Talk:Bauhaus (band)/Archive 1

Bela Lugosi's Dead: Gothic Myth

Bauhaus frontman Peter Murphy had insisted that "Bela Lugosi's Dead" was recorded as a joke. I don't personally believe there was such a thing as "gothic" music. The term is about as meaningless and artificial as "alternative" (aka alternateen) or the "Right vs Left" paradigm. In my experience, there was little difference between jocks, preppies, rockers and gothics (or batcavers). The latter clique consumed a wider variety of mind altering substances perhaps. Although many may have deluded themselves that they were being non-conformists by scaring their parents with a "paint it black" dress sense, the "goth" clique was not exceptionally different socially or philosophically. It wasn't a movement. A clique is a clique, a herd is a herd. False choices seem to abound in life! Richard 23 21:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Except the problem to your argument is that Gothic music does exist and it's in a very similar vein to music that came off of albums like In the Flat Field by Bauhaus, Juju (album) by Siouxsie and the Banshees, and First and Last and Always by The Sisters of Mercy (band). Though the band members themselves might deny the connection, the fact that the subculture exists and is still thriving shows how strong the music of then still influences the Goths of today. Your idea of drugs influencing the Goth scene is false and the difference between "jocks, preppies, and rockers" and Goths are that the former are usually alot more dickish and are afraid of people who are different than they are than the latter. I am curious what your actual experience is with the subculture as myself have been in the scene for fifteen years. True Bella Lugosi's Dead was meant as a tounge-in-cheek song, but the fact that they sang it so seriously, as well as created other songs later in their career which were of a similar dark nature that were more serious, created an imagery for their band that their fans adopted (their hearse called the Bauhaus mobile, Peter Murphy having vampire imagery as part of his clothing style, they appeared on the movie They Hunger for crying out loud!) and later modified themselves into their own personal style that they enjoyed makes Bauhaus the primary reason why the Gothic subculture started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.106.109 (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Goth: Movement or Fashion Statement?

More than anyone else I credit the beautiful and talented Siouxsie Sioux with developing the "gothic" look. She seems to be the prototype for the clothing and makeup that came to be associated with "gothic."

Steve Severin (Banshees bassist) and Robert Smith (Cure vocalist and one-time Banshees guitarist) were similarly fascinated with her fashion sense. According to Siouxsie, "Put it down to Robert and Severin together. It's all their fault. Both of them would take my clothes and my jewelry. There were some strange nights going on there, lots of cross dressing and clothes swapping. Except they never had anything I wanted to wear."

Her fans also began to emulate her unique style. The look eventually spread across the Atlantic to America. Commented Sioux, "Actually, it's funny -- at quite a lot of our concerts, I used to look out and see all these little Robert Smiths." The Siouxie look with a little Sid Vicious (Sex Pistols) and Rozz Williams (Christian Death) thrown in.... Richard 23 21:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Origins of "Goth"

It is not "generally accepted" that Bauhaus was "the first goth band". The Banshees both was formed and released their first album before Bauhaus, and have in my opinion been as least as influential to the goth scene.

Geira 16:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, most people think of Bauhaus as the first, although, yes, Siouxsie was there first. However, her band was much more punky until just around the same time that the "Bela Lugosi's Dead" single came out. I suppose we need some outside sources to back up any statements here, though. Folkor 17:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think most people see them as one of the first "regarded" goth bands. There were goth bands before them yes, but the genre and the sound was slow to catch on and have a name. I think with Bauhaus people really started to say "these guys are goth!"

My favorite origin tale of the term "goth[ic]" comes from Ian Astbury of The [Southern Death] Cult, who incidentally himself also possessed unusual dress sense , according to Steve Keaton writing in the Dec 14, 1981 issue of Sounds: "The singer is weird, really weird. His face...is hidden beneath an avalanche of red and black hair and rabbit skin pom-poms...."

"The goth tag was a bit of a joke," insists Ian Astbury. "One of the groups coming up at the same time as us was Sex-Gang Children, and Andi [Sex-Gang] -- he used to dress like a Banshees fan, and I used to call him the Gothic Goblin because he was a little guy, and he's dark. He used to like Edith Piaf and this macabre music, and he lived in a building in Brixton called Visigoth Towers. So he was the little Gothic Goblin, and his followers were Goths. That's where goth came from."

Pete Scathe covers this subject in fascinating detail in A History of Goth.

Scathe's site contains a number of artist quotes excerpted from "The Beautiful People," an interesting retrospective written by Suzan Colon for the July 1997 issue of Details Magazine.

Richard 23 21:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bauhaus was the first gothic band as in: first band to be recognised and defined as Goth. There were bands before that could be labelled as gothic as well if you back to them. Joy Division for one, or The Damned (their frontman David Vanian was the first person to introduce the gothic look in music, and also used the look off-stage unlike most performers, so we may should credit Vanian as being the first true Goth in music). However, none of those bands got the Gothic label because there was no such subculture, this started of when Bauhaus also emerged. Bauhaus also deliberately aimed for a rather eerie/horror-esque image and stage antics, further seeking the Goth label. I guess they do deserve the title of godfathers of Goth, even though the music of mainly Joy Division can also be labelled Goth. They never had the label though in their days and also didn't really deliberately search to create an atmosphere that is now known as gothic. Nocturnal Me 21:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but wikipedia article are supposed to have citations to a trusted reference source, particularly for contentious statements. Making unsupported claims is frowned upon and may lead to deletion of either the entire article or the contentious section. I will try to find some sources to cite re: the origins of goth rock, and I beg others to do the same. Trade journals are a good source if you have access to them, for example: Rolling Stone, Spin, Kerrang!, Blabbermouth. Thanks! Vampyrecat (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Joy Division

Yeah, whatever. Isn't Joy Division the first gothic band ever? I mean, I'm pretty sure they are even if wikipedians hit me with all their neurosis. 168.243.218.2

Most people don't actually consider Joy Division as a goth band. I had a protracted argument with my best friend for several months about this, and eventually, I realized he was right. Joy Division is more proto-goth, but Bauhaus deserves the credit as the first real goth band. At least, in my opinion. If you can give a good argument as to why you think Joy Division counts as the first goth band, I'd like to hear it. Folkor 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Joy Division created the goth "musical" style, and Bauhaus the "fashion" part. Musicaly, Joy Division's sound in songs like Love Will Tear Us Appart, Dead Souls, She's Lost Control, etc. created the goth sound. 168.243.218.2

You have a point there - Joy Division's fashion wasn't gothic, while Bauhaus's clearly was. I wouldn't call "Love Will Tear Us Apart" gothic - the upbeat feel and especially the keyboard make me lean towards more of a New Wave feel. The lyrics, however, as with most Joy Division lyrics, are rather gothic in nature. "She's Lost Control" and "Dead Souls" have a very gothic feel to them, but it's not quite the same as what Bauhaus did. Joy Division's guitars were always rather distorted, while Bauhaus's tended to be cleaner ("Spirit", "Bela Lugosi's Dead") or distorted to a point where the feedback was quite intense ("Dark Entries"). Bauhaus would never use a keyboard like in "Love Will Tear Us Apart". If I remember right, in the booklet in the Everything! album by Tones on Tail, Ash said something about purposely using keyboards and synthesizers, since such activity was forbidden in Bauhaus. Just a couple arguments. Folkor 06:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Joy Division may use a keyboards, but it's used in a way that gives you the sensation of being in an abandoned and lonely place. That's a very goth keyboard. 168.243.218.2

(I'm going to stop adding colons, because it's indenting too far.) That's a very subjective statement, not that there is necessarily something wrong with that. However, I think that the keyboards in songs like "Love Will Tear Us Apart" and "Isolation" do just the opposite of what you say - I think they sound uplifting and bright, despite the dark lyrics. "Transmission" also gives off the same feeling. To quote from A History of Goth, "Bauhaus are the first band who cannot be comfortably classified as anything other than goth. UK Decay and The Banshees could be considered punk, The Cure could be considered New Wave, Joy Division could be considered post-punk, but Bauhaus were unmistakably goth in music, looks, lyrics, art and style right from their first single." That site discusses why Joy Division was a big, big influence on gothic music but isn't really gothic in and of itself. Of course, there is still room for argument, and that is just one site and therefore one opinion. Folkor 04:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bauhaus are to goth as the Sex Pistols are to punk. They may not have started the movement, but they defined it. I think it's safe to call them the definitive goth band. --Switch 11:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put. -- Jon Dowland 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As much as I love both bands, I would not consider Joy Division gothic....the difference? Joy Division's dark lyrics are woe is me im gonna cry in the corner cause life sucks Bauhaus is let's go dance on gravestones and sing about dark stuff, but life dosen't suck..it's just fun to scream out the word stigmata! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.195.92 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Bauhaus continued with that Genre what Joy Division starts with. Joy Division's Music is post punk. While Unknown Pleasures sometimes was a way more faster and "happier" (but dont forgett about "she lost control" Closer is way more gloomy dark and melancholy than anything other in this time. So you can call Bauhaus Goth Rock. Joy Divison fits in Dark Wave and Post Punk Why Dark Wave? Because The term was coined in Europe in the 1980s to describe a dark and melancholy variant of new wave and post-punk music, such as gothic rock and dark synthpop, So its a dark variant or way of post punk and while this describes Dark Wave im sure this definition also fits perfect for Joy Divisions Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosi90 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

discography

Crackle is not from the year 2000 , but from the year 1998.81.245.245.152 23:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Brother

