of goth, and not the genuine, many-sided, nuanced one." This is clearly at odds with your (and presumably Mercer's viewpoint), and Lewis is certainly a reliable source as stipulated by Wikipedia (note how this is different from what you personally believe to be "reliable"), with a long professional journalistic career featuring the New Musical Express (he is currently editor of their website), Q (magazine) and The Guardian. This demonstrates that there are dissenting voices amongst the music press. I would suggest a reasonable compromise, as has been adopted on other list articles, would be to continue to include sourced material, and place a disclaimer in the lede pointing out that (as with most music genres) there are conflicting views on which artists fall under the banner, and that the list consists of bands "that have been described as goth by professional journalists in the music press". The only other option is to take your stance that there is only one definition or standard of what constitutes goth (apparently, this consists of the views of Mick Mercer and little else), which clearly contravenes WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I don't think I can be much more compromising than this, especially in the light of basically getting a load of abuse every time I comment, but I'll ask some other editors (not just ones that always agree with me!) to have a look over it. Regards, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, "world's leading historian of Goth music" trumps magazine staff. As a former writer myself I can tell you that a magazine is there to make money. Any writer can claim anything they want and have it published. That does not make them an authority. Mercer is not in the business of selling ad space in a magazine by pandering to the unenlightened masses the way these magazines you're citing do. Again, "reliable, third-party, published sources". These magazines you're talking about are not. And even if they were they are disputed by Mercer himself. That in and of itself is grounds for consensus here in a list that calls for notable bands, not just bands. Even if (and that's a big "if") these bands were somehow Goth, you would have to prove that they were notable in the genre. And judging from the fight the editors have been putting up here for the past couple of years, it seems pretty evident that these bands in no way belong on this list. Now kindly stop reverting and start actually trying to seek consensus.Klarion L-7 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to get into this tonight, so I'll leave it to pointing out that this article is not at all a list of goth musicians, or goth musicians who do rock style music. This list is only for music which fits the narrower description of gothic rock. That is to say a particular goth/rock style. - BalthCat (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, this is not a list of bands that have been tagged "gothic rock" in the introduction of a review, but specifically a list of bands fitting the article gothic rock. If the band would be at home in that article, then it belongs here. (And Allmusic really ought not to be considered a reliable source, especially as far as genre labels are concerned. I could see using full bio or review text, but not the tags on the side.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here as an outside opinion, and just to be clear, my knowledge of goth music is practically nil. I agree with Blackmetalbaz's proposal of including a disclaimer stating that there is conflicting opinion on what is goth rock, and that all bands labeled as such by reliable sources are listed.--¿3family6 _contribs 00:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that this list exists solely to list artists who are representative of gothic rock per that article. Any debate as to the nature of gothic rock should really be taken to that article. Both Klarion and Blackmetalbaz are off base in even addressing what "goth" is. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, as all that matters is what bands are cited as examples of gothic rock. There is admittedly a difficulty, because "goth rock"/"gothic rock" and the like are ambiguous. Many reviewers do begin reviews by referring to this or that band as "goth rock", however they may in fact simply mean that the band is goth, or goth in sensibility, and performs any one of numerous rock styles. That is not the definition of gothic rock. To represent the broader usage is not the purpose of this list, and to do so would essentially make the list unusable and bloat it beyond maintenance. The reason that Allmusic and many "reliable source" music reviews are not helpful here is that we need sources which identify the bands within the context of the gothic rock article. To merely label something "gothic rock" and move on is insufficient, due to the ambiguity of the term. Which is why I have (perhaps wrongly) many times in the past discounted bands by reading the meat of reviewers (especially ones nominally familiar with associated genres) and paying attention to the presence or absence of reference to the genre as explained by gothic rock. Evanescence, as an example, is generally explained in terms of metal. - BalthCat (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Within the body of that damnable NME list itself lies the evidence of how careful you have to be determining if something belongs here because it fits gothic rock or if it's just "goth+rock". Regarding Bat for Lashes: "Categorising Bat For Lashes as goth might raise eyebrows..." he barely dares label it goth let alone gothic rock. Regarding The Bomb Party: "...treating us to a molotov cocktail of hardcore grebo gothabilly lying somewhere between the Cramps and Bauhaus." being gothabilly or Bauhaus-like does not make it gothic rock. Regarding My Chemical Romance: "...the high-velocity, grand-guignol pop-punk of My Chemical Romance..." & "...in cross-fertilising goth with emo, MCR..." right there, it's labelled pop-punk. And then we have the Allmusic write-up on Evanescence's Fallen: "But it's the symphonic goth rock of groups like Type O Negative that influences most of Fallen." once again is just as likely (I say more so) to be symphonic+goth+rock, and not symphonic+gothic rock. You'll notice that TO- are not in this list, nor are they mentioned in gothic rock. Then to address the NME article and others, per the gothic rock article, "several mainstream acts including PJ Harvey,[53][54] Marilyn Manson[55] and Nine Inch Nails put gothic characteristics in their music without being assimilated to the genre". Now, we don't use Wikipedia as a source, but this list exists specifically to represent that article. If you want to put NIN or Manson in here, I think you need to start there. - BalthCat (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to tell in what sense an author uses the term? If they say goth rock, they mean goth rock. Goth+rock would be goth rock. Now, whether the author was being accurate is a different matter that we as editors cannot judge unless it is noted in a source. As for some of the examples that you gave above, most are indeed vague. The term "goth rock" or "gothic rock" needs to actually be used, not "goth-like" or something to that effect.--¿3family6 _contribs 11:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't tell what sense the author is using, the source is probably not substantive enough to use for this list. Take for example a situation in which there are two genres referred to by media reviewers as "pink rock", and both groups create lists such as "Top 100 Pink Rock Albums". The existence of those published lists is not a justification for merging the two genres simply because the genres have the same name. Another example is reviewers (in "reliable source" publications) which label certain newer, modern folk acts as neofolk. The fact that a review has referred to a band as neofolk in passing is not justification for including them in the neofolk article, because by reading the full body of the review, and the description of the music itself, you can see that the band is stylistically unrelated to the neofolk described by the article. This is the point of article disambiguation. Of course it's thorny when it comes to this topic, because there's significant thematic and stylistic connection between traditional gothic rock (per the article) and "goth rock" (being goth-adjective-modified rock). I'm not saying that people are wrong to label Evanescence "goth rock", because they're very right within a specific context. I'm merely saying that I have not seen Evanescence sourced being described as gothic rock within the article's context. I think the ambiguity of the term means this situation is a little more complex and demands at least a bit more rigour in choosing sources. Additionally, the article has been, for some time, an extension of gothic rock; its slave. This can, of course, change if consensus demands it. However, I don't recommend it. As I said above, the result would be an enormous list of artists with limited connection to each other, and an unmanageable size. It would likely be dissolved in favour of being handled by categories. (I would indeed support that instead.) As the only viable purpose for this list is as an extension of the article, it is there that the case should be made that Evanescence and the like belong within, that the meaning is outmoded or incorrect. (See again the explicit exclusion of artists like NIN and Manson within the article body.) The article would likely never gain consensus including Evanescence beside Bauhaus, but it could stabilize in a form where the extended goth-style-rock-genres are mentioned. At which point, this list would probably have to be disambiguated, reformatted by period/style, or put down as unwieldy. - BalthCat (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that the NME article is also insufficient as a source because it is a list of single songs, not of bands. Bands can dabble in a genre once or twice, but I don't think any reviewer uses a song or two to qualify someone as a member of the dabbled-in genre. - BalthCat (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about NME. Unless the source says that they are referring to something else other than gothic rock, editors should assume that they mean gothic rock. To read into the text is original research, specifically synthesis. If this is a separate genre that is referred to by so many sources, how come none of them have written about it and its distinction from gothic rock? It is one thing to say that the term goth rock is being misused, it is another to say that this is what sources are referring to when they have not explicitly said something to the effect of "this is not the same as gothic rock" or "goth is different from gothic rock." Unless the source says so, the artist should be listed.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, a quick look at the article reveals that both NIN and Marilyn Manson are mentioned within the body of the article, with sources. I also don't see how the list would become "unmanageable". We have many music genres lists far larger than this one, where all of the entries are sourced. The list of punk rock bands (although it too has some issues) would be an obvious example. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already quoted that very segment as *specifically excluding* NIN and Manson. Read it again. - BalthCat (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My whole point is that because of ambiguity, the actual treatment of the topic by the source should be more than "in passing" in order to truly justify inclusion. I'm not arguing that the broader "gothic rock" is incorrect, because many of the bands in question are properly identified by the words "goth" and "rock" in one meaning or another. However I don't think the idea that there is a "classically" defined "gothic rock" and a broadly used "gothic rock" is controversial; it can likely even be sourced. And it's not as if Wikipedia insists on sources demonstrating that two homonyms are in fact different things before allowing disambiguation. That is precisely the dilemma I was presenting by analogy with "pink rock" because it's ludicrous to suggest that homonymy requires a reliable source to disambiguate. That is why I deny that a simply passing reference to a band as "gothic rock" should justify inclusion here if it the source is not referring to gothic rock... that meaning is ambiguous, and the article is not at present representative of the broader meaning. "Is this source clear or ambiguous" is not synthesis. - BalthCat (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the source says "gothic rock," it is not ambiguous. Gothic rock is gothic rock. Whether you or I think it is gothic rock doesn't matter. As for the NME source, it clearly says that the label goth has expanded past "80s goth." Using that source, if we wanted to make the list "true" goth, only 80s bands would be included. My point being that the source is very clear: Goth is a fairly wide term now, not just a term for the "pure" original style. A very relevant example of two other musical styles with this change are emo and screamo, which now have almost nothing in common with their original sound.--¿3family6 _contribs 12:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well "gothic rock" is clearly ambiguous because you seem not to be grasping the central aspect of my argument: that "gothic rock" is in some contexts (including the article gothic rock, specifically) a term for a specifically narrowed genre. Even if the broader term evolves over time, it is irrelevant to the historical context. There's also no rule which says a band cannot come along later and match the narrowed definition of a classic genre, so the idea that the article would be limited to 80s bands is an error. I guess in comparison you could look at the genre term "classical" music, and how it has a specific meaning in particular contexts. No one sane would argue that a random Top 100 Classical Albums list should trump established sources defining Classical music in comparison to other periods, such as Baroque, within the specific context of the Classical period. However the difference here is that the Classical music article already deals with this issue, whereas I do not believe gothic rock does. It represents a narrower definition which does not, for example, include metal. (In fact it is listed as a fusion genre of its own, as are Death Rock and Gothabilly.) What I wish is that if you plan to make the case that Evanescence now fits within the modern understanding of the term "gothic rock" you make it *at the article* rather than here in the list. - BalthCat (talk) 12:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, dangling text. But more importantly: I quit. This list serves a purpose in its current form, and by using intro-blurbs to justify adding a nu-metal band which is described as "Meat Loaf meets Linkin Park" you are going to transform it completely into a large and significantly less cohesive list containing anyone who ever wore black eyeshadow or wrote dark romantic lyrics. I simply do not have the energy to keep this garbage up. Will you follow up on this by correcting what surely must be a grievous error in the main article by explicitly stating NIN and Manson are in fact gothic rock? And that metal is also gothic rock? - BalthCat (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to get involved with the main article, the only reason I'm here on this one is because an editor requested my input. You said "However the difference here is that the Classical music article already deals with this issue, whereas I do not believe gothic rock does."

