Jump to content

Talk:Siouxsie and the Banshees/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Removal of info

I added a fact about the hit song 2 Got 2 Know being based on a Siouxsie and the Banshees song. First it was removed because this song by Capella was not critically acclaimed enough. I then pointed out that it made it to #6 in the UK charts, higher than all but one of Siouxsie and the Banshees ' original songs. Then, this fact was removed because the reference was not good. I then added legitimate references. Now, it is removed because "There are a lot of famous bands not mentioned (sic) here who have covered or praised their material" Really? How many made it into the top 10? If there are more, they should be included in this section also. It would seem that a top ten hit built around a Siouxsie and the Banshees song is notable for a brief mention in the article. Readers might like to know about the extent of Siouxsie and the Banshees' influence across genres and musical styles. Why is this info being censored? Snobbery against (cheesy) pop dance music? Because that might explain why the fact indie band such as Gossip, who are more obscure than Capella, is retained here. Or why the fact that The Beta Band used a sample on a non-single song on an album that made it to #18 is included here, but the fact that a song that made it to #6 in the UK from an album that made it to #10 in the UK and Germany (and #1 in Switzerland) is being removed here. Not good enough? If it's a problem such as WP:OWN among some Siouxsie fans I would be happy to go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment about this to get input from others. Faustian (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There seem to be no objections to what I have written. I will re-add the referenced information, however I now see that before I had placed it earlier in the section. This time I'll place it later, so as not to overemphasize its importance. I will be happy to go to RFC, to get the opinion of uninvolved editors, if this info is an issue.Faustian (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
These three sources are WP:NOTRELIABLE: 1) "thebansheesandothercreatures.co.uk" is a fan's site, it is not "the band's website" as it was said here. 2) It is written "Source: wikipedia" at the bottom of this "MTV's page about Happy House": this is a complete reprinting of the wikipedia article "Happy House". Wikipedia doesn't cite wikipedia as a source. 3) "whosampled.com" is a wiki site. BTW, this article is "Rated B-class" but this edit with "The Banshees havbe..." is not. Carliertwo (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Opposite point of view": The first sentence of the "Legacy and Influence" section is: "Siouxsie and the Banshees have inspired many musicians of different genres". Faustian's edit has been reverted by three users. 1) There weren't any musicans in "Cappella": it was "a trio of producers for every production and scores of session workers" with Gianfranco Bortolotti source: "Allmusic Cappella - biography". 2) Cappella didn't recognize Siouxsie as an influence: Cappella published "U got 2 know" as a song "composed by Gianfranco Bortolotti / M. Persona" source: "Allmusic - U got 2 Know composed by". Siouxsie's real name (Susan Ballion) doesn't appear on the sleeve of "U Got 2 Know" source: picture of "U Got 2 Know" (german release), Source: picture of the cd - "U Got 2 Know" (UK release). They basically wanted to hide where their inspiration came from. They stole a tune and wanted to get all the benefits. 3) It's an editorial decision as to what information to include or not on an article. Cappella's "U got 2 know" is already mentionned on the article about the Siouxsie's song "Happy House": it's there that the information belongs. The "Legacy and Influence" section only includes musicians who clearly praised Siouxsie's music: it is not the case of Cappella. Carliertwo (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

They built a song around it (a fact you concede) that went to #6 in the UK charts (another verifiable fact)...higher than the other music listed, and indeed higher than all of Siouxsie Sioux's music other than one song. According to you this is not significant enough for a one sentence mention? With respect to the MTV article used as a reference - Wikipedia does not use Wikipedia as a source but it can use media as a source even if that media uses Wikipedia. I would like other editors' comments on here before the info is removed, and will gladly not interfere if there is consensus among more than one or two editors for its removal. Perhaps we should take it to RFC?Faustian (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

