Talk:Goth

Shouldn't the band Typo O Negative be mentioned when discussing 90's goth music? Jason

This entry on Goth youth needs editing to fit wikipedia's NPOV policy.

I think this entry makes a good effort at being unbiased considering how much emotion people have invested in the notion of gothness. However, I think it could benefit by giving as much attention to gothic values (like individualism and creativity) and aesthetics as it does to gothic appearance and music. -- Frank

I think a standard is needed on Goth vs. Gothic. And why is Goth capitalized? I would go for 'goth music' rather than 'Goth music' or 'gothic music', to avoid confusion with other meanings of 'gothic' , and because I think the capitalization is inappropriate. However, I note that both goth and Goth are common outside of Wikipedia. Anyone have a good reason to capitalize? -- Olof

Anyone know where the word "goth" originates from? Goth in the gothic sense I mean, it seems to have little to do with historical Goths. --BL

From gothic novel, from gothic architecture, which also has little to do with historical Goths.

>The subculture comprised mainly of of disaffected intellectuals

Intellectuals? Who are you trying to kid? This is far too broad and weighted a claim, and contradicts the stereotype fallacy that is later on (rightly) criticised as being misleading. Claiming goth was founded by a collection of intellectual nihilists (as is suggested) is pure hyperbole. The only solid factual claim you can really make here would be to say the movement arose as an offshoot of the punk movement, but composed a darker and perhaps more feminine aesthetic.

I expect you're right, Mr. Birchtree. I'm impressed again by your writing. Is this a complete rewrite? The "diff" function couldn't cope with your second set of changes at all... I hope you didn't remove any valid information! By the way, that strange "[[eo:]]" that you removed was an interlanguage link, to the Esperanto article on the same subject. Best not to remove them. :) -- Oliver P. 12:40 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Points noted, thanks for that. I didn't know about the 'eo:' function. It's a complete rewrite, which was perhaps a touch arrogant of me, but I'm convinced this entry is much better and avoids the usual circular, nonsensical debate and definitions which surround the term. All factual information from the previous entry (band names, celebrities, dates etc.) have been preserved. the general thesis of subjectivity and terminological problems is original. -- Birchtree.

Okay. In that case, well done! I'm not entirely sure about the opening, though. "Goth is a term too-often more easily defined by what it is not, rather than what it is"... Yikes - you've got the reader baffled right from the start! Is there no way you can sum up at least some of what is meant by the term, in a way that won't confuse people, before mentioning the ideas about what it isn't, and whether or not the word should be capitalised...? -- Oliver P. 17:11 Mar 3, 2003 (UTC)

Hrm. Maybe. Part of the intrigue of the term (I feel) is it's very tendency to shrug off definition though, so the opening paragraph is supposed to introduce the difficulties of defining the concept. I should add a link to 'not goth' there since that's its sister entry. Perhaps the paragraph that talks about the stereotype would better work as an introduction, but it's a bit of a flat opener... Also, how do you datestamp your entries?

Birchtree

Ah. I see that defining a term for a movement that doesn't like being defined could be a problem. :) I can't really suggest a way of improving the opening, since I know about as much about the goth movement as I do about marmalade consumption in 19th century Russia, so I'll leave it in your hands; after all, you're the expert. ;)

I was amused by the way you managed to wangle a mention of Wittgenstein into the article, in your somewhat ranty paragraph about Spooky Kids, but I see it was removed in Martin's NPOVing. Perhaps you could slip Wittgenstein's philosophy into the article on Spooky Kids, if you ever do one. ;) Incidentally, is there a difference between a "Mansonite" and a "Spooky Kid"? If not, then only one term needs to be linked. (Or perhaps the descriptions could just be added to the Marilyn Manson article.) -- Oliver P. 04:02 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Heh. Perhaps it did slide into something of a rant, though I still feel the point is relevent to the topic. I may well do an article on Mansonites next. I've just covered Wellie Wanging and the Dynamo Open Air Festival... The world's my oyster, eh? ;) -- Birchtree

Ugh.

I really dislike this article as it stands (though I don't know that what preceded it was any better. It's definately biased towards a deconstructionist view. The main problem I have with the article is that by conflating different strands of goth, it gets in the way of providing information.