The first paragraphs of the band beginnings is incorrect - David J's brother is Kevin Haskins, not Daniel Ash. Brandon — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

references and bibliography

i know the information presented in this article represents common knowledge. but there's still a need for a 'references' section and 'bibliography' section. it's common knowledge only for those who were part of the scene. ...but for the ones that weren't? i'm currently translating this in romanian, and i fear for a big "original research" label at the beginning of the article if some references won't be given soon. :D IleanaCosanziana 14:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Bauhaus was / Bauhaus were

"Bauhaus were an English rock band formed in Northampton" Ok. That's fine. But then we get this: "Bauhaus released its second album Mask" (THEIR) "Bauhaus is generally considered the first gothic rock group" (ARE)

What is going on here? Is this an American thing? Like when Americans say "U2 is touring" when it should be "U2 are touring? I figure this is some noun confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.128.88 (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Dictionary of English: Group Nouns. Singular in these situations (where the band is acting as a single unit) is perfectly appropriate, in both British and American English - Foetusized (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ziggy Stardust"

I see where the page Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus single) was recently moved to Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song). While it may have been a Bauhaus single, I don't see it as a Bauhaus song. This article for the band links to Ziggy Stardust (song). Does the content at Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song) need to merge into Ziggy Stardust (song)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foetusized (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 September 2008

It's the standard formatting for article names, see Wikipedia:SONG#Naming. --JD554 (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So what is the standard for articles about songs that have had notable releases by multiple artists? One article like The Passenger (song) which covers both the Iggy Pop original and the Siouxsie & the Banshees cover, or two separate articles like Ziggy Stardust (song) and Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song)? Since the two "Ziggy Startdust" articles are about the same song, shouldn't the articles be merged? -- Foetusized (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Although there is scant information in Ziggy Stardust (Bauhaus song), it was a notable release by the band and the article can (and should) be expanded. There is an argument that such little information should be merged in to a parent article, People Are Strange is a good example, but at some point they will need splitting. This one just needs expanding with reliable sources added to show its notability. --JD554 (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cite your sources please

This article is poorly referenced and could really use more citations. It already has a Biography of Living Persons warning and I'd hate to see the article deleted. Please don't add any new information without proper citations; it's more difficult for a third person to go back and add references later. If it's just a rumor it doesn't belong in the article, and if it's more than a rumor there should be an article or reference out there somewhere, right? It's quite easy to fix bad formatting in citations, so don't worry too much about doing it wrong. If you're really unclear on how to cite sources you could just leave them in a comment here on the discussion page. Thanks! Vampyrecat (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP warning, just the header that is on all BLP article talk pages. The article is not in danger of being deleted, but help with the citations is always appreciated. Was there any particular reason for the merging of the References and Notes sections? -- Foetusized (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I should really have updated the whole thing to one citation style and converted what is currently called "bibliography" into citebook format. The old-style citations are fairly labor intensive to convert to the new style. I find them to be time consuming because I like to keep all the original information when I'm converting. For example, the references in this article have page numbers which should not be lost during the conversion so it may take a while to convert them all. Vampyrecat (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the BLP/deletion warning, you're right, the whole article is not in danger of deletion. I should have kept my plea for citations more limited. Vampyrecat (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

GO away White - Goth Rock ?

Is it true that Go Away White still fits in Goth Rock ? On the Discography here on wiki are Alternative and Goth Rock the Genres.? is it a mixture of both of them ? Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brosi90 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Year of dissolution

We've given the year the band dissolved as being 2008, as this is the year that 'Go Away White' was released; but the band actually recorded the album in 2006 and ceased to work together after that time. Wouldn't this mean that 2006 is the year that Bauhaus dissolved? 86.148.12.135 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Genres and consensus

User 67.83.143.151 has repeatedly tried to change the genre classifications that had previously been accepted via consensus. After genre warring and insulting other editors, this user was blocked for 48 hours. Now that the block is off, they have gone right back and repeated the same exact thing, despite our explanation of how consensus works, which they have ignored.

67.83.143.151: please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus thoroughly so you understand what it actually means on Wikipedia, rather than what you believe it means on your own. If you are seemingly compelled to change this page (based, I might add, on your personal gripes with the sources), then you need to make your case HERE, in Talk, since the other CURRENT page editors disagree with your constant attempt to change. If you can convince others to agree here, then you may achieve consensus. Referencing comments from years ago is not consensus. We have all disagreed with you; it is thus YOUR job to make a case to change, not our job to make a case.

Also additional commentary here by other current page editors (Mezigue, Binksternet, Woovee, Myxomatosis57) would be helpful. Greg Fasolino (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can add to what I have already explained repeatedly to this person. (From their rants on your talk page, which you removed, and on mine, which are still there, this editor seems to be on some sort of delusional personal crusade and Wikipedia is not here to help people through their identity crises.) Bauhaus started going at a time when Goth wasn't a genre. They helped invent it, but chronologically it comes after post-punk which is also a more catch-all and accurate term for their quite varied output. All this is well covered in the article, and there is no reason for the intro and infobox not to reflect that. Mezigue (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100 percent.Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you at all see what is above this (all the opinions beyond yours) where you FINALLY took my advice and used the damn talk page, but not to use the talk page to actually discuss things about Bauhaus, it's genre, history, or gain any consensus from the writers above this part of the page; but instead you complain about me?! Here's the thing Mezigue about your very wrong opinion, we have bands like Sex Pistols or Ramones who pretty much invented (or at the very least, made famous) of what we call Punk today, but we don't go back and say "Well, because they helped invent punk, that doesn't mean they are and we'll call them 'garage band rock', 'rockabilly' or 'post-disco'." We call them punk bands because they invented the style, imagery, and sound surrounding it. Same as we would call Bauhaus a Gothic rock band because they invented the style, imagery, and sound of Gothic rock. I still don't understand what your problems to this is? You've got bands like Joy Division being considered post-punk, isn't that enough? Why try to grab bands like Bauhaus, Siouxsie, and others? Thank G-d you guys haven't gotten to Christian Death yet, Rozz Williams would probably be spinning in his grave at that point... when he isn't spinning after what Valor did to his band.

The problem with the "Goth at the BBC" reference is that it's focused on goth and doesn't take in the larger picture of post-punk. So it doesn't help us to place Bauhaus in context. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with the source material leaving out something you wish was in there doesn't mean the source is incorrect. In fact because it's from the BBC, a very well regarded media source, means it trumps many other sources that have less of a reputation or history.67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you reverted again! I see a larger block in your future if you don't desist. The idea here is, dont change it until you gain a consensus. You do not have one. In fact, so far it's 3 saying no, to your 1. If anything, we have a consensus against your changes. I'll address your text, just to be fair, thought we've gone over this a dozen times and you still don't grasp the history. "We call them punk bands because they invented the style, imagery, and sound surrounding it." Yes, and they were never called anything else, and didn't help form any other genre. Bauhaus (and the Banshees) were called post-punk for years prior to the common use of the term "goth", and they helped form the post-punk genre BEFORE. Priority and precedence matter. You were not around then, so you wouldn't know, but more importantly, you ignore the sources because you have a wholly irrational, emotional, ahistorical and non-neutral dislike for the very commonly used, respectable, well-researched and well known term "post-punk". Please either read some of the suggested texts, or stop your crusade. Wiki isn't the place for aggrieved goths to "right the wrongs" of journalistic history.Greg Fasolino (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I reverted back to what the page was for years before people like you got to it Greg. Second, STOP TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME FROM SPEAKING THE TRUTH! (I am sure you wouldn't even of known about my ban if I didn't delete it from my talk page, (Personal attack removed)) Third, it isn't 3 to 1, as far as I see it I have consensus from way back in 2005 according to this talk page but you STILL WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE IT (I count about 8 to 10 editors above who are discussing Bauhaus as a Gothic rock band, to your three, it's just that they aren't editing it right now to what it should be except for me)! As for bands like Bauhaus, they started the genre of Gothic Rock thanks to making the song Bella Lugosi's Dead, with making a tongue-in-cheek song so seriously they invented a new genre with the first song they created! They didn't even delve into post-punk at all until possibly some later tracks, but they started as a Gothic Rock band, it just wasn't called that way because there wasn't a proper name for what they were playing yet, similar to eventually coming along before collectively Punk bands decided to call that what style they were playing. As for Siouxsie, they started as punk and went post-punk for a little while, but after Juju it was Gothic Rock and stayed that way through a majority of their career making it their "primary genre" and what they are referred by when their name is brought up in conversation (not to mention many media sources).