But sources do address this. The NME source says that the term is "ever-evolving." Quote: "If there's an instinctive cringe when the term goth is invoked, that's because too many people have a narrow and reductive idea of what it represents. Type 'goth' into Last.fm and you'll get the usual ghoulish suspects: The Sisters Of Mercy, Bauhaus, Fields Of The Nephilim.

But that's 80s goth. In reality, the genre is a far broader church, an overarching set of aesthetic impulses that reaches right out to the present day and encompasses the glowering intellectualism of These New Puritans and An Experiment On A Bird In The Air Pump; the high-velocity, grand-guignol pop-punk of My Chemical Romance (and if you doubt that Gerard Way belongs at the high table of gothic lyricists, check out the demonic, goggle-eyed descriptive flair of 'To The End' and Cemetery Drive'); the mechanized, jackboot metal of Marilyn Manson."

Now, I'm sure sources could be provided saying the opposite. Like I said above, it's the same with emo and screamo. The best compromise is to include all artists labeled as goth rock, and mention in the lead that what gothic rock exactly is and who falls under it is debated.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the list is only valuable as an extension of the article. Which is precisely why I challenged you to fix the article instead, if you felt that this was the case. Instead, you are mucking up a subordinate list so that it will exist out of step with its parent, in order to prove a point about "reliable" sources. I read the article; there is no point quoting it here. Both it and the Billboard one merely demonstrate that those bands are sometimes labelled with the term "goth*rock" not that they fit the genre described in the article. Regardless as to whether many or even most people use the term in our friend Luke's way, the fact is that there IS ambiguity. Within certain contexts, traditional ones, "pop punk" and "metal" are not goth rock. Insisting they all be combined here is not a compromise, as it sides with the least narrow definition. To combine them here (without fixing the main article) is to assume that the only meaning that is valuable and accurate is the contemporary one. I still believe the only reason this list wasn't deleted in favour of categories years ago was because it was steadfastly connected to the main article. (Please note that Blackmetalbaz specifically removed a lead-in for this list that said the definition is debated.) - BalthCat (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List articles like this one are not "slave" articles of others, and you frequent reference to this simply suggests that there is almost certainly a WP:POV-bias over at the "main" article if an article entitled "gothic rock" deals only with a small subset of the bands described in the press over the years as "gothic rock" (or goth rock, or any other synonyms). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it eminently reasonable to expect a list to reflect an article about the topic it represents, for internal consistency. As this makes the two dependant on each other to a certain extent, it seems to me that the list should be subordinate to the article, as the list would have no purpose if the article did not exist. I'm unaware of any official protocol which says otherwise. My frequent reference to the article is, as I have repeatedly stated, based on this, and on the idea that this list will become bloated and unmanageable without a clearly defined context. Though "called gothic rock once ever by a reliable source" may be clearly defined, in a sense, anything created from such a broad definition would be of weaker value due to poor clarity. In a world which spits out reviews and fluff articles in "reliable sources", a single instance of being labelled something in a way which is not in-depth is not justification for certainty. If a band has only been labelled gothic rock once, such an article/list would present to the reader the idea that the moniker was uncontroversial. To say that all of the additions are controversial is also inaccurate. This is why, again, I think that if you want to approach the list from this standpoint, you should adapt the article first to represent the broader context. - BalthCat (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the article needs modifying to remove the POV-bias, but there's no particular reason to adjust one before the other. I disagree that the list would become unmanageable, and whilst I take on board your concern that the list would be "weaker" and "lack clarity", that is only true for those people that hold the POV bias in the first place. I'm of the opinion that genres are frequently "not certain", owing to journalistic POV (if you think this discussion is thorny, you should see the headaches we had over at list of nu metal bands, which resulted in at least one permanent block of an editor that simply refused to abide by WP:RS). I've already suggested a compromise - that the controversy is noted in the lede, and sourced (say, to Mercer and Luke Lewis, and possibly others, although those two seem to be fairly diametrically opposite), and then leave the reader to make up their own minds, based on the sources provided. The lede can state explicitly that the list consists of bands that have been described as goth/gothic rock by professional journalists in reliable sources. I would also suggest that for "controversial" inclusions, multiple sources could be included. Ultimately though, if it's reliably sourced, it should be included. Any alternative is by definition a POV infraction, as an editor has decided which sources they like and which they don't. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who specifically deleted a lede statement about controversy as a gross violation of POV. And the article will be weaker and lack clarity; not because it would cease to match one particular meaning of "gothic rock" but because it would suddenly consist of all bands ever once labelled gothic rock by a reviewer, without truly communicating any of the nuances or controversy. (In fact if 3family6's edits have anything to show, it'll not only be that, but any rock band ever labelled goth once.) The reader will be unable to make up their mind as to whether a band belongs with the information provided. (This is another reason that the article really should be changed first, because if they go there for clarity they'll find contradition.) I'm honestly not sure how best to weigh sources, but I'm certain that there's something wrong with this system if equal weight is given to Lewis' list and any essay by anyone ever (no matter what side they're on). While some of the pieces cited may occur in reliable sources, they're contextually shallow, and generally proceed to describe the artists using completely different genres, or not describe the music at all. I have great difficulty believing that in other topics these sources would pass muster in a situation where there's a hint of controversy. I can't imagine how it makes sense to include weakly sourced controversial entries amidst those which are uncontroversially considered seminal and only mention some doubt at the beginning as if the doubt is equal for both types of entry. (By the way, some years ago someone put the ref tags in the lede specifically to address the "influential" blurb you found "gross POV" and so boldly deleted. But hey, who needs context, right?) - BalthCat (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, removing that lede section wholesale was a mistake, although at the time I deleted it as what it was - an unsourced bit of POV about "personal beliefs" (which doesn't really have any place in the article). However, we could include sources that illustrate this controversy - the Lewis article and something