For example, the article makes a great deal of how "Goth is an entirely subjective term". Indeed. In this respect it is like many, many other words. Yet this point is deemed so important we get several paragraphs going on and on about it, and in pretty negative terms. Martin

I think you're right to edit it into a more informative structure, so I generally like what you're doing here. The original article wasn't meant to sound at all 'negative' (in a derogatory sense). Which parts did you feel were negative? --Birchtree

"Following the theories of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, one has to recognise that if a word is being used in a certain way by a community of people, then that makes a legitimate claim to its general meaning".

That sort of comment is making some fairly strong assertions. I've met dozens of people who vehemently defend the idea that words have specific meanings independent of how the words are applied in practice. The article seemed to just reject the views of such people as not only wrong and misguided (wasting their time), but dangerous (causes more harm than good). That came across as pretty negative.

That's not to say that there isn't some truth in what you're saying. It is clear that different people have used the word "goth" in vastly different ways, and the article is right to explore that (while remembering that wikipedia is not a usage guide). However, these differences in opinion have to be presented in a fair way, and I don't think the article does this. Martin

The Gun Club as goth? Looks-wise, yes, music-wise, no...

Psychobilly crossover of the early 1980s did in fact rate them, even if they would have been revolted by the notion themselves. You know what these teenage notagoths are like. - David Gerard 13:12, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

There's a link to Visigoth that leads to a page on the Visigoths, not modern "goths." Is visigoth actually used to describe a type of goth, or should the link be removed? Sethoeph 23:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. —Morven 03:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's about the subculture, so I've redone the origins section focusing on the current subculture as its origins are: from UK punk through post-punk and US death rock. The stuff I've shoved into 'other influences' was accreted along the way, as I recall.

I've listed Hodkinson as a reference. Note this is a work of sociology, should we have need to get all technical and stuff about the process of subculture.

(I'm not a sociologist. I have been ~~a goth~~ interested in this sort of thing since 1982 and a ~~music journalist~~ popular culture commentator on and off since 1985, so excuse me if I think I know a thing or two about the subject.)

By crikey, I need to get Pete Scathe interested in editing this article. And Paul Hodkinson. And Sexbat ... - David Gerard 13:12, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

(from my talk page)

Good changes on Goth. —Morven 16:27, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You wait. I have hardly begun to ramble. Just see what happens if I draft any other twenty-year veterans ... - David Gerard 19:21, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised it hasn't happened till now. Of course, I've witnessed the spectacle of several twenty-year veterans utterly disagreeing with each other on the whole lot, so ... —Morven 20:39, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As Hodkinson's book amply demonstrates, if you ask any two goths you'll get four opinions, and those who've been in twenty years can give you ten without drawing breath. (As discovered during one entertaining round of "bait the sociology undergrad.")

I expect Pete Scathe's said what he has to say on his site, which should be digested into the page if anyone wants to get to work on that. Sexbat and Hodkinson may be talked into it (Hodkinson's an academic, but he doesn't seem to have gotten pompous yet ;-). Now, if we could just talk Mick Mercer into visiting ... - David Gerard 21:11, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Now, if we could just talk Mick Mercer into visiting ... - Gods, what a scary thought!! Actually, the problem with getting MM involved is that he can hardly be said to hold an entirely NPOV. Whick Mick himself would acknowledge. Yes, he would have a great deal to offer - but we'd all have to dash around afterwards tidying it up into NPOV. Arkady Rose 15:05, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nah, that wouldn't be a problem. I suspect the problem would be that he would probably prefer to be paid for writing, however ... - David Gerard 17:14, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

One suggestion to improve this article would be to edit it to be more expository rather than intriguing, especially in teh beginning. Consider this paragraph:

"The term is often more easily defined by what it is not, rather than what it is. This, coincidentally enough, goes hand-in-hand with its nihilistic associations. The word is variously capitalized. Its uses are manifold; to describe something as 'goth' is to confer praise or derision, notoriety or obscurity, worth or dismissal, depending on one's opinion of the matter. Goth is a term tied closely to identity and personal expression, and as such leads to debate."

Doesn't tell us much. Might be an interesting ending comment, but it suggests self-obsession rather than explanation ("people love me or hate me...")

A more informative lead would be along the lines of the paragraph that follows, though this too degenerates into personal feelings with the comment, "Others protest that these categories are stereotypical and generally cause more harm than good."

- DWS, 30 March, 2004

Expanded the section on the Gothic novel since there can be little doubt thats where the orginin of gothic as applied to goths comes from. I would think it should be at the top myself. Not sure about the number of references to Gothic architecture in the article which has very little to do with goth if you ask me.