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. WP:FOC

You weren't around then either, you were in the United States in NYC in 1983 just after Bauhaus broke up and Siouxsie was touring, you didn't live in England or visit around there to meet up with the bands in the genre (plus you ignore media sources that don't mesh with your limited, biased opinion about Goths and the subculture beyond what you personally experienced). Instead you complain that the scene changed on you after 1987 and you ran, just because the Deathrockers of that era joined with their English bretheren in the early 80s and came through with the combined name of Gothic Rock (and the Gothic subculture); nothing changed at all except there was a proper name for the lyrically dark, bass heavy, melodic rock music that was being played and created (I still ask you what does "post-punk" sound like, a music genre has to have particular mores and ways in order to be identified and differed from other genres; the way you describe "post-punk" makes it sound like you talk like you and other post-punk people are "better" and "more artistic" than the punks of that time which 1. makes you sound like a dick and 2. doesn't actually ascribe anything of why something is post-punk and not something else [or is something else, but to you is primarily 'post-punk'] which is damn confusing).

I'd rather you read some of the references you've been ignoring, in order to further your very wrong personal views about the genre. Wiki isn't a place for a has-been "journalist" whose trying to rewrite history on a site that allows to be easily edited (despite the opposing view having at least 3 times the amount of editors he claims as consensus) for a genre he only experienced personally for about 4 short years before leaving it behind, probably because more people are open to the idea of "post-punk" like he wants and not the "evil" Gothic Rock genre name; where he can make money again selling post-punk "history" to the skinny jeans, lumberjack beard, PBR beer crowd who will listen to him unlike Goths who wouldn't.67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Gothic rock or goth rock is a genre that surfaced in 1982 to be precise with bands like Alien Sex Fiend but this genre doesn't concern those late 1970's post-punk bands that we are talking about. Those post-punk bands including Bauhaus had gothic lyrics but they haven't got anything to do with the gothic rock genre. There will always be sources that reduce Bauhaus to this goth rock tag as if their music was one dimensional; this bbc source even tagged PJ Harvey as gothic rock. PJ Harvey has also certain lyrics that are gothic as Rolling Stone once reviewed it but goth rock or gothic rock, she is not this is not serious. Music historian Simon Reynolds is a detractor of those post-punk bands and has pinned them down with this label. But history is what it is, one can not retrospectively tag a band with the genre that didn't exist in 1979. The gothic adjective is one thing, the gothic rock genre is completely something else.

"Bauhaus had 'gothic lyrics' but they haven't got anything to do with the gothic rock genre." There is so much wrong with that sentence, that I am trying to type this as I laugh hysterically! Bauhaus had 'Gothic lyrics' and a 'Gothic sound' and a 'Gothic look' because they INVENTED IT ALL! Unintentionally yes, and it wasn't given the name right away (neither was Punk music given it's name straight away), but they invented Gothic Rock and the Gothic subculture thanks to how they performed a tongue-in-cheek song so seriously, the look of their band and on stage persona (you didn't see Ian Curtis of Joy Division coming out of a coffin on stage, did you?), the songs that they wrote, the damn hearse that they brought to carry their instruments in, and other things that other bands (like Siouxsie, The Cure, Dead Can Dance, Cocteau Twins, and others) did together during that time which eventually got a proper genre name of Gothic rock (in America Gothic Rock used to be called Deathrock and England called it Positive Punk [probably for humor sake, since us Goths do like making fun of ourselves alot while we enjoy being whom we are]). If you don't "retroactively tag" bands who are a certain genre name, simply because they didn't have that name for the genre back when the band started in that style, then why don't you go to both the Sex Pistols and The Ramones pages right now and change them from Punk to whatever other genre they can be described as before the genre was given the name of Punk Rock?67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Pistols were associated with the punk thing for day 1. After the Bill Grundy notorious tv show in december 1976, they were on the cover of tabloids with the title "Punk shockers". The Stooges were proto-punk but their genre was not punk. Gothic rock started to be recognized as such around 1982, the UK press then reduced it to goth around 1985. Woovee (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There isn't any consensus to change this lead which is well written and fairly explains that their dark music helped spawn a genre called gothic rock that surfaced years later. Woovee (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if you wrote the unsigned paragraph up above this sentence Woovee, but all I can say is that Bauhaus started as a Gothic rock genre band because they invented it and it was the style they started with since their first song was "Bella Lugosi's Dead" and not something "post-punk" similar to Joy Division's "Love Will Tear Us Apart". The editors dating back from about 2005 according to tags on this talk page (more numerous than just the 3 that Greg props up) is the consensus that I have that gives me precedence to change the page back to what it was before Greg and the 2 others got to it.67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

"Love will tear us apart" is something else, it was almost Sinatra-esque in a certain way. To my point of view, the look doesn't really matter in the end. Joy Division, with a song like "Atrocity Exhibition", were gothic by essence. But their genre is not gothic rock even if a Sounds (magazine)'s reviewer tagged them gothic rock as soon as in 1980. Bauhaus are gothic too and their main genre is also post-punk like Joy Division's.Woovee (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

They and "Bela" could not have been called "gothic rock" in any widespread or general sense in 1979-80 because that term was not in common use yet, as evidenced in the sources. And consensus, AGAIN, does not refer to what editors in the past may have offhandedly said. It refers to a CURRENT, specific discussion in which a suggestion is made, and then current editors debate and/or offer their votes. YOU DO NOT HAVE A CONSENSUS. I am not "propping up" anyone--I do not even know those other editors aside from the fact that they are also current editors of this page and they likewise disagree with your extremely subjective, non-historical, emotional and biased interjections. You are verging on personal attacks again. Please limit your comments to the topic at hand and do not make insinuations against other editors here.Greg Fasolino (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sex Pistols and Ramones could not have been called "Punk" in any widespread or general sense in 1974-75 because that term was not in common use yet, but they are still called that today because they invented the genre. In a similar sense, media sources and many musicians who are influenced by the band call Bauhaus a Gothic rock band because they invented the genre, despite at the time not having the genre title. Let me give you an easy example, Lewis Black probably could be considered a "rage comedian" (google "rage comedian", his picture in the GIS preview comes up twice!) in the future because someone in a magazine could use that title to describe him, despite when he first started that comedic style name wasn't invented or used yet and/or made popular, but he would be considered that at the time the style is named and it would be retroactive to when he started out since most of career (if not all of it) he was like that style; other comedians might get influenced by him and say "I'm a rage comedian like Lewis Black is" and media sources would report on Lewis Black as a "rage comedian", they wouldn't say "Well actually, he's always been an observational humor comedian and not a 'rage comedian'." except for a select few trying to misguide others to conform to their own personal opinions. It's why Bauhaus is considered a Gothic rock band primarily, because retroactively after the genre was solidified with a name and a common style, the progenitor band is considered of that genre like Sex Pistols and Ramones are considered Punk despite when they started there was no Punk genre name. You can't say what editors "may have" said, because it's right above this damn section, read it and you'll see. Plus it seems like I wasn't the only one trying to right the wrongs of you "post-punk" pukes, back in 2012 two separate editors tried to right the wrongs of changing the genre on this page with adding proper references