from Mercer would be a start. There's an article I saw on the Dominion site about the relationship between Marilyn Manson and goth as well (they argue he's not, but talk about his wider importance in the scene, and as a commercial print magazine devoted to goth/"goth", they would obviously pass WP:RS). I already said above that a way round it might be to insist on multiple sources for bands that editors have flagged as controversial on the talk page; that was the compromise we came to on list of nu metal bands. If we could, say, find four or five reliable sources calling Manson goth rock, he should absolutely be included, and any controversy about this classification can be dealt with on either the main gothic rock article, or Manson's. I suspect that those sources could easily be found, whereas I strongly doubt you could find four or five saying the same as that for The Doors. As far as "weighting" the sources, well, an editor of the New Musical Express is clearly a fairly a fairly big hitter, reliability wise (as defined by Wikipedia standards, rather than what any given editor might regards as persoanlly reliable), and he is saying, very explicitly that he feels the term gothic rock is frequently applied in an overly prescriptive sense. I don't think you can disregard that, just because you happen to disagree (I'm not sure whether I do or not, but then my interest in gothic rock ends in the very early 90s). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very keen on attributing my argument to disagreement with Lewis. Anyway, the more I look at the NME article the less it looks like a reliable source. It's a blog post with an editorial disclaimer at the bottom from NME. It's a list of songs, not of bands. Additionally, I'm kicking myself because I read into the title "Goth rock tracks" when I first saw it, and it says no such thing. The word "rock" appears only twice in the body, once referring to Pompeii and another to Robert Palmer. The NME list in fact cannot be used as a source for identifying anything as "gothic rock" (as opposed to "goth"). Not ONLY do the previous fatal flaws exist in this "reliable source" but you can read comments from Lewis below stating: "I'm not suggesting Manic Street Preachers are stylistically a 'goth band'." - BalthCat (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using blog posts by otherwise notable journalists; comments above have for instance cited Mick mercer's Livejournal, and you'll note that I haven't called any of them into question, so that's not in and of itself a "fatal flaw". I'm also fairly unconvinced by your argument that goth=!gothic rock; you claim it's synthesis, but it's fairly obvious that what Lewis is talking about is gothic rock - he starts by citing the Sisters, Bauhaus et al, and then makes the argument that it's a broader church than that (Leaving aside the fact that the Sisters obviously object to being labelled a goth band!); I actually think we're left with a situation where you state that goth is in some way definitely distinct from "goth rock", and I'm yet to be convinced on this point. In fact, leaving aside the main article's "overly prescriptive" definition, I am failing to see how a band that is a) a rock band, and b) goth is not de facto a goth rock band (in the eyes of a certain number of journalists). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say anything more about the broader debate, as I asked for and RfC below and my views have already been articulated above. I also am trying to go on wikibreak for now, so I may or may not continue to take part in this discussion. But, as how explicit the NME article is in regard to Manson being "gothic rock," may I suggest that we table NME for now and substantiate the discussion with other sources? A quick Google/Google Book search was very profitable. First off, we have a post from Terrorizer: "Is the music of Marilyn Manson gothic rock? No it's not." Second, we have a book written by a Marc Oxoby (whoever that is, I certainly have no idea). On page 165, he is very clear in saying that Manson is not gothic rock. So that's one side. But we've also got another side: Steve Taylor (not the CCM musician) describes Manson as a mix of gothic rock and industrial on page 144 of his book (which by the way is an interesting read, I perused some of it when it was displayed at my college library). Second, there is a book by Deanna R. Adams (no idea who that is), and she also calls Manson gothic rock, and, to remove all doubt, even mentions Joy Division and Bauhaus as initiators of the style. So, is Manson labelled gothic rock? Yes. Does everyone agree with this label? No. Should he still be listed? Yes. Should this debate be mentioned on the Marylin Manson band article and gothic rock article? Unequivocally yes. Does it often help a discussion to move past one particular source that is contentious and look for other opinions? It does indeed seem that way.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My only point (at this point) in removing Manson was that the NME source was unacceptable. (I even indicated in my Mainspace edit-comment that I was only not-quit in regards to the NME article.) I didn't expect it would be difficult for you to find another source. - BalthCat (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the above didn't sound accusatory. I just meant that maybe we should table the discussion on NME and move on.--¿3family6 _contribs 16:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table_(parliamentary_procedure): I'll assume you're American :) Cheers. - BalthCat (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite Mercer's LJ. I would, in fact, call that into question. There were two fatal flaws, neither of which were the blog aspect; that was merely... weakening. Firstly, the list refers to songs, not bands; one can create a gothic work without being, generally, a gothic artist. (Meaning the text itself must be explicit.) Secondly, the list refers to goth, which is not (necessarily) gothic rock, and it doesn't matter if it is obvious to you that Lewis is referring to gothic rock, it must be explicit for it to be a usable source. Additionally, what you're insisting about it being obvious flies in the face of the post from Lewis himself about the Manic Street Preachers. Not only is he not insisting that each band in the list is stylistically goth rock, he's not even insisting they're stylistically goth! Nor is he insisting they are all rock as, I remind you, he uses the word rock TWICE and neither time in reference to a band on the list! You're also incorrect in saying that I believe "goth" is "definitively" different from "goth rock". It seems ludicrous that you're arguing that "goth" should translate automatically to the narrower "gothic rock" (and not remain broad so that it can include ethereal, industrial, darkwave and, yes, even goth metal) but that "gothic rock" should translate to the more broad meaning. However, I do believe that, because of how language works, a band can be goth and can be rock without being gothic rock. So yeah, stick to those *explicitly* called "goth/ic rock". And quit picking on the main article if you don't have the will to fix it, it seems petty. You're also wrong: the article is not overly prescriptive, it is merely lacking contemporary content which you could actually go add instead of just accusing the editors who established consensus (not me, I might add) of being biased and promoting prescriptive POV. All you'd have to do is add how contemporary music writers (mis?)use the term to refer to a plethora of modern acts inspired by the musical and aesthetic styles of gothic rock... right in there around the last two paragraphs of "Subsequent developments" *right where it mentions Manson*. - BalthCat (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