oppose: Cappella looks like a project of producers with different models/singers like Milli Vanilli. Woovee (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and participation....do you support some other way of including in this article the fact that a song based on Siouxsie's riff became a top 10 hit in the UK and internationally? It seems relevant and falls under the heading of this section as a legacy.Faustian (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I don't but you should move this information to Happy House with wp:reliable sources without wp:SYNTH. You have to wp:STICKTOSOURCE, otherwise it is wp:original research. Woovee (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you support including in this main article this: "Santigold based one of her songs on the music of "Red Light". "'My Superman' is an interpolation of 'Red Light,'" she explained" (about a song that was never a single, form an album that charted #26) while seeking to remove a song that went to #6 in the UK from an album that reached #10 in the UK?Faustian (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Support if proper sources can be found showing direct influence or using part of Happy House's riff. Whether Cappella is an assemblage of producers with fake frontmen or a pop band who play guitars is irrelevant. Can the songwriters of the track be found? Are the Banshees given a co-writing credit? That would be sufficient right there. A top 10 placing in the UK chart is certainly noteworthy. - eo (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I found a reference here at NME: [1] "Ordinary Boys singer Preston is back, albeit Chantelle-less, and embracing the tattooed boy band pin-up appearance. His new track, 'Dressed To Kill', sees him fend for himself in the big wide musical world and sample the riff from Siouxsie And The Banshees' 'Happy House'. Preston is the not the first person however to attack this wonderful, minimal riff, as the '90s paid witness to Capella's actually-quite-brilliant rave tune 'U Got 2 Know'."Faustian (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
eo, that's not the point. This section is about "musicians" that have hailed the band, it is not about producers who have stolen a tune from Siouxsie and used it without saying it to their label. In my edit with the title "opposite point of view" "18:59, 10 June 2014", I gave three "proper" WP:RELIABLE sources (could you check them once again), proving that Cappella had initially registered their single as a song "only" composed by them. They cheated on the composition of their song. They have never admitted that they had been influenced by Siouxsie. Consequently, this only concerns the article about "happy house". Carliertwo (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This image [2] does not show any Banshees writing/publishing credit which means a) a small enough portion of Happy House was used to not warrant it or b) the Banshees did not oppose the use of the riff or feel it important enough to demand publishing royalties. That said, if there was, say, an interview of a Cappella member talking about their music, saying something along the lines of "we based this on Happy House" or something to that effect then there is no reason why it should not be in the article for that clearly shows a "Banshees influence". - eo (talk) 18:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
We agree. I would add this: Cappella cheated. They have never admitted any influence as they registered the song as a "Bortoletti/ M. P" composition. Carliertwo (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Guys, I think the point is being missed here. Its not up to us as editors to decide which artists/producers are "real" or "worthy" enough to be included in a Banshees article. Our personal opinion on music sampling doesn't matter. You may think that Cappella's tune is complete bullshit, but this section of the article is about the array of artists inspired by the Banshees. If one of those producers gives an interview and names the musicians who influenced his sound and he says "Siouxsie", then it counts. If such an interview exists, and can be sourced, it should be included. We as editors remain neutral; we do not know the real reason why the songwriting credits are the way they are. - eo (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
They may have cheated but we have a reliable source saying that the song was built on a Siouxsie riff and this song did make it to #6. This section is entitled "legacy" and that would seem to be a legacy of Siouxsie Sioux - a song that ripped off Happy House and made it to #6.Faustian (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Two versions are currently disputed: see the differences : the one of the left has been included for years whereas the changes on the right have recently been submitted. There are several problems concerning the right version.
This source is a dissertation submitted at the Florida university. There are tons of notable and reliable sources from music historians and journalists recognized as such by their peers.
The Times'source only mentions the post-punk genre: so putting another genre in the middle of the 2 sentences is a bad synthesis and it is wp:or
The lead is divided in 2 sections. In the second section, the sentence with "Most successful acts to have emerged from the London punk community" is redundant as it is already stated at the beginning of the first section of the lead, that they were "Initially associated with the punk scene". In 1976, they first performed at a London punk festival and then in 1978, they quickly evolved into something more "audacious" which is post-punk. So, mentioning "Punk" after talking about post-punk is against logic : post means after, it is not going backwards.
In the first version of the lead, it is said that "they were also inspirational of the gothic rock genre", it is what both Simon Reynolds and Mojo (magazine) both advance. The second version of the lead contains the sentence "Ultimately becoming a pioneering act of the gothic rock style". This is wp:or as the word "pioneer" is not supported by this source and this source doesn't have any author, which is a big problem when one talks about history. The source presents more Joy Division as godfathers.
The sentence saying their music was both "Pop and avant garde" is supported by the source and it is also what it is said in the article.
Concerning the infobox, "art punk" is not a genre : this band received many labels, too many to mention. We should only keep the most important genres.
For "alternative rock", there is no need to add a source next to that genre in the infobox as all the reviews of their last studio albums presented them as such. Carliertwo (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Art punk is a genre. Also, I am unsure who keeps removing the description Punk rock and the category English punk rock groups from the article, but I find this absurd. The band were an extremely integral part of the early UK punk rock scene. This can be referenced all over the place. It seems that some editors just simply dislike this fact, or wish to minimize it for their own reasons that I am unaware of. I reinserted the term "punk rock" in the genres -- if an editor doesn't feel this is an "important" genre to list, then I am perplexed. They most certainly were a punk rock band and this has been documented in numerous books, documentaries, magazines, articles, etc. ExRat (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
To counter whatever reversions are coming: ACTUALLY READ THE SOURCES I'VE ADDED. AllMusic's description page for goth rock describes them as having become a "full-on goth band" by 1979 and several of the articles explicitly refer to them either as an "early" or a "pioneering" goth act. Their influence on the goth scene is also born out explicitly by several of the articles (the Bowie one, the Reynolds source, etc). On the other hand, "new wave" doesn't have any sources to support its place in the infobox. This isn't about personal preference. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
And to further clarify—THESE ARE NEW SOURCES. A "consensus" dreamt up between two people last year without consideration of the sources I've added is null. Also, the little fact that there is NO CONSENSUS here. The only user supporting the changes is you. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Carliertwo care to join? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Another source from the Los Angeles Times: "Along with such acts as Siouxsie and the Banshees, Bauhaus was one of the seminal bands in the colorful Goth rock movement that began in England around 1980." GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
And another: PopMattersGentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Guess what Carliertwo: Wikipedia is a wiki, which means as information is found that supports constructive changes to pages, they should be included. There was no such consensus last year, only a concession that didn't take into account the six or seven sources I've just drudged up. There's no authority here except what's in the sources. Keep this up and I will be reporting you. And if you're looking to report me for edit warring, go ahead—I have the sources to back up my edits, and you don't have any way to justify your reversions. Understand? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Final tally:
Los Angeles Times says "Along with such acts as Siouxsie and the Banshees', Bauhaus was one of the seminal bands in the colorful Goth rock movement that began in England around 1980."
AllMusic: "the true birth of goth rock was "Bela Lugosi's Dead," the 1979 debut single by Bauhaus. Already chilly post-punk outfits like the Cure and Siouxsie & the Banshees became full-on goth bands around the same time, and their heavy, menacing makeup and dark clothes became an important part of their fans' expression. As goth rock's popularity spread among a certain segment of sensitive, alienated youth [..] its fashion sense grew more and more outlandish, and the original sound evolved somewhat. The Cure, Siouxsie & the Banshees, and the Mission UK incorporated more pop and alternative elements in their music..."
The Conversation (website): "And like their Bowie precursors, early goth characters – like Siouxsie, Robert Smith and Dave Vanian – were theatrical, dramatic and challenged conventional ideas about gender and sexuality."
Billboard Magazine: "pioneering gothic rock band."
And the entirety of "Goth: The Cure, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Sisters of Mercy & the Gory Years of Gothic Rock, 1976-1992 RIP. Volume 1, Issue 17 of NME originals" GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This group started as a post-punk band; I suggest you read this article on Mojo (magazine) 's website here. You will see that Mojo (arguably the most famous paper talking about music these days) present them as "post-punk" on the cover of their magazine in 2014.
Here is a quote taken from Mojo, November 2014 issue, page 75 in the lead of their article about the band: "For nearly two decades, Siouxsie and the Banshees led the post-punk revolt with bared teeth and glistening claws, scattering their influence everywhere." So, their genre is indeed post-punk. There are other sources like the Times 2004 source that supports this.
The article on wikipedia also mentions that certain journalists tagged the album Juju as a key influence on gothic rock, it is said in the lead. When there isn't any wp:consensus for a change in an article, the content stays as it is. The article is well-balanced, what you did is wp:undue. The speech about the gothic look concerns more Siouxsie the singer.
Your behaviour is not constructive as your opinion seems to be biased. You are obviously someone who wants to pigeonhole a band. BTW, all your sources are about gothic rock, so you should move your sources to the gothic rock article. Carliertwo (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"Mojo (arguably the most famous paper talking about music these days)" Oh dear, this tells much about your grasp of the contemporary music press. Please stop trying to lend yourself expertise you don't have. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Again, no one here is disputing that they were a post-punk band. You're the only one making that straw man argument. OF COURSE they were a post-punk band, in addition to other things too.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"You are obviously someone who wants to pigeonhole a band." OH MY ARE YOU KIDDING? YOU REFUSE TO HAVE THEM DISCUSSED AS ANYTHING BUT "POST-PUNK" DESPITE THE PREPONDERANCE OF SOURCES DESCRIBING THEM AS BOTH. AND I'M PIGEONHOLING THEM?GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I SERIOUSLY DONT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR PROBLEM IS WITH GRASPING THIS: the group was a post-punk group who were also an early gothic rock group, which makes perfect sense considering goth was a subgenre of post-punk. How is including both significant pieces of information overloading the article? Are you kidding?
You've also continually removed this entire sentiment from the Legacy section, discussed by THREE sources focusing specifically on goth, without reason. Care to explain why you continue removing this?: Their fashion and visual presentation, which included heavy, menacing makeup and dark clothing, would become important influences on the gothic scene. Sources: The Guardian, AllMusic and Simon Reynolds "Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978–1984" Penguin 2005
Here's the deal Carliertwo: my edits are blatantly sourced, and consensus is only necessary when there's ambiguity about a change being the right move. I don't see any ambiguity here, you're just selectively picking to highlight the information you care about. This is not your show. Get a third party in here or I will continue to revert your POV vandalism. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I will ask GentleCollapse to lower the tone and stop screaming. This is not an appropriate way to start a discussion on wikipedia.Carliertwo (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I've gone through the work of amassing constructive information, which you continue to remove without a second-thought. Apologies if my tone strikes you as angry, but you're being incredibly insufferable and not justifying your edits. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:THIRDOPINIONGentleCollapse16 (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There are already a lot of other users that follow this article. Carliertwo (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can see Carliertwo, you are pigeonholing Siouxsie and the Banshees into post-punk while making quick edits and reverts upon anyone who disagrees with your assertions using proper references. I agree with GentleCollapse16 here.Darksoulnohope (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Is the question which of two versions of the lead is preferred? If so, please provide the two versions one above the other in text form so that I can read them without having to parse the diffs. If there is some other question, please state it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, there are already a lot of users who follow this article. Asking a third opinion is not justified, let the other users of the article write their opinions here. Carliertwo (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The dispute here appears to be between two authors. I am leaving the Third Opinion request up. However, if you want the other users of the article to reply, you can formalize their consensus by means of a Request for Comments, which will take priority over a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, be civil and concise. It helps. Some of the above discussion isn't civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This remark only concerns GentleCollapse, it is better to mention the name. Carliertwo (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This doesn't only concern the lead, but the information in the "Legacy and influence" section that has been reverted as well. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 00:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