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. WP:FOC

and of course some editor named IllaZilla just reverted with one mouse click and gee, I don't see her name up above in this talk page either (looks like (s)he just reverts without consensus from the talk page too like you, Mezigue, and your third fearless friend does), unlike them though I didn't get tired of fighting and still show references like they did. You don't even know what consensus is, do you? It's where a grouping of people agree with you, no matter the timeline, that's why we use references to back up our assertions, not the misguided personal opinions of three people and their subjective, non-historical, biased interjections. Maybe I hit a nerve Greg. Honestly you were only in the scene for four years and now your back because "post-punk" is all the rage now, thanks to Hipsters (you may not be one, but you certainly get fringe benefits from them) since Goth is too "evil" a term for those "more alternative than thou" pretentious douchebags; so you finally can sell your music and opinions again to people who might actually listen to your claims of post-punk being "better and more artistic than punk" while putting down Goths because they dress silly to you or listen to far more diverse and different genres than just bands that sound like Joy Division. (still haven't described post-punk to me in ways an average person can comprehend it and differentiate it from other genres Greg, great "journalism"!) If you knew your scene was dying in NYC back in 1986-87 in favor of the Goths (despite it being the same damn scene! There are still clubs TODAY in NYC and Newark that play Gothic bands like Bauhaus, Siouxsie, Sisters of Mercy and others), why didn't you do anything about it back then? Why do you have to misguide people now about just under 30 years later?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There is an article on post-punk actually so you could read it. All this other stuff you are ranting about is pretty much all in your head. Take a deep breath and calm down. Wikipedia isn't here to help you replay your playground tiffs or fight imaginary battles. Mezigue (talk) 08:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The article on post-punk is no help at all, it describes "post-punk" as being more like a movement than a musical genre, here's some highlights from your vaunted "post-punk" page: "Some critics, such as AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine, have employed the term to denote "a more adventurous and arty form of punk," while others have suggested it pertains to a set of artistic sensibilities and approaches rather than any unifying style." and "Music journalist and post-punk scholar Simon Reynolds has advocated that post-punk be conceived as "less a genre of music than a space of possibility," suggesting that "what unites all this activity is a set of open-ended imperatives: innovation; willful oddness; the willful jettisoning of all things precedented or 'rock'n'roll.'". So basically you're trying to sell me the idea that "post-punk" is a music genre and can describe bands as their primary genre yet it doesn't specify how it sounds, nor how it differs from other music genres because it's "less a genre of music than a 'space of possibility'." You know what that means, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! It means NOTHING! ANYTHING can be put in that "space of possibility"! And the damn post-punk "scholar" of a apparently meaningless term even doesn't describe it as a genre and yet you three are claiming it's a music genre and not only that, claiming that Bauhaus is not only part of that genre but it's their primary genre and to you not Gothic Rock! (which they not only invented but many Gothic rock and other Gothic subculture stylized bands have gotten their influence from Bauhaus and other first generation Gothic bands) How can you call "post-punk" a musical genre when it apparently "pertains to a set of artistic sensibilities and approaches" and not "any unifying style"? Your vaunted page even describes bands supposedly attached to post-punk that predate the post-punk period, like Cabaret Voltaire and yet you three tell me that Bauhaus can't be a Gothic Rock band because Bauhaus predates the Gothic Rock genre name? (by about only 1 - 2 years, Joy Division was called Gothic by Tony Wilson, the founder and owner of Factory Records, who produced and published Joy Division's records!) Steve Severin of Siouxsie and the Banshees in the biography says he described Join Hands (released 1979) as Gothic by the time of it's release (I always thought Love in a Void was a Goth song and it's one of my favorites of theirs) but the media didn't pick up on that at the time, and you most likely consider Siouxsie and the Banshees primarily a "post-punk" band too apparently as their primary genre Mezigue. As I said, I am trying to right the wrongs of the people who are trying to redefine Goth bands as something they are not (or at least not giving the primary genre of Gothic Rock credit over another genre). My problem with certain people (some Hipsters, others who may make money off of telling people what they want to hear instead of the truth) who may like a Gothic band is that they redefine it to a "safe" genre (which post-punk seems to be so undefinable, that it's perfect for Hipsters to do so since it's "unique" in that it's undefinable, so anything coming out of those speakers no matter how incomprehensible could be called "post-punk") so they aren't personally affiliated with those "evil" and/or "crazy" Goth people. That's why I keep fighting you three on this, because you're trying to make your opinions override history and fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.143.151 (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Three things: 1) I am warning you for the last time to refrain from personal attacks; you do not know me, and have no business making assertions (which happen to be incorrect) about my personal life or music career. 2) Maybe this will help reach your hidden logic center. Bauhaus is to post-punk is to gothic rock, what Led Zeppelin is to rock is to heavy metal. Read the lead of the Led Zeppelin article here and that will provide some enlightenment (or not). 3) Most importantly, one thing you said here was not only true for a change, but crystallized the entire point of the problems you've been causing: "I am trying to right the wrongs." Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE for you or anyone else to "right the wrongs." That, and that alone, is the reason you have been reverted, opposed and then blocked. If you want to "right the wrongs," start your own magazine or blog, or write a book. Wikipedia is not interested in your crusade, we are interested in the sources. Greg Fasolino (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. WP:FOC

1) You are on record on Youtube of things you said regarding the Goth subculture and how you claimed it "died in 1987 in NYC" (despite the fact that there are still clubs today that play Gothic music in NYC), you deleted our conversation on your talk page but you didn't like my manner of dress calling it "that shit" and "anachronistic" despite other Goths do dress similar to myself (I am happy when I dress the way I do, despite people like you who dislike it. Though I don't know why based upon you being a "HEMA practitioner", meaning you dress up in medieval clothes when fighting, I assume at Ren faires), your twitter account shows your likes and dislikes, assumptions of your opinions and reasons for acting the way you do can be made based upon facts given by you to us in public forums that you post information in. If I am wrong, why do you only have your old pictures on a site called "post-punk.com", why not also a publication that would also be open to seeing concert pictures that (kinda) caters to the scene like Gothic Beauty or Devolution magazine (or if you have, can you give the issue #)?

Is there an exclusivity contract involved? 2) Bauhaus is not post-punk to Gothic Rock because their first song is a Gothic song, tounge-in-cheek song sang in a serious manner (you know Goth isn't all sadness like Emo, we make fun of ourselves too since the beginning when Peter Murphy, David J and the gang wrote that song, you should know this being a self claimed journalist of the scene), dark and morbid lyrics, heavy bass lines, and electronic instruments. They didn't just come along and go "we're post-punk too", they played their music how they designed it and by doing so invented a new genre of music which is now known as Gothic Rock and influenced the formation of the Gothic subculture. The difference between Gothic Rock and post-punk is that I can define Gothic Rock as a musical genre and ascribe that genre to many bands based on how they sound similar to that style, your definition of post-punk makes it more sound like something similar to the Gothic subculture where it's a movement of people and not a musical form (though the difference being is that Goths don't arrogantly claim to be "better" and/or "more artistic" than the Punks that preceded them, nor try to ascribe certain bands to the subculture that don't fit in with that definition). What makes Bauhaus more "post-punk" than Gothic rock other than the time difference (about 1 year or so) of the release of Bella Lugosi's Dead to when Gothic rock was properly referenced as such? 3) When a reference site has improper information, you correct it and give proper references (it's not an agenda, it's trying to bring facts and end false information) that's what I tried to do and you revert claiming "consensus" and you only come up with 3 people, I claim more than you and supposedly to you it has to be "current consensus", so you instead of actually reading any of my reference points or information I give, you just keep moving the goalposts in order to keep your opinion "winning" (and apparently calling out admins who just time block and don't give any responses to questions regarding impartiality on his talk page) instead of listening to the references I put out. You still do not give a definition of post-punk that would make it a music genre; the way the Wikipedia site and yourself have described it sounds like a group of arrogant people patting themselves on the back, calling themselves more artistic than prior art movements that preceded them yet carry a vague meaning which allows virtually anyone to just call something "post-punk" with little to no consensus needed (even from the artists themselves like Steve Severin who says he came up with the description Gothic to describe their 1979 album in the Banshee's autobiography). If you want to put this blanket term on a great many musicians, then what is the limit? What makes a band post-punk or not post-punk? What makes one band primarily post-punk and not primarily another genre like Gothic Rock, Darkwave, Ethereal, Triphop, Shoegaze, or other genres common to the Gothic subculture? What makes post-punk such a "great descriptor" that it trumps other definitions of a band to describe that band and do you think when someone hears a "post-punk" band play that they can easily say "that's post-punk!" or another way a common person can be told what post-punk is and describe a band as such based upon what they hear? I really wish to know, because despite having a large subculture behind me, they don't seem to bother like I do with Wikipedia referencing their favorite bands except in small spurts (like that 2012 change I mentioned and the fight between the people trying to return the page to reference Bauhaus as a Goth band and User:IllaZilla ) and I can't bring the page (and other Goth bands) to it's most accurate and then ask for protection in time before you, Mezigue, or your third editor changes it to what you want. You seem biased in that you only use sources that agree with your opinion (like AllMusic, despite the source not existing when many of these bands we're arguing about started up or even broke up before AllMusic even existed at all) or cherry pick them in order to show your view as proper, but when I put out the full reference to show my viewpoint or point out flaws in your references you revert it to your opinion anyway with nary anything about it on the talk page except for a long time after I suggested it (and only to complain about me, not argue the merits or follies of the references I posted). 67.83.143.151 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

In the interests of civility, I am responding to this hot mess in as terse a manner as possible. You say "I can define"---nobody cares what you can define. You're not a source. A well-respected, commonly used genre term does not exist or not exist based upon the likes or dislikes of one person (like yourself). You ask a great many questions, but when we tell you to explore the sources and the great richness of press and music material out there regarding "post-punk," you just repeat the same questions over and over. It's not our job or our responsibility to explain what post-punk is to you. Read the damn sources. Nobody cares if you dislike the term! How many times must we say that? It's irrelevant. And no, I do not wear medieval clothes, not that this would have any relevance to this discussion, and no, my personal life is not up for debate here and I will ask you for the last time to desist bringing it up. If you want to mention any of the numerous music articles I have written (many used as sources by other editors here on Wiki), be my guest, that's fine. But leave my personal life out of your tirades and crusades or I will be forced to report you for harassment. A final warning.Greg Fasolino (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Just popping in to ask why I'm mentioned in 67.83.143.151's comments above. I haven't made an edit to this article in nearly 4 years. If I recall correctly, my few edits to this article were to revert someone who was editing against their block, and also to argue that the infobox should reflect the sourced prose of the article rather than carrying the sources itself. So whatever you're arguing about now (seems to be genres...as usual, the most contentious and time-wasting aspect of music articles), I'd appreciate it if you'd leave me out of it. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Well lets put it this way, others can define Goth music too, that's why it's a genre and why even on a editable source like Wikipedia it has a "style" definition for how Gothic rock sounds and because your argument is about wording, then lets say that others can and have defined Gothic Rock as a particular style (and until Woovee got at it, which I am sure (s)he did after reading me on here figuring I was about to use it as a source, he changed "Early gothic rock" bands to "Proto-Goth" bands in describing Bauhaus, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and other Gothic rock bands on 15 March 2016 to completely change the definition of those bands while keeping the source the same; without consensus and without a stated edit reason too) which is why many bands are listed as such. It also is true that even apparent "scholars" of the post-punk "genre" can't define it, as I have stated before in that "hot mess", so I want your definition of how it sounds or if you don't want to type it, find me a link that says something like "This is what post-punk sounds like." But as usual, you are deflecting the question, and saying "It's not your job or responsibility to educate you" on a damn REFERENCE WEBSITE (people are educated by references)! Then why do you post here if it isn't "your job", then get another hobby other than changing information on an editable reference site where other people get information from and may use that information (if that information is incorrect, they would be miseducated) for their own personal needs! I myself would have never learned about Bauhaus, Siouxsie, Dead Can Dance, and other first generation Gothic bands if it wasn't for the internet help lead me (and others) in the right direction all those years ago (to magazines, books, and other mediums that taught me about and helped me enjoy the scene) and if I got that information solely from you and Wikipedia (if I was, I wish, a good deal younger), I wouldn't get information except that which fit your own biases.