A dispute has arisen as to which artists should be included on this list. Several editors maintain that only artists that explicitly are mentioned in reliable sources as fitting certain criteria specified on the gothic rock article. Several others have objected and said that any artist called gothic or goth rock in reliable sources should be included. The section above contains the various arguments made for and against.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm doing a poor job of quitting. (Leaving Evanescence's inclusion because of an intro paragraph was a big first step though :P) - BalthCat (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the definition of 'gothic rock' has been attributed to a source. The problem is, that appears to be the only definition that can be reliably cited (iow, that single definition is perhaps being given undue weight as it concerns secondary articles).

Other problems abound, such as the prevalence of AllMusic.com being listed as a citation. I find this of particular concern, as that particular source has been to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard no less than a half-dozen times regarding concerns of inaccurate information and genre classification.

I think that if most of the bands were cited - explicitly via reliable sources other than AllMusic as being gothic rock, I'd have less issues with their inclusion on this list. As it stands, I'm sorely tempted to start trimming the list of any AllMusic-sourced bands. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best if you looked for alternative sources first. Some of them had no in-line sources until Blackmetalbaz added them, but were sourced via the lede sources. Presumably his goal was to get a minimum of one source, but most are probably sourceable elsewhere. - BalthCat (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the effort to at least find a source (so many just say 'screw it, I'll let someone else do the work'), but the source has to be of a variety and of reliability. AllMusic isn't really that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I'm sorry, but Allmusic passes WP:RS, so you cannot just "trim" things because you don't like the source. If you *really* want to take it further, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise, do not remove sourced material. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dubious addition of metal bands, hippie acts and so forth