Machenphile May 23

Some points not present in the article and possibly of interest: h2g2 on Goth (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A473924|BBC) (about music genres, et cetera) With a Sledgehammer (http://blood-dance.net/goth/grant.html|Goth) (about individualism)

I think at least the medieval genre should be mentioned in the article as it is a very dominant sub-genre that oftenly intermixes with other ones (at least in Germany).

-80.135.215.163 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contents

1 Per country?

2 Intro

3 evolution

4 Arianism and barbarians

5 changes needed

6 Arian Christianity?

7 Image

8 GothicPedia

9 Dispute: "Too much generalizing"

Per country?

Here's a gross overgeneralisation: the UK contributions to this page tend to the specific (in terms of a subculture with a clear and known history) whereas the US ones tend to airy-fairy "goth is a state of mind and it was invented by drug-addicted poets" stuff - which shows less clear or known history. Should we separate the subcultural history by country? Is it even documented in the US the way it is in the UK? (Several Mercer books, the Hodkinson book and a few others.) - David Gerard 14:16, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen such documentation, at least. As an import to the US I don't know the older history here, though, but I do know a bunch of old goths and deathrockers who might be able to reveal more or point in the right direction.

I do think the page should point out that, no matter how much goths TODAY might (or might not) feel that goth is a state of mind associated with drug-addled poets, that's not the origin of the subculture. The subculture came first; obviously, a subculture has to have some shared aspects, concepts, states of mind etc. but goth was not a philosophy. The drug-addled poets were co-opted later on a somewhat dubious 'I bet if these people were alive today they'd be goth' basis. Or on the 'Everything goths like is goth' basis. Such back-formations, adoptions and co-options should of course be noted (they are, after all, very much part of (some aspects of) the modern scene) but the facts of such assimilation should be also noted. —Morven 21:28, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

"Goth is a state of mind" is the mantra of kids who want to label themselves "goth" without listening to the music. ;-) This article is far too indecisive about what goth is/isn't: "oh, well, a lot of people think this, but some people think the exact opposite, and others would have thought this and that but they died 2,500 years ago", etc.. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 21:40, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

I just tried to de-fluff it a bit more. But those kids' POV has to be in there too ;-) - David Gerard 22:42, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Intro

I added the "nice boots" bit to see how long it will last. It's still less worse than the previous intro. I invite better attempts.

You realise what we're faced with here, don't you. We have to come up with an intro that is concise, inclusive, fits most national variations, is in inverted-pyramid form and, hardest of all, conforms to NPOV without being festooned with weasel words. *shudder* - David Gerard 20:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just seen it, via stumbling from mediaeval lingustics and the Voynich Manuscript to Beowulf to Caedmon to Whitby. I had you spotted instantly. Amusing but it does not fit the tone. It ought to go, I fear. Liam Proven 01:44, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's still better than what was there. I urge you to come up with a better alternative rather than simply deleting.

I picked up my copy of Hodkinson to see if there was something usable there. He weasels out of providing one too. Dammit! - David Gerard 20:37, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't deleted anything! And, as I said, it's amusing. I'm thinking, but it's not the sort of article I've been writing here (or in print) at all... (Also getting the hang of quoting. I hope.) Liam Proven 11:58, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why I'm somewhat appalled it's still there.

By the way - what is goth? - David Gerard 13:24, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Democracy in action. Innit wonderful?

And the only answer I can give you to that is probably "mu". Liam Proven 02:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

evolution

The goth movement has certainly been going for a long time, and shows no sign of stopping. This owes much to its evolution, and the way this evolution has played out among the various scene factions, with a solid group preferring the movement's form during its beginning. Despite the latter group, the goth movement has grown to include a bewilderingly wide array of influences.

This notion of evolution was inpenetrable to me until I read it the fourth time. Rewritten for clarity, hopefully same sentiment retained. --Air 10:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arianism and barbarians

I reverted the following:

"Like most of the Germanic tribes that lived near the borders of the Roman Empire, the Goths were converted from "paganism" to Arian Christianity while the Roman Empire converted to Catholic Christianity. The latter considered the former to be heresy, further harming the Goths' image."