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. WP:FOC

As for your choice of being a HEMA practitioner, I am just calling out the pot calling the kettle black since you have nostalgia for something outdated and so do I, but I like wearing my Victorian/Edwardian era influenced Gothic clothing (anytime I can) despite it being "anachronistic" and you attacking me by calling it "that shit" despite other Goths also wearing what I do, which gives insight into your opinions and mentality about the Gothic subculture in general (also your documented opinions on that post-punk panel you were a part of give that insight too). If you don't want your public information used to call things out about you in an argument, than change your Facebook profile (and other social media you use) to "friends only" or at least "friends of friends only" (that's what I do already). Plus, you being on a panel and giving me the youtube link to it that you discuss your personal experiences and opinions about post-punk and Goth, trying to show off your credentials, doesn't give you free range to threaten me when I make assumptions based upon the opinions you give in that panel; in which you giving your opinions and having it documented by camera and posted to youtube (while you have freely posted to me the link to look at) is the same as you writing an article and me or others critiquing it.

67.83.143.151 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

As for you IllaZilla, I am calling you out as to why you had a problem with that references that went in the infobox as to that user years ago you reverted. Was the infobox references incorrect or just improperly placed? If improperly placed, then why did you simply revert what he posted instead of maybe helping him by deleting the references of the infobox, keeping the ones in the article, and keeping the genre order as sourced by the references he posted unless you come up with opposing references to disprove his assertions? Why does it seem that almost everyone who tells someone else to "seek consensus in the talk page" before reverting or changing an article never do that themselves? (not a question specifically to you IllaZilla, though you do do that as this is your first post in this Bauhaus talk page despite making edits 4 years ago and that person you claimed was a "sockpuppet" of a blocked account you gave this advice: "4) If disagreements arise with other editors, start a discussion on the article's talk page. Don't edit war, but instead discuss the problem in order to reach a consensus." and yet you don't comment on Bauhaus' talk page till you say "Leave me out of it")67.83.143.151 (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, this is an easy thing to show consensus from other editors on this talk page thinking similar to the way I do. "Bauhaus are to goth as the Sex Pistols are to punk. They may not have started the movement, but they defined it. I think it's safe to call them the definitive goth band. --Switch 11:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)" That is on this talk page, that is consensus (as well as the person after Switch wrote this "Well put. -- Jon Dowland 18:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)") as well as the paragraph written by Folkor before that which I won't copy and paste for you, you'll just have to look up, but in general (as I said before) it is talking about how Bauhaus can't be classified anything other than a Goth band and a band like Joy Division is post-punk. So far that's four people (including me) disagreeing with you Greg and the two others, if you don't "move the goalposts" when you lose that argument, maybe you'll see more people than not consider Bauhaus primarily a Gothic rock band.67.83.143.151 (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I really don't think I owe you an explanation for a handful of reverts four years after the fact, but... If I recall correctly (and that's a big if), it's because the edits in question were made by User:BEATWEAKer, a serial genre warrior who, within a week, had already been blocked twice (not by me) for making dozens of unexplained, unsourced changes to genres in various articles. When blocked, BEATWEAKer would make the exact same edits anonymously, which a is a blatant violation of the blocking policy and mandates an immediate revert, no matter the content of the edit. A couple weeks later, BEATWEAKer was found (by official administrator investigation) to be a sockpuppet of User:TheMetallican, a known sockpuppeteer and genre warrior, so I feel no remorse about having reverted any of BEATWEAKer's edits because, regardless of their content, all of those edits were in violation of policy as they were made by a sockpuppet.

Now, as for the message I left on BEATWEAKer's talk page, I (humbly) think it is very good advice concerning how to handle genres in music articles, and (not having looked at the recent history of this article, so not really knowing what your edits have entailed) would be good advice for you to follow. Unfortunately you have seemed to focus only on the fourth point of my message, regarding taking disagreements to the talk page. To that point I will say, since you have complained that I did not then take the topic to this talk page myself back in 2012, that the onus to start a discussion lies with the editor seeking to make a change to the article, so it was BEATWEAKer's responsibility to start such a discussion if they believed the genres were incorrect and should be changed. I had already taken the matter to BEATWEAKer's talk page, and they were making these kind of edits to many articles, so I was definitely not going to start a whole bunch of discussions on a whole bunch of talk pages just to say the same thing to one editor a dozen or so times in a dozen different places.

The rest of my comment to BEATWEAKer is what I suggest you consider in whatever disagreement is going on here now: The infobox (and, to a large extent, the article lede) is meant to be a summary of key facts from the article. Discussion of genres, and the accompanying sources, belong in the article body. The infobox and lede should then reflect what the article body and its sources say. I note that this article has a "Musical style" section with several references; the genres in the infobox and lede, then, should reflect the content of this section. Since it seems you're also disagreeing about the lead sentence, I will suggest—and experience tells me that most featured articles handle things this way—that if an artist's oeuvre does not fall easily or entirely into one specific subgenre (e.g. gothic rock), then it is better writing to introduce things using a broader parent genre (e.g. rock), then go into the more specific styles and subgenres in a subsequent sentence or paragraph.

I think that's all I have to contribute on the matter. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bauhaus (band). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407093757/http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/?id=2838 to http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/?id=2838
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119143454/http://www.typeonegative.net/images/bio.html to http://www.typeonegative.net/images/bio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Musical style and influences

Bringing up Lynchenberg's points, I don't understand why can't we include the previously mentioned bands in the same article if they are being used in a different context. For example, using Lynchenberg's first point, "The first bit is not repeating information. It's not mentioning Devo or Joy Division as influences again, it's in a different context. The source is David J specifically naming those five bands as the ones the contemporary bands Bauhaus felt affiliated with." Influence and "being affiliated with" are two different things. Also, all the members of Bauhaus disagreed/rejected the goth label and I have citations to back up my claims. Of course, they are not music historians or journalists. However, can't the members of the band have a say in regards to whether they agree or not being described the "gothic" label? I also agree with Lynchenberg's view that Peter Murphy was not denigrating The Cure by crediting them for the goth movement. I agree that over-linking was a mistake in my part. Ninmacer20 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

What is the different context ? There isn't any. Does J explain in this quote why Devo and Joy Division inspired them ? No at all, it is just namedropping. It is just another useless sentence piling up the already boring litany of names.

Crediting the cure for the goth sound is denigrating the Cure. Smith abhorrs the goth adjective, so don't dare to say it is a compliment. And the dark triology of the Cure are 1980-1982, so the Cure were contemporaries as Bauhaus, the latter called it a day in 1983. In 1983, the Cure were releasing pop singles whereas Bauhaus were realising another dark album: two different planets. One may include tons of quotes to associate Bauhaus with the goth sound. Woovee (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making a discussion thread for me, Ninmacer20. I'll lay out my (more detailed) case for my edits here.

In the section on Bauhaus' musical style, there is a long list of all the genres of music Bauhaus was influenced by, with equally excessive lists in brackets giving examples of bands who play these genres. There is also mention of the band Joy Division as an early influence on Bauhaus near the beginning of the section. Many of the bands listed in these brackets are not actually supported by the citations and, as I said, are used more as examples of the genre than specific bands Bauhaus cited as influences. For example, Devo is not in fact mentioned in the article linked to cite Bauhaus being influenced by punk. Later in the section, the book Who Killed Mister Moonlight?: Bauhaus, Black Magick, and Benediction is cited, in which if you look it up, David J specifically says the bands Bauhaus related to most in the post-punk scene "were Joy Division, Pere Ubu, Devo, Gang of Four, Cabaret Voltaire, and the Pop Group." That is different from saying they were influenced by them; it's saying they felt a kinship/association with them, which paints a picture of what Bauhaus' sound was like at the time. They may very well have been influenced by Dave and Ansell Collins, Doris Day and Bob Dylan as well, but that doesn't mean they felt that they were their contemporaries or exploring similar areas to them. The context of the later quote does say that. So, if we chop the bands listed in half (from six bands to three bands), we are changing the context of what David J wrote. David J is saying that there were six bands Bauhaus identified with most, and we, for whatever reason, are changing it to say that there were three bands Bauhaus identified with most.