There are an alarming number of bands on this page that are in no way gothic rock. This has been pointed out several times and there was, apparently, already a previous consensus that is being ignored. As mentioned, there is a problem with using Allmusic as a source and other non-expert sources (point raised by Jack Sebastian and BalthCat) - for instance, "Indeed, as early as 1967, The Doors were described as "Gothic Rock"", this presents a problem because before the 1970's there was no gothic rock. As such, many of these bands (particulary, bands called goth on this list but not on the band's page) should be discussed and consensus should be reached before adding bands like Lacrimosa, White Lies, Theatre of Tragedy as so on. In the meantime, suggest reading this.65.204.124.130 (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above, there is an ongoing discussion about which bands should be listed (not specific bands, but in general). The previous consensus is not being ignored, it is being challenged by some editors, including myself. Allmusic is an expert and reliable source. Just because you or I might disagree with it doesn't matter (again, this is discussed above). And there is no outside coordination going on whatsoever, your accusation is baseless.--¿3family6 _contribs 03:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there was a previous consensus, you must first gain consensus (again) to start adding these bands. You don't get to just add them and ignore those who disagree with you. Allmusic is contested and your other sources (again) are suspect. A non-expert calling a band "gothic rock" almost a full decade before the genre existed is a problem. And no, checking your history of working together to all but claim ownership of every music page on wikipedia and push your POV, the accusation is not baseless.65.204.124.130 (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Allmusic is contested as you claim, would you please point to the relevant section of the reliable sources noticeboard that you are referring to? It being contested on this particular talk page is irrelevant, as it quite clearly passes WP:RS and is used throughout the rest of the project as such. The other sources you are disingenuously tagging as "dubious" also pass WP:RS. You may personally disagree with them, but they are still going to be included, no matter how much you rail against the professional journalists that disagree with your WP:POV. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have no trouble railing againt Mick Mercer as the man who is considered the world's leading historian of gothic music doesn't fit your POV, but Allmusic (not an expert but several reviewers who are not required to fact check) passes because it conforms to your idea that metal bands 'should' be considered goth. Even thought they clearly are not. What you are doing is attempting to "own" this page and engaging in sockpuppet-like behavior to push your POV. No comment on the Doors being called goth years before it existed? I thought not.

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."[4]. Sound familiar? Full stop. Thank you.65.204.124.130 (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Mercer is not a sourced I have "railed against"; he clearly passes WP:RS (I'd even defend his LJ account), but he is *only one source*, should not be taken as "gospel". The opinions of other professional journalists should be reflected in the article (particularly if there are multiple sources). Regarding sock-puppetry: if you are genuinely suggesting that several long-term editors of WP, with widely different editing styles and interests are in fact the same, I would love you to take that to the relevant admins :-) I did suggest that you get yourself a username though, as your "talk page" used to state that it was an IP address "shared by a number of like-minded individuals". Should things like WP:3RR become an issue, obviously it would be unfortunate if the entire IP address was blocked, rather than an individual account. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take your threats elsewhere. I'll thank you to be CIVIL, Mr. Baz. I suggest you re-read For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."[4]. RE: You and your tag-team partners claiming ownership of music pages. Yes, Mercer should be treated as "gospel" when compared to Allmusic and it's ham-handed approach to idenitifying music genres. Can you find RELIABLE sources to corroborate the claims made by the Keystone Cop editors' on Allmusic? No? Then no inclusion. It's that simple. And if a source indicates that The Doors were of a particular genre years before it existed then, again, that's a problem and not a reliable source. This is just one example of how this list is being treated. I agree with BalthCat, this list will ultimately be scuttled as useless if this sort of thing continues.65.204.124.130 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a threat! It's a genuine suggestion of how to avoid the sockpuppetry charges you appear to want to level at myself and others (I've mentioned that to an admin; I'll see what they say should be the best way foreard regarding that behaviour). Suggesting that myself and, say, 3family6 have "similar editing habits" is ludicrous, as a cursory check of (some hum-dinging) edit-conflicts we've had in the past will attest. Re: the content; you simply cannot argue against Allmusic passing WP:RS without going to the noticeboard. You may disagree, Mercer may disagree, I may disagree, but as a reliable source, it can be included. I made the suggestion earlier (as I did at list of nu metal bands) that if multiple sources can be found for a contentious artist then they should be included, as with any genre there is always going to be disagreement about which bands are counted - and Wikipedia doesn't entertain those debates, as it is inherently inclusive. That means that, say, Marilyn Manson will almost certainly remain on the list, whilst, say, I doubt the Doors would remain. I'm sorry, at the minute all you're doing is POV-pushing, whilst from the start I've stated I have no opinion either wway, I simply want to reflect what is found in reliabe sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not POV on your part? Truly? Your primary music interest appears to be metal. Go you. However, I don't see you adding bands like ICP because some hack working for a 'zine in Canada claimed they were. Or adding Garbage because some VJ on eMpTyVee claimed they were. All you're adding is 'gothic metal' bands to this page because, (and this is POV here) I suspect you'd like it if everyone agreed (fans, experts, historians, etc) that metal, gothic metal, doom metal, cap'n crunch metal, what have you, was just included under the umbrella of goth. Unfortunately, this is not and should not be the case, no matter how much you'd like it to be. In as much as I'm sure you're trying to do your part to help preserve the history and culture of your prefered music genre? So am I. There are tons of bands that really should be on this list that you have removed because you couldn't/wouldn't find a source for them. Yet we find "White Lies", "The Doors" etc. here because someone at Allmusic said "yeah, sure, they're goth... why not?". As for consensus, I'm seeing sources on this very talk page claiming that Manson is not Goth. And sources in the article saying he is. This, in and of itself is grounds for debate/consenses. But in your onwership of these pages you drive away other editors that just say 'f**k it, I quit'. Which may have been your goal and, if it was, you are doing wikipedia and the history of gothic music a huge disservice. Nevermind the 'slap in the face' that some many of your detractors must feel. As for sock puppetry, you rely on the same people (other editors, sympathetic admins who take your side no matter what, etc) to 'back you up' no matter what you say or assert. This is vexing as many of us have responsiblities outside of sitting at a computer all day obsessing over music articles and simply don't have the time to make interweb buddies with a bunch of other wikipedia editors. I (and, I'm sure, other editors) would appreciate it if you didn't hog up all the wikis for yourself. Many of us have very valid points to make and could/would contribute around here a lot more if not for all the edit gangs rattling their chains and showing off their switchblades. 65.204.124.130 (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a cursory look at the article history page will reveal that in fact the list went from being largely unsourced with reliable sources to entirely sourced, pretty much exclusively by me. That goes from the Sisters (who hate the term), the Cure (ditto), Joy Division (really?) to the Batcave bands etc. who'd probably entirely embrace it. The point is, and I cannot stress this enough - I am not pushing any agenda here. I am simply reflecting the sources. Before I came to this list (and many others) they were largely unsourced, and were as such POV-magnets. If a number of reliable sources describe something as a particular genre - as is the case with Manson - they should obviously be included, regardless of certain editors' POV. I also have to take two personal issues up with you: I could easily change my username to gothicrockbaz and edit metal articles; you make far too many assumptions about people based on arbritrary usernames chosen years ago. Secondly, your accusations of "tag-teaming" are not only baseless, but faintly insulting; have you never come across multiple people disagreeing with you before? Occasionally it happens. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I've been looking at this list for years. And have been a part of the goth scene for many more years. I've been a musician, a singer, a writer (as have many of my friends which is why I, personally, take issue with Allmusic being considered reliable), a goth club patron, am considered (by others, I don't care for the term) an "elder goth" in my city. I still dye my hair "blue black" and have nothing in my wardrobe with any color whatsoever. I am wearing an old "The Wake" t-shirt at the moment (on this page, even = sweet) and have had a Sopor Æternus song (The Goat) in my head all day. I have been a part of the gothic community for over 25 years of my life. I've seen amazingly (is that a word?) innacurate statements made on this page, the goth culture and the goth fasion pages and done my part to correct them. Yes, I typically edit as what you describe as an "anon" as is my right on wikipedia. But your edits, in particular, have struck a nerve. Gone from this list are bands like Faith and the Muse (a very important part of the music's history), Requiem in White (ditto), This Ascension, March Violets, Corpus Delicti, Machine in the Garden, Astrovamps, OperaNoire, Caelum Bliss, Gloria Mundi, James Ray, Lords of the New Church, Naked and the Dead, Qntal and so on that are very much goth and very popular within the scene. They have been replaced by Manson (nails on a chlak board to goths), White Lies (ugh), The Doors (que horror film style scream) and the culprit? Allmusic. I mean, Jesus H Tap-dancing Christ, wow, really? This is why I find the Mercer quote so endearing (the part about neos) and why I think it applies to this discussion. Are these bands sourced? Maybe (and that's a big "maybe"). But sourced by someone who has "spectacularly missed the point". This is why simply being a writer for a site that doesn't fact check and lacks accountability should not be considered reliable and why you run into sooo much resistance when you try to use them as a source. If the whole world knows a band isn't goth, but 1 writer says they are (and in all fairness) doesn't know what they're talking about we really shouldn't be plopping them down in this list. Be honest, if someone claimed, in print, that Tiny Tim was "the most influencial death metal band in history and it ended up on wikipedia... would you remove it? And, if not, what is the point in wikipedia if we can't correct the horrible mistake of some hack writer who wouldn't know goth if it sat on their nose and sharted? 65.204.124.130 (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDNR, IP 65. Jesus H Tap-dancing Christ (haha), what applies here is WP:OR and WP:RS, to make sure that one of the core requirements of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability, is met. It's as simple as that. It doesn't matter how many bands you've been in, it doesn't matter that some other editor is a metalhead, it doesn't matter that this editor couldn't care less about gothic rock (unless The Cult counts).
We are not fact checkers, we simply comb through publications to cull information from them. Whether some 'zine is a reliable source or not can be a matter of discussion, but if Rolling Stone calls some band gothic rock, then gothic rock it is. You may take issue with individual entries and challenge publications at the appropriate noticeboard (WP:RSN), but the rest is beside the point. If "1 writer" in your esteemed opinion doesn't know what they're talking about but they've been published in a reliable source, then your opinion is irrelevant. Them's the shakes. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to add anything to this massive wall of text other than to say that 1) Allmusic is not the only source being used here, and it isn't being used to support The Doors, and 2) the idea of me and Blackmetalbaz being close in our editing habits or doing some type of "cabal" is laughable.--¿3family6 _contribs 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does "laughable" mean "obvious"?71.79.252.144 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid. There is some similarity between our edits, because I sometimes get involved in disputes that Blackmetalbaz is in, and we both edit some of the same pages, including reverting vandalism, unsourced additions, and unexplained removals. But there is absolutely, definitely no cabal. We are in different countries and have almost nothing in common. I honestly don't know why I even deal with a lot of these pages, as I have very little interest in them. And these baseless accusations make me question whether I should be involved at all.--¿3family6 _contribs 15:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of citations in lede?