OpenFuture (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Viewpoint by (name here)
....
Third opinion by OpenFuture
None of the editors involved, not even the one requesting a third opinion, seems interested in cooperating with the process. This seems to me to be a WP:BATTLE, and then third opinions are pointless. So we are done here. --OpenFuture (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

OpenFuture, there are already a lot of users who follow this article. Asking a third opinion is not justified, let the other users of the article write their opinions here. Carliertwo (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the conflict is between two of them. You not writing your standpoint just means I end up guessing it, and I used this template to get you to state your opinion clearly, as it's extremely unclear what your complaints with those edits are. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Edits

The actual lead is well balanced compared to this other one that GentleCollapse would like to put. The latter doesn't work as it mixes post-punk and gothic rock.
There is also another problem with Gentlecollapse edits.
The "legacy section" talks about the acts that cited the group in interviews or covered their songs. Therefore, this section is not a section to talk about contemporaries of the Banshees like Bauhaus and Cure. This section is not about the gothic rock genre either. The part about the look doesn't have its place too, it is Siouxsie's look; this is mentioned on the Siouxsie article and articles about goth. You'll see that The Cure article which is GA, doesn't talk once about the Robert Smith look because it is already covered on the Robert smith article.
This is almost another wp:GWAR issue: insisting on another genre again and again is wp:undue. Saying that this group were followers of Joy Division, is a huge wp:OR.
Other users of this article Greg Fasolino, ExRat, Woovee and Binksternet are invited to write their opinion on this talk page. Carliertwo (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion on the leads; they both have their merits IMO. I do agree with Carliertwo that the Joy Division remark is not only historically/chronologically false (the Banshees preceded Joy Division, they could not have "developed" the latter's sound) but POV. Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Greg Fasolino That's simply a direct claim made by the AllMusic entry on gothic rock—Siouxsie & co actually formed around the same time as Joy Division, but only went full dark—as AllMusic says "full-on goth"—around 1979, following the release of something like Unknown Pleasures, I would guess. But that's the source naming JD as a progenitor, not my POV deduction. Here is the full quote: "The godfathers of goth-rock were British post-punkers Joy Division, whose bleak, remote, obsessively introspective music and lyrics laid the initial foundation for goth. But for all intents and purposes, the true birth of goth rock was "Bela Lugosi's Dead," the 1979 debut single by Bauhaus. Already chilly post-punk outfits like the Cure and Siouxsie & the Banshees became full-on goth bands around the same time, and their heavy, menacing makeup and dark clothes became an important part of their fans' expression."
And "well-balanced"? I'm concerned with the lead being a general introduction and summary rather than what it is now—50% of it is quotes from sources dolling out qualitative critical acclaim and then there's a weirdly specific bit about their place in/influence on goth—i.e. we're really gonna delineate their influence to one specific album, Juju, in the lead?—which as I've shown has been written about more generally and informatively by several sources. Also, the removal of the information in the "Legacy" section seems utterly uncalled for. Among the group's most discussed legacies is their fashion and influence on the goth scene, which again, is made explicit by AllMusic as well as two other sources. Seems to me Carliertwo just really wants to keep their desired image of the band dominant on the page. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The source you quote says nothing about the Banshees being influenced by or developing ideas of Joy Division. It merely notes they were in the same general style as of 1979.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it is relevant to mention the fashion element but it should be made clear that Siouxsie the singer is being discussed there, not the band, as the rest of the band were not known for any unusual fashion choices. Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the real problem is an over-reliance on "genres" as a metric to discuss the band? I doubt that they thought much when they were making The Scream or Join Hands about whether readers 40 years in the future would consider them as "art-punk", "proto-Goths" or whatever. There may be a space somewhere in the article for this material but it does not belong in the lead. Neither should there be extensive quotes anywhere in the article but especially not the lead. To me both the versions you guys are edit-warring over look terrible, no offence. --John (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
All I'm proposing is a mention of their basic musical context—they were a big part of the post-punk and goth scenes in the late 70s/early 80s. Not sure how that translates into "art-punk-proto-goth"-type music critic genre blather. I'm also not a fan of reducing everything to genre, but no one's really proposed the addition of any other introductory or bio information for the lead, and I was simply trying to fix what seemed like an immediate problem with it. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
It's nothing personal. Maybe just a factual summary of the history of the band, without any mention of genre other than "punk" (what they were labelled at the time) and (arguably) a note about the retrospective importance to the "Goth" scene that came later? --John (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't really make sense to leave out the genre they actually helped found, and which the bulk of their oeuvre is: post-punk. They formed in 1976 during punk, but their influence on that genre was negligible at best and they had moved past it and forged a new genre by the time of their first actual album release in 1978. Examination of the article on post-punk makes this clear. Compare the leads to the other founding post-punk bands to note why it's relevant to mention this in the lead:
Joy Division: “Formed by Sumner and Hook after the two attended a Sex Pistols gig, Joy Division moved beyond their punk roots to develop a sound and style that made them one of the pioneers of the post-punk movement.”
Wire: “They were originally associated with the punk rock scene, appearing on The Roxy London WC2 album – a key early document of the scene – and were later central to the development of post-punk.”
PiL: “Public Image Ltd (also known as PiL) are an English post-punk band formed by singer John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten), guitarist Keith Levene, bassist Jah Wobble, and drummer Jim Walker. The group's personnel has changed frequently over the years; Lydon has been the sole constant member.Lydon emerged after the break-up of the Sex Pistols with PiL's Public Image: First Issue (1978). The new band had a more experimental sound than the Pistols: a "droning, slow-tempo, bass-heavy noise rock, overlaid by Lydon's distinctive, vituperative rant".Their early work is often regarded as some of the most challenging and innovative music of the post-punk era.”Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Point taken. Fine, mention the genres if good sources can be found for them. But I stand by my position that there should not be a long discussion of the genre questions in the lead. --John (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Who is suggesting "post-punk" get removed? I'm simply suggesting "goth" as another scene that, overtly/aesthetically, they were probably more identified with. Otherwise, yeah. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The first message of John and the instances given by Greg Fasolino show how important it is to write in the lead that SATB were among the pioneers of post-punk.Woovee (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
WHO is arguing against this? I'm not!! GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
You didn't. I mentioned those other post-punk band leads as a response to John's comment, "Maybe just a factual summary of the history of the band, without any mention of genre other than "punk"..." in order to express that it would deficient to do so, considering their primal importance in co-founding post-punk as a genre. I have no problem with mentioning both genres in the lead or elsewhere, though they aren't separate genres. Goth, at least in the musical milieu, is a subgenre of post-punk. I think part of the issue is that the goth scene as a culture (i.e., the aesthetics, clothing, more narrowly defined music etc) came a bit later, more in the 1983-85 era and then beyond, and took things like "Juju" and Siouxsie's makeup as archetypes. However, that doesn't reduce the Banshees to a goth band. Back in the 1980s they appealed to a wide alternative-rock audience. It would be like reducing R.E.M. to an "indie-rock" band or something, or reducing Elvis Costello to a "new wave" artist. Anyway, as I said above, I had no issue with your lead. My only issue was the Joy Division error. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Clinton Heylin said in his book "Babylon's Burning": "if there is a 'true' starting-point for English post-punk, it may be Siouxsie & the Banshees' recruitment of guitarist John McKay, or the formation of Magazine and PiL, which places it somewhere between August 1977 and May 1978." (page 460).
Mick Mercer (who is the goth historian for Simon Reynolds) wrote a list of "The Thirty Best Goth Records Of All Time" in which he doesn't include any song of this group. Mercer explained in the notes that their genre was not gothic rock but their music was liked by the fans of the goth subculture, and it was also the case for Joy Division and Cure.
The leads of the articles about Joy Division, Bauhaus, Cure, don't contain one sentence as "the band rapidly evolved to become a pioneering act in the emerging post-punk and gothic rock movements of the late 1970s and early 1980s". It is too reducing and yet Closer (Joy Division album) has been described as gothic rock by Sounds (magazine) in 1980... I won't say anything about what has been written about Joy Division here on this article apart saying once again, just read Heylin's book. This lead is too short to my point of view. There are also too many genres (and adjectives related to a genre) in the lead. Their main genre is post-punk and their dark music, mainly the Juju album, helped spawn the gothic rock genre. Woovee (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"This (entirely subjective) list" says the article. Doesn't seem like anything credible enough as such—can you get those notes, which sound citable? And what do you mean "goth historian for Simon Reynolds?" Otherwise, yes, the lead is too short generally. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, found something explicit, from Mercer at the Quietus again, in which he's acknowledging that S&B were a part of the goth scene, but simply existed before the term was invented:Siouxsie, the Cure and the Damned all had a goth phase while goth (or positive punk/post-punk as it was then called) was the big thing. They are all bands that jumped on the goth bandwagon as soon as the punk scene fell apart. It’s just that they existed before the media invented the tag and all released one album before developing a goth audience, apart from Joy Division who went straight for the goth sound. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This is not Mercer's opinion, It is a quote of "Andy, Resurrection Records". Woovee (talk) 12:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Commenting his "The Thirty Best Goth Records Of All Time" list, Mercer wrote in the replies below the article : "mick mercer APR 7, 2009 12:32AM [...] The Banshees, Cure and Damned were from the Punk scene, may have influenced some Goth bands and many Goths, but they Were Not Goth bands."Woovee (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Simon Reynolds wrote "Goth historian Mick Mercer", in the book about post-punk "Rip it up and...", page 421. Woovee (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