I'll note that I am not the one who initially found this source or made the edit adding it, I am a separate editor who has observed that a subsequent edit was changing the context of David J's words, so I reverted it. In justifying their reversion of my reversion, a user said that the issue was over-linking, so initially, I just removed the link tags from the bands already linked elsewhere. But then this user just reverted it again with no explanation. If over-linking is a concern, would it not make more sense to get rid of the long lists of bands in brackets and instead just list the genres Bauhaus was influenced by? Like I said, if you read the sources for these genres being influential, a lot of the time (though not always), while the genre being influential is mentioned in the source, the bands are not. Why not take out the information from where it's not cited instead of taking out the information from where it is cited? Indeed, why are we okay with Jacques Bell and the Clash being mentioned twice in two different contexts, but not Devo, Joy Division, and Pere Ubu? No case has been made for that. Instead of engaging with the points I've made, my reversions are instead reverted themselves with an edit saying we have to reach a consensus before I edit the article again, until which time, the article stays as is, which conveniently, just happens to be the new version of the article I was trying to revert for the reasons I've stated. I am the one reverting the article to its original state, not the reverse. As I said, the article was originally written in such a way that the context of David J's comments was presented accurately.

It is true that I did add another sentence that was not there originally which was also removed, but I don't think was justified either. This sentence pertains to Peter Murphy's comments about relating to the Clash and gothic rock not being its own genre yet. It is true that I added that bit, but it was because in checking the source on Murphy's comments about being influenced by reggae, this was something else I found and thought was worth noting, as it helps put the development of Bauhaus' musical style in a historical context. Murphy's full quote on the matter in the cited article reads, "We were listening to toasting music all the time, and David brought in a lot of bass lines that were very lead riffs. You can see how those basslines really formed the basis of the music, especially on Mask. We were more aligned to The Clash than anything else that was going around. The Cure and those people really solidified what became goth, I suppose." I shortened it to, "Murphy said that, given their mutual mixture of reggae and punk rock, they were 'more aligned to the Clash than anything else that was going around,' instead crediting bands like The Cure for later defining the gothic rock sound." This was eliminated with the claim that it was trivia, and, "In an encyclopedia, one doesn't include an opinion of a musician, denigrating another band. They are not music historians." It's a big stretch to claim that Murphy's quote is "denigrating" the Cure. An easier case could be made that Murphy is praising The Cure (as just one example) of bands who deserve the credit for solidifying a whole genre of music. But I don't think Murphy is doing either. Personally, I think Murphy's comments read as pretty neutral. He's saying, "Gothic rock as we understand it didn't exist at the time, and we felt aligned to the Clash as we were also experimenting with reggae influences." Even if Murphy was being negative towards the Cure however, I don't think that precludes his comments from being in the article if they're relevant, and I think they are. This is not "trivia" this is painting a portrait of their musical style, which is what the section is about. Music historians, including ones cited in the article, all agree that considering the time period, the term goth did not yet exist. The article itself says the genre Bauhaus helped pioneer would eventually be called goth; it wasn't known as goth at the time. Murphy's comments are simply in support of that. No one is trying to use Murphy's comments to deny Bauhaus is a gothic rock band or to claim they're a reggae band. It is simply to place the development of Bauhaus' musical style in its historical context, starting pre-goth as post-punk (which is known for experimenting with numerous genres, often including reggae) before eventually evolving into what would be called gothic rock, which yes, other bands later helped define. If anything, Murphy is being humble by downplaying his own influence, but it shouldn't matter, because I am not advocating for removing gothic rock from the infobox, I am advocating for including the lead singer's own perspective on his band's musical style in the section on his band's musical style.

Interestingly, I'll also note the part about Bauhaus feeling an association with the Clash was maintained, despite the Clash, like Devo, already being mentioned in brackets as an example of punk rock (this time in the cited source as well). Specifically, the part about the Cure was expunged from the article. I think it is possible that the person making these edits is doing so to the end of eliminating anything they perceive as negative about either the Cure or gothic rock as a whole from the article, which violates the NPOV policy. My perspective is we should reinstate the above edits but eliminate the long lists of bands in brackets, as many are not cited, and in terms of those that are cited, it is not necessary to name every single genre, band or musical artist the members of Bauhaus ever mentioned enjoying. There are probably thousands. I think only the ones they mention as significant influences are necessary.Lynchenberg (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the comment from Peter Murphy saying the Cure was defining the goth sound while Bauhaus was doing reggae and punk like the Clash. I'm also in favor of keeping this sentence whole: "According to David J, the bands they related to in the post-punk scene were Joy Division, Pere Ubu, Devo, Gang of Four, Cabaret Voltaire, and the Pop Group." This stuff is interesting and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has to present facts in a concise way, with well written sentences. If a contributor wants to include a quote, they have to ponder twice if the quote really matters. The flow between the sentences is also really important, and adding arbitrary quotes, like you do, can become annoying as it breaks that flow; I can't read that section anymore. It is patchy, pretty poor, and would deserve just a C for now.

To me, that "musical influences" section was more readable as it was in early 2020 in that version [1]:

Bauhaus cited among their influences, early post-punk bands Joy Division and Siouxsie and the Banshees.[41] The singing was compared to David Bowie and Jacques Brel.[42][43] The band's other influences included punk rock (e.g. Devo, the Stooges and Sex Pistols), glam rock (e.g. David Bowie, T. Rex and Gary Glitter), psychedelic rock (e.g. Syd Barrett, Pink Floyd, the Beatles), art rock/avant-garde music/experimental music (e.g. Brian Eno, Captain Beefheart, Pere Ubu, Roxy Music, Suicide and the Velvet Underground), krautrock (e.g. Kraftwerk, Can and Neu!), funk (e.g. James Brown, Bobby Byrd, Sly and the Family Stone) and Jamaican dub music (e.g. Lee Scratch Perry, Errol Thompson and King Tubby).[1][44]

When asked about the influence of reggae on Bauhaus' music, Murphy stated that it was "massive. We were listening to toasting music all the time, and David brought in a lot of bass lines that were very lead riffs [...] those bass lines really formed the basis of the music" [45] In regards to the influence of the original Bauhaus movement on the band, Murphy stated that "Bauhaus had no influence on Bauhaus (the band) except for being the sound, shape, energetic, and sensory birth name of our group."[46]

Bauhaus combined these influences to create a gloomy, earnest and introspective version of post-punk,[47] which appealed to many music fans who felt disillusioned in the wake of punk's collapse.[48] Its crucial elements included Murphy's deep and sonorous voice, Ash's jagged guitar playing and David J's dub-influenced bass. Their sound and gloomy style would eventually come to be known as gothic rock.[49]

That said, this section is also a festival of namedropping, which is unreadable as well. If a band's name is included, it should be mentioned why with the support of a well chosen quote from a musician explaining why or how this band had inspired their music.

Why did an user feel the need to add David J confirmed he and Ash were influenced by Brel, as well as Scott Walker, this can be raised as this part looks redundant after this The singing was compared to David Bowie and Jacques Brel.

Another point, this band is four individuals/songwriters with different musical backgrounds. It is well reported that they hardly talked to each other and the songs were written on the spot in rehearsals. David J doesn't have the same view as Kevin Hawskins about their influences. Murphy's view is also completely different than Ash's. One has to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. If you open a door including this really unimportant comment of Murphy about the Cure, then you will have to add all the quotes that Ash has made about that specific genre and there is a litany, sometimes there are even contradictions. Ash doesn't consider any of Bauhaus' contemporaries as goth rock, he only finds the post-punk tag relevant for the bands of the 1979-1982 era while disregarding the following groups of the batcave scene (1982 -...) like Alien Sex Fiend and Specimen as goth rock. Murphy also rejects the goth tag for his band while ironically not objecting to be dubbed the godfather of goth. As a contributor of the Cure's page, should I include all the derogative tags that Robert Smith did about Bauhaus ? I don't think so. Robert Smith has always rejected the gothic label, and Murphy's quote about being closer to the Clash than the Cure is ironic, and historically untrue; one does understand what he meant, Bauhaus were - like the Clash - inspired by the dub and reggae scenes. So to keep it short, the Clash's name should be mentioned once like Joy Division's, and concerning this litany of genres and names, all those sources should be checked twice if there is a case of original research already present in that section, as one user mentioned it. Woovee (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit: More comments. This sentence Ash said his earliest influence was the music of Dave and Ansell Collins, particularly their Double Barrel single belongs to the article about Ash. Why has it be included here, I don't get it as a reader, it looks incongruous. Another thing, is that part a burning desire to sound original and new really necessary at the end of that quote, it is not flattering for him, as caught in a full of Self-Praise moment. I don't see an user of the Radiohead article including such a pretentious quote from one of the musicians in a section. Woovee (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know specifically what you're referring to in terms of "adding arbitrary quotes as you do" (your wording is very confusing; I assume you mean me?) as I only added one quote and I have explained why it wasn't arbitrary. It also wasn't a full quote; it was just part of a sentence where Murphy said "we were aligned to the Clash," which ironically, is the part you decided to keep. The rest was a summary. Regardless, I don't find that quote to be awkward to read myself, but if others do, I wouldn't be opposed to making it all a summary as long as the information is presented. I'll point out that I had a big hand in writing the 2020 version of the section, which you preferred. I also did not make the subsequent edits you criticize, except to change the order of some of the new additions, so they're less haphazard. For example, I placed the two references to Brel one after the other, instead of having one at the beginning and one at the end. But I didn't add them to the article myself.