Sorry, what are the citations in the lead supposed to be sourcing? I don't see how "this is a list of gothic rock bands" is a statement that needs reliable sourcing, because I don't know how it could (unless a source says "Wikipedia has a list of gothic rock bands.") Can this be clarified?--¿3family6 _contribs 01:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to speculate that those references are there because of the conflicts over content, and the redundant text is there for the same reason. Convention is simple: "This is a list of ... bands", and only notable bands are to be included whose genre membership is well-verified. Go ahead and edit it to conform to the other articles, if you like. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to my recollection the lede citations were added as citations for multiple entries in the list. I think that perhaps they are better as references in that case? - 142.167.175.173 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

I can't believe there is still a discussion about this. METAL is METAL. NOT gothic rock. HOW HARD IS THAT FACT TO GRASP FOR SOME? It does NOT matter A SHIT if a journalist wrongfully calls Evanescence a "gothic rock" band. They ARE NOT. They DO NOT SOUND like gothic rock, their music is NOT ENJOYED by goths.

If this list is meant to show forefigures of the gothic rock movement, then metal acts should not be listed. HOW HARD CAN THIS BE TO GRASP? Rolighetsministern (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make a point: Is Avril Lavigne listed in the "List of punk bands"? No? Why is that? Is there some concensus that they are not a punk band? I've read several articles in which Avril Lavigne is called a "punk princess" amongst other things.