In any grouping of bands into what is essentially arbitrary genres, there will be differing opinions. Mick Mercer might be notable, but he is clearly in the minority in this case. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just want to restate my questions on the table here, and clarify that I'm not really interested in MY lead getting picked at all, but in a comprehensive lead that doesn't shortchange important elements of the band's legacy in culture. That said, are we:
electing to leave out any details regarding this band's role in the goth scene both 1) in general terms in the lead (i.e. chalking it up to one particular album, rather than their fashion, role in the scene, etc) 2) the "Legacy and influence" section, where various sources clearly seem warrant it, at the very least?
creating a false opposition—can't a band be a post-punk group AND a goth group? I don't understand how naming two major scenes the band pioneered is some horrendous overflow of information, especially when they were closely related. The featured page for The Beatles, for example, features mention of at least six different genres, including four that the band simply "experimented" with.
Re: above—is the lead talking too much about genres proportionately to any other information? I'm fine with this criticism, but if that is it, help out and buff it up with more lead-worthy information! I don't see why something that seems stressed by sources should just be deemed unimportant due to some arbitrary cutting and dicing.
BUT re: above, it seems this discussion has completely dismissed something fundamental I've been trying to get across: I would argue here, with clear support from the sources, that goth is not simply a music genre, as you're all portraying it, but also a larger subcultural scene, fashion style, sensibility, and historical context from which to understand the band, and which they were more overtly identified with during their career (look at the NME goth special edition released a few years ago, which clearly contextualized them as some sort of goth figurehead, and retrospectively compiled a slew of old writing that put them in that sphere as well) that is distinct from the term post-punk. You're saying it doesn't also deserve a mention? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there anyone seriously claiming that Siouxsie and the Banshees was not a goth band? Weird. Anyway, there are (for obvious reasons) plenty of sources to support that they were. OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's a few more sources I haven't seen mentioned:
As she transformed the role of a female frontwoman into something powerful, mysterious and dominant, teenage fans were painting their bedroom walls black, and acquiring the singer’s deeply-held interest in the supernatural. Yup, the Banshees had invented goth. -- Guardian
you will never for a second find me saying that Siouxsie and Steve Severin should be considered anything other than two of the most important names in goth composition. - Houston Press
One of the most successful post-punk and goth bands, they evolved from a dark, confrontational art-punk band into a stylish alternative pop unit. - Allmusic
The Siouxsie & The Banshees can both be considered the band that took some mystique and elegance to the Punk movement and the first Gothic band that created the base of the structure that would be built in the next years by other wonderful bands. - The Gothic eZine. OpenFuture (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"can't a band be a post-punk group AND a goth group?" Yes. By definition, any "goth" groups from the late 1970s or early 1980s were post-punk bands first and foremost, since the "goth" tag did not come into wide, transcontinental usage as a genre term until the mid-1980s. It's kind of like heavy metal in the early 1970s; bands tagged that way were simply "rock" or "hard rock" bands first. Anyway, yes, the darker post-punk bands formed the basis for goth, and the Banshees were foremost among them, so listing both the genre and subgenre is appropriate. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"goth is not simply a music genre, as you're all portraying it, but also a larger subcultural scene, fashion style, sensibility, and historical context from which to understand the band, and which they were more overtly identified with during their career." Yes to the first part of this, of course. I would argue though with the "more overtly identified with during their career". They were already a groundbreaking and very popular band in the UK, and a cult band in the US, long before the coalescence of the goth subcultural scene or the popular usage of the term, and they had already gotten big enough that they transcended it. The Banshees were popular with general alternative-rock fans throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, far far beyond just "goths". Compare to say, a band like Sisters of Mercy or Fields of the Nephilim, who were more tightly defined and appealed almost solely to the members of the goth subculture. From my own anecdotal evidence, there were not enough "goths" in New York City in the mid-1980s for the Banshees to have sold out Radio City Music Hall or for them to be played regularly on alt-rock radio. They inspired the subculture, yes, but were not defined primilarily within it, and I think the sources bear this out. In any case, " distinct from the term post-punk"---until 1982-83 in the UK, and 1984-85 here in the US, there was no such distinction. Post-punk is the umbrella term, "goth" came to be used to refer to a darker subset of the bands in that genre. By the time a true subcultural distinction was made the Banshees were popular enough (and their records were diverse enough) to avoid being narrowly defined suchly. This is all just digression though, I agree with you that there's no reason not to mention both. I see no reason why the lead should not state, as others said, that the band formed during the initial punk scene, helped found the post-punk genre, and inspired the subsequent goth genre/subculture, without going into intricate detail. That basic synopsis can be found in as many sources as are needed. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"I see no reason...." all the things you said in this sentence are already present in the actual lead. Greg Fasolino. They were initially associated with the punk scene, they quickly became a post-punk band. Their darkest album juju inspired in part a whole new genre. Ain't it true ? Carliertwo (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is not really the right place to be an essay about the gothic subculture. The NME goth special edition of 2004, shows The Cure's Robert Smith on the cover, not Siouxsie. I note that the lead of the GA article about the Cure doesn't mention his role on the goth subculture and yet for the NME, the ultimate goth icon is Robert Smith. I make the same remark for Joy Division, the gothic adjective is not included once in the lead of the article about Joy Division. Here, the gothic rock genre is clearly mentioned for Juju. Yet, certain users would like to see this band to be treated differently on wikipedia. Why don't they start changing a FA like the one about joy Division first, then a GA article about the Cure. This article is rated B. That said, it is certain that more material will have to be added. There are a lot of sources on wikipedia for their albums concerning their psychedelic albums and some of their singles which are considered as pop. The article about Siouxsie the singer mentions her look; her impact about the goth subculture is already covered at the article of the same name. Again, there is not one line about Robert Smith's make up and haircut in the lead of a FA article about the cure the band. I'd like to underline that this article is about a band, it is not about a singer. Carliertwo (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"I note that the lead of the GA article about the Cure doesn't mention his role on the goth subculture and yet for the NME, the ultimate goth icon is Robert Smith." The lead of the article of the Cure mentions it as a goth band in all versions I can find, including the GA version.
Joy Division had disbanded before the goth label became common place, so not mentioning that in the lead makes perfect sense.
I still believe this discussion would be more constructive if people made actual concrete proposals. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The lead of the GA Cure article only says: "During the early 1980s, the band's increasingly dark and tormented music was a staple of the emerging gothic rock genre".
There isn't one word about Robert Smith's makeup or his look here, is it. Carliertwo (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
No, why would there be? It's not about Robert Smith, it's about The Cure. And this article is about Siouxsie and the Banshees. A lot of the discussion here seems to be arguing about various related but actually not relevant points. What does Robert Smith's make have to do with how we describe Siouxsie and the Banshees in the lead? --OpenFuture (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This is called equal treatment. I would use the same argument as yours: This article is not about Siouxsie, it is about a band. Yet, several users apparently want to talk about Siouxsie's makeup and her look in the lead of an article which is about a group. Carliertwo (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I can't see anybody proposing this here, nor can I see any changes in the edit history of the article. Once again I repeat I think this debate might be constructive if people actually made concrete proposals that could be discussed instead of actively trying to misrepresent each others positions. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Siouxsie and the Banshees. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Siouxsie and the Banshees. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to let deadlinks appearing in the source whereas these sites were close years ago. I don't see the point unless you want to put a virus on the computer of the reader; indeed, jonsavage.com leads now to a Japanese website. This article is not rated GA, even less FA. These pages are very well archives on webarchive.org. So what is the point to be wp:pointy about the style issue. Carliertwo (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Did you look at the displayed page? None of the contested original URLs were shown to the viewer because they were flagged as unfit, so your concern is moot. From the documentation:

When the original URL has been usurped for the purposes of spam, advertising, or is otherwise unsuitable, setting |dead-url=unfit or |dead-url=usurped will not link to the original URL in the rendered citation.

 Rebbing  04:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Placement of Internet Archive URLs in cite templates

The consensus is unanimous for option 2, i.e. preserving the status quo. – nyuszika7h (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding this revert [3]

Should the templates used in this article look like this:

Option 1: <ref>{{cite web|author=[[Jon Savage|Savage, Jon]] |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613021519/http://www.jonsavage.com/film/martin-hannett/ |title=Martin Hannett [Full transcript of interview with Martin Hannett] |website=JonSavage.com |accessdate=15 November 2015}}</ref>

Or this:

Option 2: <ref>{{cite web|author=[[Jon Savage|Savage, Jon]] |url=http://www.jonsavage.com/film/martin-hannett/ |title=Martin Hannett [Full transcript of interview with Martin Hannett] |website=JonSavage.com |accessdate=15 November 2015 |deadurl=unfit |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110613021519/http://www.jonsavage.com/film/martin-hannett/ |archivedate=13 June 2011 }}</ref>

The difference is usage of the archiveurl parameter, or not. -- GreenC 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please leave a comment in the space below. Per WP:RfC typical time for community input is about 30 days.