I agree the section is too bloated and redundant now. We should fix that, and I've already made suggestions as to how. But you're not improving the wording or removing redundant and/or uncited information. You're taking out cited information that is not mentioned elsewhere. Your justification for why it should be removed does not address my points for why it should stay, but instead, confirms my suspicions for why you wanted it removed in the first place. You claim Peter Murphy said mean things about gothic rock and the Cure, and if we include those mean things, then we have to include all the mean things Daniel Ash said about gothic rock, and all the mean things Robert Smith said about Bauhaus. That does not logically follow (in fact, it's a slippery slope argument). The reason the quote was included is not because Murphy was saying mean things about the Cure (which I still say he wasn't), but because it was relevant to the development of Bauhaus' musical style. All you've done here is confirm your agenda is to make sure no quotes that you perceive as negative about the Cure and/or goth rock remain in the article. The same goes for your comments about how the Daniel Ash quote should be removed because it makes him sound pretentious. That's just your opinion (I don't think he sounds pretentious) and even if we all agreed he sounds pretentious, that doesn't matter. It's still relevant because Ash's guitar playing was part of the Bauhaus sound, and that's what the section is about. Including the band members' own perspectives on their music is appropriate as it all went into the pot to develop the music. You seem to be concerned with how these comments make these various figures look, not whether or not it's relevant to the article. Lynchenberg (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Users have to be concise in their replies, otherwise no one will read them.

1) I included that sentence The singing was compared to David Bowie and Jacques Brel. Why does someone add that poor following line David J confirmed he and Ash were influenced by Brel, as well as Scott Walker ? Are some users going to base all that section on the J autobiography because they bought that book ?

2) One should have withdrawn the whole sentence "Murphy said that, given their mutual mixture of reggae and punk rock, they were "more aligned to the Clash than anything else that was going around," instead crediting bands like The Cure for later defining the gothic rock sound" because it is a gratuitous opinion. Had he explained his influences, that would have been apt to include that line.

3) Robert Smith hates the goth adjective like Ash and a lot of musicians of that time. Bauhaus were contemporaries of the Cure. In November 1982 the cure released a pop single, their dark triology only lasted three years (1980-82) and ended with Pornography. Cure did pop singles in 1983 like "The Walk" whereas Bauahaus released another dark album that year. So Murphy's childish comment about the Cure meaning = 'it is no us - it is them who did it', is clumsy. And historically inacurrate. I'm all up to include quotes of Murphy explaining how he was inspired by Bowie or Nico or John Cale, including that would be apt whereas including that remark on the Cure is Pure TRIVIA Content as it doesn't go further. How would the Cure be responsible for the goth sound whereas Bauhaus released an album like In The Flat Field. Woovee (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

These are your opinions, Woovee, not relevant to whether a cited source should be summarized for the reader. If Robert Smith prefers one viewpoint, that does not mean we should dismiss contradictory expressions by others. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't get it at all. This article is not about the Cure, it is about Bauhaus. And why should we tag the Cure as goth in an article about Bauhaus whereas the goth term doesn't even appear once next to Bauhaus ! This is education in reverse. This is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to give for the reader. An encyclopedia has to bring neutral content and avoid controversy. Wiki is not a blog. who cares what Murphy thinks about The Cure indeed, as Murphy doesn't name Cure as one of their influences, does he"" Woovee (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• information User Lynchenberg wrote " All you've done here is confirm your agenda is to make sure no quotes that you perceive as negative about the Cure and/or goth rock remain in the article". Well one can remark them that the "goth" adjective/term is not included once in this article about Bauhaus. But User Lynchenberg seems well inclined to associate it with the Cure on an article that is not about the Cure. That seems rich, do we have here a Cure detractor ? Woovee (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I wrote most of this before the latest response. I'm not going to edit it further as I think the points in it still stand. But I will respond to this, which is yet another ad hominem attack and yet more evidence that Woovee has a personal agenda to prevent what he sees as negative comments about the Cure from entering the article. For the record, I love the Cure. They're my second favorite band (and no, my first favorite isn't Bauhaus, it's actually Barenaked ladies believe it or not). In fact, the only reason I looked into other goth bands like Bauhaus is because I love the Cure. Not that that's relevant to the conversation at hand.

Anyway, my original response:

If you're not going to read my responses, that's on you. It's not on me. The other two users had no problem reading them and found my points convincing. I also wrote concise versions of my reasoning in my reverts and you ignored them. Then Ninmacer20 concisely repeated my points here. Once again, you ignored them to state your personal opinion that Peter Murphy is being mean to the Cure. I initially gave you the benefit of the doubt and wrote a more detailed explanation to better explain my points, but now you are avoiding engaging with them by claiming that it's too much to read. You are also trying to dismiss me entirely by claiming that my writing is poor, I suspect in the hope this will lead to my entire case being dismissed by proxy. That is an ad hominem attack to go along with your slippery slope argument. Ironic, as you are the one writing confusing sentences now. I am aware that I referred to you as "a user" in my initial response, and I apologize if it offended you, but this was to avoid singling you out before you had a chance to make your case. Since you responded, I've been referring to you directly in my responses. Now you appear to be taking passive aggressive digs at me by referring to me as "a user." This is just confusing, as you could be referring to me or you could be referring to the other users who edited the article. Once again, if you look at the edit history, I'm not responsible for adding the information you're implying I am. I'm just responsible for fact-checking it and rearranging the order of it. I don't even own a copy of the book and haven't read it in full, I just got access to a digital version to fact-check it. So don't ask me why the user who added the other citation did so. I didn't add it, I just moved it to a more logical place in the section.

I also didn't consider reorganizing the section a complete job, it was just all I had time to do at the moment. I agree the section needs more work to improve the quality of the writing. For example, perhaps instead of dedicating two sentences to Brel, we could condense it to one sentence with two sources. That's a conversation worth having. But that doesn't seem to be the point, because once again, you're going back to your opinion that Peter Murphy is dissing the Cure, and using it as a justification for removing information. In interviews I've read, Murphy is actually quite happy to accept the goth tag. All he's saying is that he thinks other bands (the Cure just being one) were a bigger influence on goth, as at the time, Bauhaus were exploring areas closer to the Clash. Whether he's right or wrong about that, it still gives an idea of his thinking behind the development of the band's musical style. Moreover, the article still credits Bauhaus for pioneering goth, so it's not like we're treating Murphy's words as gospel or refusing to cite anything else.

I've already made that argument though, and you've refused to read and/or engage with it. It's clear at this point that if I restate my argument a third time, you're still not going to engage with it, you're going to resort to ab hominem attacks about my writing ability and slippery slope arguments about how including this information will turn the page into an anti-goth rant. My assessment of the situation is that you are a fan of the Cure and/or gothic rock and feel offended that (in your opinion) the members of Bauhaus have spoken negatively about the Cure/gothic rock. Your goal is to keep that out of the article. It's a personal agenda based in your interpretation of interviews. It is not done objectively to improve the quality of the article. I've made my case, so I leave it to the other users to decide which of us is correct. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Information - another point.

Goth is a derogative term whereas ' gothic rock is not. May the two fans of Bauhaus who want to tag the Cure with the derogative term goth show us right now where the term goth is associated with Bauhaus in this article. As a small reminder "gothic rock" had already been used in 1980 by Sounds magazine in their review of Closer. Goth is a term that surfaced in the weekly UK music papers in late 1983 once the parties at the Batcave club in London became a cultural event with concerts of new arriving bands like Alien Sex Fiends and Specimen.

in the lead of this article Bauhaus are presented as one of the pioneers of gothic rock which is a flattering tag. They are not presented as pioneers of goth. Do the Bauhaus fans who edit get the difference ? I am waiting for a reply. Woovee (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am a Bauhaus fan, so I assume you mean me as one of these "two fans?" Again, this would be a lot easier if you'd refer to us by name. Anyway, as far as I know (and according to the article on gothic rock) "goth" is simply short for gothic rock. The fact that you are splitting hairs over the terms "gothic rock" and "goth" and calling one term degrading and one respectable (I've never seen one used degradingly over the other ever; what is your source for that?) is just further evidence that you have (and I apologize if this sounds rude) very skewed ideas about what constitutes degradation or insults and have an agenda to keep what you perceive as degradation or insults out of the article. I'll also say that if right now, you want to edit the article so it also uses the shorthand goth as well as gothic rock, go right ahead. I don't have any problem with that as goth is just short for goth rock or gothic rock. Here, have a source that took me two seconds of Google searching to find that calls Bauhaus goth and where Peter Murphy takes credit for helping to invent specifically goth: https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-story-of-goth-in-33-songs/ Feel free to cite it in the article! This is not some conspiracy to denigrate the Cure by calling them goth or to make the article about how the Cure is goth but Bauhaus is not based on one passing reference to "bands like the Cure" in the broader context of a comment about the development of Bauhaus' music and its place in the development of goth. Lynchenberg (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing Pitchfork is not the best idea as their journalists didn't live in the UK in the 1980 and they were not adults in that decade. This article is really poor and full of short-cuts.