Perhaps if all of you who believe that Evanescence has a place in the "List of gothic rock bands" took the above example into your heads and gave it a little thought, you would understand that WE WHO ARE PART OR HAVE BEEN PART OF THE GOTH MOVEMENT won't accept having that band on the list. Rolighetsministern (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't write in ALLCAPS, that's considered shouting and it doesn't support your arguments. And I fear you don't know how Wikipedia works. We don't write about our personal experience or what others might like or not. We write what has been reported elsewhere, and only that. If one or more reliable sources (yes, that includes journalists) write that something is of type A then we'll reflect that. Our personal opinion about genres is totally irrelevant. Please see also WP:TRUE. De728631 (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am outraged, hence the caps. This is just SO stupid. SO incredibly idiotic. Would you put Cradle Of Filth amongst the List of punk bands because they have a cover of a Misfits song? NO, of course you wouldn't. You wouldn't even if there was a source saying that "Cradle Of Filth turns punk rock when covering the Misfits". Why? Because THEY SIMPLY are NOT a punk rock band. They don't play at punk rock venues, and they're not generally enjoyed by the punk rock crowd. Same goes for Evanescence: They DO NOT play at gothic rock venues, they ARE NOT enjoyed generally by the goth crows (they are much more enjoyed by the metal crowd). They simply ARE NOT a gothic rock act, yet they appear at the "List of gothic rock bands" on the Wikipedia. A source claiming that Evanescence is a gothic rock band is simply not a reliable source, since the information is direclty false. Rolighetsministern (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about presenting one or more reliable sources that say how Evanescence et al. are actually not gothic rock? That would actually help in this case, but currently your rant is unfortunately totally baseless when it comes to improving this encyclopedia. Just because you have experienced something it may not be representative at all. Original research cannot be considered at Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be, for me, like debating a creationist when they say "Show me proof that God does not excist". I simply will not enduldge in it, out of intellectual honesty.

However, we can have a look at one of their live appearences:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEpqxlN61Ag

Obviously, there is no gothic rocking going on in this live appearence. It is undeniably a metal show, the muscicians are undeniably metal heads, they undeniably riff like a metal band and they undeniably pose with their guitars like metal heads. You don't have to be a journalist to see this, you only need to be able to know the difference between what gothic rock sounds like and what metal sounds like. A source claiming that Evanescence is a gothic rock act is, really, not a realiable source. Rolighetsministern (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To make another example: Would it be OK for me to add Black Sabbath (the heavy metal band...) to the "List of British blues muscicians" "Band section"?

I got this reliable source claiming they are a blues band http://www.spin.com/articles/black-sabbath-13-blues-video-behind-the-scenes/

It would completely be OK, right? Did you get the point which I'm trying to make? Rolighetsministern (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Ozzy did a blues album you might add him to the list of blues musicians including a reliable source (and Spine seems to do that job). As to the youtube video: you're still judging from your own observation. De728631 (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously missed the point. How about the Avril Lavigne example again? You think it would be appropriate to add them to the "List of punk bands" because they are called "punk" by some journalists? Is that REALLY the only thing that matters?

WHY would it not matter that several goths have raised their voices on this talk page demanding that metal bands are crossed off the list? Don't you think that goths know better what bands are goths and not? Really! Rolighetsministern (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are still missing the point. Sources are really all that matters when it comes to writing Wikipedia articles. One's point of view does not matter at all. Wikipedia articles are not about our own thoughts and experience. It's as simple as that. The Pistols and Avril Lavigne may be worlds apart but if reliable sources attribute the punk rock label to Avril then so be it. De728631 (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a source claiming that Evanescence is a gothic rock band is NOT a reliable source. Simply because the information is not a par with reality. Rolighetsministern (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like it, it doesn't mean that a source is unreliable. If you think that MusicMight and IGN are not reliable you might want to take them to the Reliable sources noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolighetsministern, please, before you write anymore and turn this into one massive TL:DR, go and read Wikipedia's core policies... WP:V (which explains that WP is concerned with verifiability, not perceived "truth" based on any editor's opinion or "experience of the scene"; all genre lists are contentious, partially because editors falsely believe that genre labels are a matter of cast-in-stone "truth", rather than what they are - journalistic labels) and WP:RS (which explains why the sources used in this list are being used, passing this requirement for reliability - WP reliability, not the personal opinions of editors). There is long-standing consensus on this issue across the rock lists, which is not likely to be overthrown, and certainly not in the manner you are approaching things. Coming up with endless examples you feel other editors would become "outraged" about is unhelpful; if you find reliable sources saying, say, Sabbath are a blues band, please add them to the relevant list. *That* is the way things work around here, not edit warring and shouting on the talk page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be short and to the point: What Baz says. Also, what De728631 says. I noted that you have a warning for edit warring on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rolighetsministern, give up. The page has been destroyed by ill-informed metalhead tag team partners. This page is widely regarded as useless these days by the Gothic community. Edit the page, they stomp and huff and somebody blocks you. Just skip it. Nobody cares about wikipedia anymore anyway. 71.79.242.42 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really a funny list... HIM, ASP, Paradise Lost, Korn, L'âme Immortelle, Lacuna Coil, Malize Mizer, Mandragora Scream, Saviour Machine, Type O Negative, Tiamat, Theatre of Tragedy, Within Temptation, Unheilig (!!!).

The who-is-who of metallic and pop-infested faux-Goth... Let's add Nightwish and Marilyn Manson... and the list is complete.