Discussion

  • Support Option 2. This is standard across Wikipedia and how the {{cite web}} template is designed. The url field is for the original URL and the archiveurl is for the archived version. The use of deadurl=unfit insures the original dead link does not appear on the page. There is no reason not to use the template as designed. It also causes problems for bots that maintain dead links (archive.org are not static forever, they also go dead and can be replaced with alternative archives). -- GreenC 02:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 is house standard. Its advantage is that it preserves the original URL which may have been cited in some other place, allowing the reader to match up the cites. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Good point. An additional thought, mentioned by User:Myxomatosis57 [4], is that it removes the archivedate field, which exists for a reason. -- GreenC 04:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Not only is it standard, but it makes it clear to the observant reader that the link is to an archived copy, not an original. Also, all of these links appear to have been flagged with dead-url=unfit, rendering moot concerns about their current state.  Rebbing  04:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. This is good practice. The preference for the use of =unfit has been outlined in this post on the cyberpower678 Talk page. Karst (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per above. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • option 2 per above. Also there is an error in both examples. The author field should not be linked but |author-link= should be used.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2, per long-standing practice and the template documentation. Not sure why this discussion about cite templates is happening here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per above; the distinction between a dated archive and the possibly now non-existent original is an important one. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – It may not seem significant to some people for Internet Archive which preserves the full original URL in the archive link, but Archive.is (which is currently banned on the English Wikipedia) and WebCite do not by default. So it's better to just use |archiveurl=, that's what it was designed for. Assuming the outcome of this RfC will be option 2 (i.e. the status quo), which is likely, I'd suggest making changes to the citation templates to show an error (and add articles to a maintenance category) if an archive URL is found in |url=. It can't hurt, even though Cyberbot II will get to fixing those eventually. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. This is the standard practice. It shouldn't cause any problems. Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It depends on the type of the source. "Option 2" is designed for webpages that can be modified. Date of access and current state of the page can matter here. "Option 1" is the best for unchangeable sources, e.g. papers in journals. For such sources, archived version is always better than original, archive date is simply a junk, and original address is also redundant. Conclusion: changes from one "option" to another should not be made by bots or in any other thoughtless mode, but in proper cases can be made manually. Stas (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    That literally makes no sense. What you're describing, {{Cite journal}}, makes use of those exact same parameters. If what you're describing is the correct way to source things, then that template wouldn't have those parameters.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    Do you see the difference between "a template has some functionality" and "this particular functionality must be used for all sources in all templates"? Stas (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    @Stas000D: The template displays the archived URL as the primary link on the title by default, and since recently, Cyberbot II has even started using |deadurl=unfit so that the original dead link will not be shown at all. And if you are using short archive URLs such as WebCite's default, not including the original URL makes it prone to link rot if the archive service ever goes down or the archived version is lost/removed. I disagree on the archive date being "junk" as well, it really doesn't take up so much space, and the MOS allows us to use YYYY-MM-DD for those if preferred (but consensus is needed before arbitrarily changing the date formats). nyuszika7h (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    The bot makes these changes even if original URL is not dead, and previously even marked live URLs as dead. About WebCite and other archivators which obscure original URL - yes, in these cases (and if possibility of archive's shutdown is taken into account), original URLs are useful. Stas (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. |url= and |archive-url= have semantic weights too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Long-term precedent is another reason to use "archiveurl=" as done in many thousands of articles for years, else would confuse many prior users. Also reduce title-link size by using "type= full transcript of interview with Martin Hannett" because filling a cite with long links promotes overlinking, as the risk noted in wp:dab pages to avoid multiple links per line, and now some mobile-phone users must pay data-overage fees when clicking wrong links to massive pages (or downloads) of wp:data hoarding, while phone companies would not care if customers raise phone bills when the interface promotes clicking hundreds of wrong hyperlinks. WP must promote access to knowlege as free (or less data-overage fees), so please avoid over-long titles by putting notes into "type=" or "format=" instead. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 2. The archiveurl= makes it clear that the link is to an archived version of the page. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not seeing why option 1 would be advantageous. Could anyone offer opinions otherwise? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grammar and good writing

Carliertwo, I respect your contributions to this and other Siouxsie-related articles, and I understand that English may not be your first language, but please be more careful not to introduce large amounts of newly written material that sounds quite bad in English. The recent additions you made to the lead, which I had to revert, were full of poor grammar and syntax, and sounded like a child's writing. No offense intended (maybe this due to your relative unfamiliarity with the language?), but the original text was written correctly, so if you're going to change it, make sure whatever you add is similarly well written and sounds like professional-level encyclopedic writing. Thanks! Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I will have to be more more careful on syntax when editing. I tend to make mistakes when I am not enough focused. Thanks for your help, it is appreciated. Carliertwo (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem, and thank you for not taking offense. None was intended.Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Founding member Simone Thomas is missing

Simone Thomas met Siouxsie at the same Roxy Music gig where they both met Steven Severin, too. Simone was part of the Bromley Contingent and appeared on the Sex Pistols-Bill Grundy clash (BBC Today, Dec. 1st, 1976), too. On footage of that night you can see her standing between Siouxsie and Steven, e.g. here.

I guess she never made to any record but I heard/read years ago (maybe due to another punk anniversary? - the 20th?) that she played in the band, even when they had no name. I was reminded about that when I saw a feature about 40 years of punk in German TV these days. In that they cited another feature about the upcoming punk rock movement originally aired on Dec. 21st, 1976 on public German TV station ZDF. The original and complete feature from 1976 can be watched here (until Nov. 2017 & in German). Starting at 6'30 with original footage from a Johnny Thunders & The Heartbreakers gig (J.T.&T.H. are performing "Let Go", though the group's earliest studio recording was done in Feb. 1977, months after this footage was filmed) showing Siouxsie & Steven in the audience the feature crosses over into an interview with Siouxsie, Steve(n) & Simone.

They are introduced from 7'05 with the following: The punks "are fleeing from the dreary suburbs into their hangouts, like this group from Bromley. Early punk fans, doing music on their own now. Their issue is the basic issue of punk rock: the situation of the youth who is coming from the underprivileged classes, like they do." Siouxsies's & Steve(n)'s statements are about the background of punk rock youths and what defines a punk, but not about the band itself. The band's name is not mentioned in the feature at all - maybe they still had no name like they had not when they did their first gigs?