Back to this (though with a bit more clarification):

My reason for doing so is because the whole Arian heresy becomes irrelevant and therefore inappropriate without the barbarian association. Grice 10:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

changes needed

Does anybody else here feel that this page needs some serious revamping? Since there are already other pages that deal with gothic music (gothic rock, gothic metal, and so on), the section on gothic music, and the bands mentioned, should be moved to those pages while this page should focus on fashions, scenes, and interests. Grice 00:56, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Arian Christianity?

We in skandinavia (and we are a germanic tribe as well if anyone should be in doubt) have never had a religion called Arian Christianity. We were (sadly) converted to Catholicism, and later converted to protestantism. Besides, I have never heard of that religion before and neither of the legendary founder. It sounds like something from pseudo-scientific tv-show. So I think that the section about the arian christianty should be removed. (and the same goes for the whole arian christianity article)

You are right that skandinavia was never converted to Arianism. However, the article never said skandinavians were converted to arianism. It said that the germanic tribes near the borders of the roman frontier (no where near skandinavia) were converted to arianism. It is especially well known that the ancient goths were arians when they invaded rome. Grice 11:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image

This article needs an image. It'd be easy to get, too. Neutrality^talk 22:57, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

GothicPedia

[GothicPedia[1] (http://wiki.gothicpedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page)]

Anyone here interested? The Wiki for all things gothic (I guess, there's not much there at the moment)

Since the GothicPedia shares the GFDL license, I suggest you start importing some articles and then look for contributors. :-) —Stormie 10:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute: "Too much generalizing"

On 10:49, 14 Apr 2005 'Grice' removed the following additions I made to the 'Goth' Article. The reason listed was that it was "too much generalizing." Instead of deleting my work please review it and make corrections where there are errors (although based on the pretext I understand there weren't any) or expand on it to make it more specific. The additions I wrote are as follows:

Goth Philosophy

Although not a philosophical movement in most cases Goth culture as displayed by Goths (esp. teenagers) has some general conventions of philosophy. Generally speaking Goths share a negative outlook on established society, such as government institutions (sp. the Police and the education system) and other (non-Goth) aspects of popular culture; these are often viewed with contempt as being opposed to the 'dark', and specifically individualistic Goth movement.

Criticisms

Goths and Goth culture are often ridiculed as being overly melodramatic and individualistic; typically this criticism is bound together with general criticisms of the current generation (specifically extreme self-centeredness and over-abudance of spare time).

Please review the above articles and state your opinions on whether or not they are innapropriate for the 'Goth' entry. Thankyou.

Are you referring to the external links provided by user 80.135.215.163? The first one, the BBC article on goth seems a bit oppinionated and preachy. It does contain some small facts of interest though, such as goth being ridiculed by the British press in the late 80's and early 90's, which is why I left the external link to it on the main page alone. The second link about "individualism" provided by user 80.135.215.163 was a dead link, but if your Criticism paragraph was an accurate summary of what was in that link, I don't think we are missing much. As for why I removed your contributions completely instead of fixing them up is because I haven't found anything salvagable in them. The so called "goth philosophy" as described by your recent edits (dislike of the police, government institutions, education system) can be said of many other youth cults that existed between now and the mid 20th century and are far more prevailent in other youth cults such as punk rock and rap. As someone who had been listening to both punk and what is labeled "goth" for many years, such philosophies are virtually non existent in contrast to punk. Keep in mind how much the goth scene confused music journalists when it first became visible, how they labeled it "positive punk" compared to punk groups like Crass or the Exploited (the goth thing certainly was much more positive than those groups and very apolitical). I do not see much evidence of any unified philosophy in goth. There are many disagreements on politics, religion, and philosophy among people within the scene. The only thing that keeps them lumped together are similar tastes in music and fashion. I do not feel that wikipedia should be used as a medium to promote any particular point of view on what "goth" is about or what they supposedly believe. I think it should simply stick with the facts as best as it can. On the issue of "individualism", I think that is a controversial claim. It is certainly true that this describes many of the pioneers of the goth scene, since many did not consider themselves goths, on the other hand, I think it is disputable whether those who consiously label themselves a "goth" are truly "individualistic". Basically, the "goth philosophy" paragraph looked like a strawman to be attacked by the "criticism" that came after it, a criticism that made some rather bold assertions. Many in "this generation" were not even born yet when the goth scene first came about, so what does their supposedly "extreme self-centeredness and over-abudance of spare time" have to do with goth? The source sounds rather jaded and bitter and says more about them than about "goth" or "this generation".Grice 12:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Goth"