Seriously... i like early Paradise Lost, their doom/death harshness... and maybe some Saviour Machine stuff. But what the heck... All this stuff isn't representative of the Goth genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.66.144 (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "De728631 Well, here's an established source on gothic rock as well as gothic metal, goth punk, darkwave and anything else from the spectrum of the dark culture. For previous issues with reliable sources please see the talk page." It seems that many people have already pointed this out but metal is not a part of this "spectrum of dark culture". Goth punk? Do you mean Deathrock? Anyway, metal hasn't a place here. It's not part of the equation. Metal has no home in the Gothic Rock community. Oil and water. Please look around the talk page. This has been explained several times. These two genres are the opposite of interchangeable. And that's being civil about it. Diplomatic. The attitude towards metal in the Gothic community is anything but civil. Some writers consider "metal" and "rock" to be synonymous terms. Sadly, being a writer does not make someone an expert. Even though many of them would like to be. Can you find a source that claims tomatoes are dinosaurs? I'll bet you could. And you could source it and include it in a wikipedia article. But let's get serious. Doing so would either make you a troll or someone with a personal (goofy) agenda. It seems to me that there are a lot of people on here who thought that being a metalhead and wearing black made them Goth and then found out that wasn't the case. They're upset and think "hey if I rewrite history and control fact by occupying and editing wikipedia articles I can help to change the definition". Nobody likes being wrong. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a poseur. But the jig is up. Trying to include a bunch of metal nonsense in a Goth article will only get you one thing. Backlash. I mean, the Doors? Really? 69 Eyes? Mandragora Scream? Who do we think we're fooling here? Let it go. Admit that you're wrong and move on. 184.57.1.114 (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be aware of how Wikipedia works. Experts in the sense of an encyclopedia are not the members of a self-defined group but writers published by reliable sources. It does not matter at all what either you or I think about the genre of this or any other band. All that matters is what has been published elsewhere by established experts – which is why we do not use random blogs or fansites as references. Please note also the lead section of the article that says how this is a list of artists "that have been described as gothic rock by reliable sources." It's not a list of bands that editors describe as goth rock or metal or what have you and it is likewise not a list of bands preferred by "the Gothic Rock community" – whoever that may be by your personal standards. As to metal vs. "goth", "Gothic metal" also has become an established term in published sources, and we do have a separate List of gothic metal bands where such artists should be listed. But it is also a common fact that bands are not confined to stereotypical genres but may play two or more types of music at the same time. So while Mandragora Scream are possibly mainly metal-oriented nowadays, the album this particular source is reviewing has been described as goth rock by more than one writer (the one you kept removing and Eck). Just because you don't like them, these reviews need not be irrelevant or unreliable. Last but not least, it has been mentioned before on this page but the names of genres like "rock", "metal", "gothic rock" etc. have initially been coined by journalists and writers, and that is the definition Wikipedia follows. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Eck"? I'm well aware of how wikipedia works. I'm also aware that some people behave like children on here and get away with it because they've learned to manipulate the rules in their favor. Again, source does not equal expert. As I pointed out. And being a metal band automatically disqualifies a band from being Goth. They are two opposed genres. You revert because you like these bands. I revert because someone adds them simply because they want them to be Goth and they're not. As I stated you can find a source that claims a tomato is a dinosaur if you look hard enough. This has a lo t more to do with your personal standards than it does mine. And I am aware that some group of bands thought it would be cute to start calling their music "Gothic metal" and it stuck. It doesn't make their music Goth. I understand that banging one's head repeatedly can cause concussion like symptoms so there's really no accounting for the logic behind this besides chalking it up to brain damage. Which I could probably source and stuff into the article if I really wanted to. But I'm not going to act like a spoiled 3 year old on wikipedia. Listen more, talk less and you might learn something.184.57.1.114 (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might surprise you but I don't even know a single song of Mandragora Scream for that matter, nor am I insterested in most of the bands in this list that keep being decried of playing metal. Markus Eck, however, is the guy who wrote the review I added. But what makes you an expert about Gothic rock then? Have you had any articles published in a magazine or paper? Do you write reviews? Your remark about headbanging just shows that you seem to despise metal and metalheads (I'm not even one of those nor could I be classified as Goth either). Instead I revert edits that may contradict Wikipedia's standards, plain and simple as that. Anyhow, if you have reliable sources about any Goth rock acts that are missing so far, please check if there's a Wikipedia article about them and then feel free to add them to the list. On the other hand, I already noted it in my edit summary that you're welcome to question the reliability of the Sonic Seducer (disclaimer for the record: I am not affiliated with this magazine or its authors) and open a thread at WP:RSN. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Doors

I know this has been discussed before, but should The Doors really be listed here? The Gothic rock article defines the genre as a late-70s offshoot of post punk and alternative rock. That is not at all the style or era of The Doors. Yes, that is when the term "gothic rock" was first used, but that writer wasn't describing the style as defined on Wikipedia. The article itself explains this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the list is defined as artists that have been labeled gothic rock by reliable sources – independent of any era or one's definition of the style. And the gothic rock article also mentions Stickney's 1967 review, so I think we should keep it here. Otherwise we'd have to rethink the inclusion criteria for the entire list, which would come close to original research if you ask me. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that the list is in conflict with the article, so either the article should be re-written, or the criteria of this list be examined. I don't see any reason to challenge most of the entries on this list just because The Doors are removed - The Doors predate Gothic as a genre. The article never claims that they were Gothic rock according to the article's definition, but that the term was first used to describe The Doors, the subsequently used to describe 70s groups such as The Cure, which had a very different sound but owed some influence to The Doors. Artists like Marilyn Manson and Evanescence are different cases all together, as they emerged after the term "Gothic rock" referred to a specific style, a style that the artists in question are influenced by. The article explains how Gothic rock expanded in scope, so there's no conflict in listing these artists.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should then expand the article. This source from the list states explicitely that "Gothic Rock began with The Doors" (p. 240). Obviously this is a minority position among reviewers, scholars and, of course, fans, but we should mention it nevertheless. De728631 (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If this was expanded upon in the article, and mentioned here in the lead for the list, then it should help this slow-burning edit war.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I added an explanation to the article [1]. Would you mind to take care of the lead for the list? De728631 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think this about sums it up. (For the sake of attribution: said diff uses content from the Gothic rock article.) De728631 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cocteau Twins

I have added the Cocteau Twins onto the list. Between 1982-1987 the Cocteau Twins took part in, and some arguably say helped to create, the ethereal wave movement, which is defined by Wikipedia as an outgrowth of Gothic Rock. Gothic Rock is an umbrella term and no one can definitively say who is in and who is out. The music of Joy Division and The Cure is disparate when compared to bands like Alien Sex Fiend, and Sex Gang Children, which is again completely different than The Sisters of Mercy and The Mission UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randispaul (talk • contribs) 07:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of gothic rock artists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.nme.com/originals/4
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041126204333/http://www.mtv.com:80/news/articles/1434098/19970627/sisters_of_mercy.jhtml to http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1434098/19970627/sisters_of_mercy.jhtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aphex Twin?

Why is Aphex Twin on this list? The source given is Aphex Twin's Wikipedia article, which does not anywhere describe Aphex Twin as goth. Can't find any other sources describing him as goth either. 82.41.96.23 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have removed the entry because this edit was nonsense. De728631 (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of gothic rock artists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice cooper?

Should Alice cooper be added to this list? He doesn't exclusively do goth but i would argue that cold ethyl, ballad of Dwight fry and Steven are quite Gothic. Original 2 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 46.193.231.34 (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is trash.

Just pure garbage that this article keeps being trolled by clueless metal fans. 90.238.90.221 (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Mercer, Mick (23 March 2007). "Mick Mercer talks about Kimveer Gill]". mickmercer.livejournal.com. Retrieved 18-3-12. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]