I can't remember what Simone Thomas played in the band. I am pretty sure that she did not sing but played something weird for a punk band. Accordion, flute, strings or brass? Any hints? with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 11:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. found a good picture of Simone, click here and scroll down on that page with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 11:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

She did feature in the Bromley Contingent (see this Uncut interview) and played violin with them twice - but that does not make her a founder member of the band. Karst (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
O.k. First of all we can agree that she is missing in the "past members" section.
And Fact is that she was part of the band from the first moment on, as Siouxsie confirms per your source: "We had a violinist as well, called Simone, but she left after our second gig." (Siouxsie) Source: The Face 08/80. Punk77 supports this: Played violin in the Banshees for a couple of months. And she was visible in a TV interview with the band when they apparently had no name. Apart from that one of Siouxsie's intentions was to have 'cinematic' sound with violins already on their debut album The Scream (album)#Recording and music. Thus no surprise that a violinist was part of the first line up.
If not all these facts make her a founding member, what criterias do? And I would think that we prefer criterias that could be valid for other bands in WP, too, and not something like "The criteria is Siouxsie's divine will"... :-) Or "member on the first release" makes no sense to me, too (Then Stuart Sutcliffe would have never been a founding member of The Beatles - and he suggested the band's name...).
with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 10:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with adding her to the past members list. None of the reliable secondary sources indicate that she was a founder member of the band. The established consensus is that Severin and Siouxsie formed the band and that everybody else were essentially hired hands. I'm not sure if you have the Mark Paytress book, but that essentially confirms it. Whatever criteria applies to being a founder member is a legal minefield. It could potentially result in a claim of ownership of the name. Karst (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Please examine the sources again, and the part of the article discussing the band's formation. Firstly, the manner in which the band formed has been well documented...as a specific response to a gig offering at 100 Club. Any Banshees fan has known this since the beginning. There were two founders, Siouxsie and Severin, as they were the people asked to play the show, and they recruited two other temporary one-off members, Sid and Marco. That's the founding right there. Two people. Simone did not participate in this show or the founding in any way, shape or form. "she was part of the band from the first moment on"...No, she was not. Look at the photo of the first show (100 Club) and read up on it (it's very well documented, photos as well). Your source says "she left after our second gig"...so, she played one show with the band...the SECOND one. Not the first. You can't be a founder if you are not there at the very beginning. Secondly, what on earth do you mean by "she played in the band, even when they had no name." They always had the same name. They came up with the name as part of the debut 100 Club gig offer and performance. They never "had no name." In any case, I see no reason not to add to the past members, and mention her brief involvement, but let's stick to the actual facts. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I have added her to the main article and the personnel article.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't stand and your work is wp:Original Research. Your sources are poor. 1) a fansite like this is not a wp:reliable source. read the biographies, such as the authorized bio written by Mark Paytress and Entranced by Brian Jones. 2) This person was never a Banshee, they never recorded or played live either with her. It seems that there is a confusion between the so-called Bromley Contingent and the early steps of the band. What's next, saying that Billy Idol was a Banshee, like the drummer who played with them on just a couple of rehearsals between Sid Vicious and Kenny Morris. A Banshee was a musician who appeared on stage with them and recorded at least a song with them. Her name wasn't mentioned by the band during their press conference of 1996 when they called it a day, where they thanked all their members, from Sid, Peter Fenton til Knox Chandler. Carliertwo (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's see what others say. I was responding to the above query in a responsible manner. Here is the problem: You do not address the interview with Siouxsie on the cover of the August 1980 issue of The Face. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Face_(magazine) This was a major publication, not a fansite. In what manner is The Face not a reliable source? Apparently, this interview clearly has Siouxsie stating the Simone played with them. You say "A Banshee was a musician who appeared on stage with them and recorded at least a song with them." That's entirely your POV and not correct. Marco Pirroni, Sid Vicious, Knox Chandler were live only, and did not record (and Fenton only recorded demos), yet they are clearly Banshees and listed as such. If Simone did in fact play the second show, then it is illogical to list Pirroni and Vicious (who also played only one show) and not her. Perhaps someone can dig up the actual 1980 issue of the magazine; that would confirm it one way or another. Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna be clear in my answers. You have one marginal quote, only one, saying that Simone would have performed one gig with the band and that quote comes from a wp:RS which is The Face (magazine). One source is marginal next to the hundreds and hundreds articles that were published about this band and that never ever advanced this fact. Have you wondered why? Let me just say that as someone who knows the subject (the story of SATB), Simone never played live ever with them. This quote is simply inaccurate. My guess is that journalist of The Face did not record his interview with Siouxsie, instead he took notes on paper and then badly transcribed them. in the end, he distorted Siouxsie's words. He should have written "Simone left BEFORE our second gig." instead of writing "AFTER our second gig". Anyway, the page where you found this excerpt of The Face 's interview, is a fansite which contains many mistakes, wrong name of author sometimes advanced for a music paper/article, wrong date, it is very common on this website and I noticed it many times as I own plenty of original music papers bought on ebay about this group.
Whatever, what matters is what the band said. Re-read what I wrote earlier, they edited a press statement in April'1996 in the NME and Melody Maker called 20 minutes into 20 years when they officially announced their split up. In that press statement, they named all the band members chronologically in it, ALL, and Simone's name was not present, Billy Idol's either, Talvin Singh's either (whereas Singh did perform percussions during 80 shows with them in 1991 and 1992 and was a studio musician on Superstition, normal he was never hired as a Banshee but as an extra musician).
Some music journalists were dilettantes, others were serious and recorded interviews on tapes and then faithfully reproduce all the sentences on paper. NME journalists were known to be the champions of wrong statements, putting words in the mouths of musicians who were then stunned to discover shortcuts that they had never made. This Face 's journalist was probably one of them. I'm not gonna write anything here again on this topic, but if you are ready for doing reverts on the articles, etc, you'll find me as I'm not gonna let wrong things appear. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a shallow tank of rumours! Carliertwo (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree more sources would be needed and I concur with your conclusions. However, you did not need to get aggravated, though. A simple and calm explanation of the reverts would have been more than fine, after all, this should be a neutral, objective, calm endeavor, not a place for irritation. Just a recommendation from a fellow editor.Greg Fasolino (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Whatever, what matters is what the band said. - that is wrong. Obviously the issue of a biography ofter tries to cover it up from its POV. What matters is that they stepped in front of a camera of a one of the biggest and more than reliable public TV station making up as a band with Siousie, Steve(n) & Simone. Simple as that.
The other - maybe not so reliable - sources just add what Simone did in the band. You are assuming with guess and seems against these sources, pretending clearness, but ignoring the TV interview completely. And then you add in a presumptuous manner that you know the subject and when you say something it is correct despite an interview that the band gave with their faces right into the camera.
And a quote from an interview by Siouxsie named with original source plus a complete transcript of that interview is wrong because you don't want it? Siouxsie said in that quote that Simone left after the 2nd gig. You say "no" and you expect that we accept that? Leave your guesses and assumptions behind, maybe get a copy of The Face interview and proof that Siouxsie did not say that in the interview as per the quote and the complete transcript. Or do you wanna tell us next that the complete transcript is fake? Because someone wanted to re-write SATB history 37 years later to produce a former two-gig-member that never existed?
It seems that there is a confusion between the so-called Bromley Contingent and the early steps of the band. - Nope, you are guessing wrong. I know the difference and did not confuse anything.
The reliable source (TV) presents her as a member of the band. That's fact. A founding member or not? May be that's the question. with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 13:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

A bibliography can also be a listing of works by an author, or on a subject, and need not be restricted to specifically cited works.

As mentioned before, without any discussion against it, a bibliography can also include works not directly used as references, and, in fact the article has a separate ref. section.

I think this section is appropriate, obviously, even including works not directly cited. Is there a counterargument? Anmccaff (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Obviously Carliertwo thinks its can decide alone and ignore anyone else. Its reverts and reverts and reverts. Ignoring talk even if it’s clearly stated that it is not welcome when its ignores talk. What an arrogant behaviour, like I am the emperor of the article or what? How awkward… Carliertwo is not interested in improving the article as long as edits are not from Carliertwo. with best wishes from VINCENZO1492 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Then perhaps you can discuss which of the 9 books you see as unacceptably self-published. Anmccaff (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Siouxsie and the Banshees. 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) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

Gentlecollapse6, can you explain why you had once again included this [5] plus erased the "musical style" section? As I said in my summaries:

  • Saying that Siouxsie and the Banshees were followers of Joy Division is wp:OR: it is chronologically wrong and it is musically wrong as well.
  • SATB are not contemporaries of Bauhaus and Cure: this group started in 1976, they were from the first wave. Cure and Bauhaus were from the second wave. The only relevant comparison would be to link them with contemporaries like Wire and Magazine.
  • I replace the "musical style" section that had been withdrawn without any reason, it would need to be expanded with mentions of their psychedelic phase, and then their later era which is alternative rock. + @Greg Fasolino. -- Carliertwo (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The musical style section consisted of nothing but the two quotes included in the lead, it offered no new information. However, can you please explain why you keep removing reference to Souxsies's incredibly influential makeup and influence on the goth scene? They, as several sources have directly stated, were aligned with bands like Bauhaus and the Cure in inspiring goth in the late 70s/early 80s and you know that's the case. And in any case, Joy Division and the Cure started in in 1976 as well, and were arguably doing a dark sort of music before Sioxusie made it explicit. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm with Carliertwo on this one. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I likewise agree with Carliertwo. I will wholly take issue with the claims by gentlecollapse6 in the above paragraph. The Banshees were an active, gigging prominent band in 1976-77, achieving considerable press and attention. The Cure were a later phenomenon; they did not even use the name "The Cure" until 1978, and they did not play anything remotely close to dark or gothic music, or dress in such fashion, until 1980's Seventeen Seconds. Their early material prior to 1980 was new wave/post-punk more similar to XTC or Wire, without any gothic element. It should be noted that The Cure did not become "dark" until after touring with (and sharing Robert Smith as touring guitarist for both bands) the Banshees in 1979. Joy Division, likewise, were a rough punk rock band in their early years and did not develop their signature darker sound until 1979's debut album. So no, they are not contemporaries of the Banshees, they were bands who came to prominence a few years later, and they absolutely were not "doing a dark sort of music before Sioxusie made it explicit". That's balderdash.Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So let me get this straight: because SATB were making gothic music 2 years earlier than the Cure, we should remove all reference to their influence on the goth scene and pretend they weren't contemporaries? Wtf? We're seriously pretending they had nothing to do with each other, despite several sources lumping them together? Siouxsie isn't described by sources as going full goth rock until Juju in 81 anyway. But also, who did it "first" doesn't really matter that much here when someone is trying to remove entire references to the band's legacy. Save the history lesson when it's only tangentially relevant to the problem at hand. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
First, I was writing in reference to "developing the dark style explored by artists such as Joy Division". Whether that was just poor choice of words or not, it is misleading language as it seems to indicate Joy Division "explored" this "dark style" first and then the Banshees developed it. That's clearly false. And yes, chronology matters. Second, you would be right that I would assert, backed by sources, that the Banshees are predecessors not contemporaries of the Cure et al. The Banshees were part of the original 1976-77 punk movement, and evolved from that. From the 1960s onward, two to three years is a lifetime in terms of musical movements and genre development. For example, the Beatles and the Doors were just a few years apart in the 1960s, yet no music critic or historian would consider them contemporaries due to the differing developments from British Invasion to psychedelia etc. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Gentlecollapse6, had you read the whole "Legacy" section, you would know by now that the members of Joy Division + Cure named SATB as one of their influences: there are quotes to support this. As Greg Fasolino wrote, these other bands hadn't made anything significant in 1977 yet whereas SATB were already in the spotlight with a peel session and a major TV appearance. Writing that JD and Cure "were arguably doing a dark sort of music before Sioxusie did", shows that you don't know the subject & you use poor sources, unsigned articles to pigeonhole the band. BTW, the Simon Reynolds reference mentioning gothic music, is already present in the "Musical style" section. You also did a copy/paste of sentences I included at Siouxsie Sioux concerning her look, the subject is already well covered there. This present article is about the band, not about their singer. And the 'Legacy' section only talks about music and the musicians who have namechecked their work and hailed it. Carliertwo (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
The problem with the sentence that kept getting removed, which I had to re-edit accordingly, is that whatever some johnny come lately at AllMusic ignorantly noted, the Banshees as a group DID NOT wear heavy menacing makeup and dark clothing. Siouxsie the INDIVIDUAL did. It was a band, a collective, not a singer and her backing band. She was the only one to fit this description and the only member to have any influence on gothic fashion. In fact, other members were known for wearing bright colors (Budgie's mellow blonde hair and yellow shirts were conspicious, as were Steve Severin's colorful shirts and John McGeoch's decisive anti-fashion garb). Please note below (and I could find dozens more).[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Greg Fasolino (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
All of this is wp:undue. & the whole sentence is a copy/paste of one of my edits at Siouxsie Sioux in this section: "Siouxsie became well known in the London club scene for her glam, fetish and bondage attire, which later became part of punk fashion.[18] She would also later epitomise gothic style with her signature cat-eye makeup, deep red lipstick, spiky dyed-black hair and black clothing." Gentlecollapse6 has shown from the beginning that he doesn't know a lot about this band: he wanted first to make them pass as followers of Joy Division which is rich. This user has probably never listened to The Scream and Join Hands and read the 2 wiki articles about these albums. For anything concerning only the singer, there is another wiki article and it is Siouxsie Sioux. This article is about the band. Carliertwo (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
bruh you've spent two years pretending that Siouxsie and the Banshees have no connection to goth. You're a fuckin hack lol gentlecollapse6 (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Your edit covers her visual style and only hers, this is why your addition does not fit in this article. Distribute that information @ Siouxsie. Woovee (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siouxsie_and_the_Banshees/Archive_2&oldid=1109711891"