• For those who don't get that Goth is a derogative term, here is what Daniel Ash says:

• “In England, goth has always been a joke,” he says. “It means big hair, too much makeup and no talent. People tend to say the Cure, Siouxsie & the Banshees, New Order and Joy Division were goth. No way: Goth was Alien Sex Fiend and Specimen, all that crap. Time has shown we had more talent than those guys." in vcreporter.com in 2005 [2]

• "that term was a bit of an insult in England back then. We were lumped in with Alien Sex Fiend, Sex Gang Children and Specimen, who we all thought were really crap.” in Uncut 2020 [3] Woovee (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pitchfork does not stop being a reliable source if the author is younger than the subject matter. We still trust a modern historian writing about the Duke Wellington, etc.

The term "goth" meant different things to different people at different times. This article should try to convey all of it to the reader. Embrace the complexity. This is not a case where there's one clear stream of logical development running through the narrative. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I am aware that Daniel Ash doesn't like the term goth, but that says nothing about whether or not the term was broadly used in a derogatory way. In any case, as you yourself have said, "musicians are not music historians" so Ash's take on the term goth isn't really relevant. All I get from these interviews is that Ash personally doesn't like Alien Sex Fiend, Sex Gang Children, and Specimen, but ironically, that he does like the Cure, who he aligns with Bauhaus and other (in his opinion) "good" bands. I am not advocating for putting that into the article, as all Ash is doing is dunking on other bands without giving us any information on Bauhaus' sound. Murphy's statements are different, as they're telling us about the thinking behind the development of Bauhaus' music prior to the term goth and where he thinks it stands in the history of goth. I would note that even if Ash still said derogatory things about Alien Sex Fiend but also gave useful information like say, "People associated us with Alien Sex Fiend, but I thought they were goth crap, I was more influenced by Jimi Hendrix and early reggae like Dave and Ansel Collins," it would be worth including. Our job isn't to protect the image of other bands or even Bauhaus themselves, just to relay relevant information.

(For the record, I actually think Ash is off the mark in terms of Alien Sex Fiend. I like that band. I can't comment on Specimen or Sex Gang Children as I've never listened to their music except maybe in the odd rotation with other goth music. But unlike Bauhaus, Alien Sex Fiend never took themselves seriously. The big hair and excessive makeup was part of the joke. They were a goofy, Monster Mash-style horror-punk band, not unlike Alice Cooper or The Misfits. I'm not advocating for calling Alice Cooper or Alien Sex Fiend horror-punk in their articles, as it wouldn't be cited. I am just giving my personal view. I just say this to again stress this is not about being pro-goth or anti-goth.) Lynchenberg (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• This topic about goth had already been discussed in this talk, [4] and you can read my contributions, Mezigue 's and Greg Fasolino's who was a professional journalist working for Trouser Press in the 1980s. Fasolino helped quite a lot to make people understand that post-punk with gothic overtones is different than gothic rock and even more separate from goth -- goth being a term to talk about a subculture (the goth look of those gothic fans at concerts and the music of new pantomime bands). We had a consensus back then in 2016 to stay quite nuanced and that this article was not about goth.
• each pioneer or precursor of the gothic rock genre has always said that the other groups were goth, not mine. So it is laughable from Murphy to tag one of his peers like this but not surprising.
• Ash completely contradicts Murphy's viewpoint in interview especially here ; Ash in his own words "the whole Goth thing is very one dimensional. It’s sort of cloak and dagger. It’s ok, it has its place, it’s fun, but we just find it funny that we’re thought of as that. In the same breath, if you wear black and your first single is “Bela Lugosi’s Dead,” you’ve pretty much got a stamp on you. That’s always been one of our strongest songs, so it’s sort of undeniable. "[5]. Ash recognized de facto that the lyrics of Bela were gothic per essence. if Murphy's ludicrous quote saying that Cure are responsible of the goth sound was included, other opposite viewpoints from Ash would be added illico presto. I will find easilh quotes from critics explaining that the descending bassline of Bela is what makes the song goth musically. So Murphy's quote would be bombed. Woovee (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit : the problem that one has got with this Murphy's quote is that it is a musician in bad faith mode. Anyone knowing the group's 1980 debut album will agree that there isn't anything close to The Clash, reggae or dub on those tracks -listen to "Double Dare". Their debut LP is dark very dark post-punk rock music. The reggae / dub thing with groovy basslines surfaced in Bauhaus' music later from 1981 with a track like "Kick in the Eye".

So I am not sure if including a quote of a musician relating a lie in interview to flatter his ego, is encyclopedic. Woovee (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Murphy is lying, even if he is, it's not our job to decide whether he's speaking in bad faith or not. It's just his perspective on his music, which is worth including. Ascribing motivation to it is breaking NPOV and may even be original research. I'll also point out In The Flat Field is one album, and Murphy isn't specifically referring to one particular era of Bauhaus. Maybe that particular recording isn't heavy on reggae influence, but don't forget the 1979 Bela Lugosis's Dead single came out prior to that, and was largely inspired by dub. Furthermore, Harry, one of the other songs recorded in the session, was flatout dancehall reggae/ska. Mask also had strong reggae influences (I'm not calling it a reggae album, reggae-influenced is not the same as reggae), which came right after In The Flat Field. I also think Kick in the Eye is where the funk influence started coming in, not a reggae influence. In terms of the other stuff, this Fasolino chap can't be used as a source because he's a Wikipedia editor, so that would mean it's original research. I think there's truth to what you're saying about Joy Divison's "gothic" post-punk being different to goth the subculture which is different to gothic rock the music, but this goes back to Binksternet's point that "the term "goth" meant different things to different people at different times." Goth was also a Germanic tribe and a style of architecture and genre of literature. It's not as simple and itemized as you make it out to be. Perhaps in the legacy/influence section, we can make this clearer; the band's ambivalence to the "goth" term, and how it's come to mean different things to different people. My response to your concerns about including Murphy's reference to the Cure remains the same as before. I think you're reading too much into his comments, I don't even think he's calling the Cure goth, he's saying "they solidified what became goth, I suppose" which is still placing goth after the Cure. He's just speculating they had more influence than they did, and even then, "I suppose" is noncommittal. Lynchenberg (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit : Based upon reading the discussion you linked to, am I to understand that you not only want to keep the goth tag from being associated with the Cure, but for Bauhaus to be referred to as only a post-punk band, not even a gothic rock band? Lynchenberg (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Bis repetita. That was then [6] --- we were many wikipedia contributors to think that, and this is now : my view doesn't matter. I withdrew the sentence describing their style because it was original research -- the "In the Flat Field AllMusic review" source says goth not gothic rock. You can add the description of their music choosing sources that you consider apt. I won't do it. But a neutral work has to be done.

If Ninmacer20 wants to tag The Cure as a goth band in this article, one would like to hear their viewpoint, in which way does Ninmacer20 think Bauhaus has to be presented. with which sources ? Woovee (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I'm still a bit confused as to what your goals are, but I think it's clear the main one is to keep the Cure from being tagged as goth in the article. Reading the current revision, I actually no longer think the reference to the Cure is necessary there. I think it's interesting, but it may be more appropriate to put it in their legacy section. I think Murphy's comments on the influence of reggae and feeling aligned to the Clash give a good idea of what his thinking was even without referencing the Cure. And now we have all four band members giving their perspective on their sound, and how the media saw it too. So I'm (mostly) happy with the musical style section as it is now. I say "mostly" because, among some other minor points, I think we can move some of the citations from genres they were influenced by further up in the article because some of these sources now mention specific bands, not musical style (the Residents being one example) and right now, the only influential bands listed early in the article is Siouxsie and the Banshees, the others are singers. So it might be appropriate to list one or two other bands. It's a pain in the ass to move around long citations however and I don't have time to do it now, so if someone else wants to, that'd be okay by me, otherwise I'll do it when I feel inclined and have a minute.

To get back to the Cure reference, given the legacy and influence section is really just a massive list of bands and musicians now (this could probably be condensed as was done in the musical style section). Perhaps that would be an appropriate place to include the band's ambivalence to their legacy of influencing gothic rock? If you think including the Cure reference is indicating to the reader that they were solely responsible for goth, perhaps we could cite another source where Robert Smith denies this, and instead write something like "Gothic rock and goth were terms retroactively used to describe the genre of music Bauhaus helped pioneer. The band had ambivalent feelings to this influence. Peter Murphy stated he saw Bauhaus as more aligned to other reggae-influenced post-punk bands, giving more credit to bands like the Cure for defining what would become goth, although these bands also rejected the term." That's not good writing, it's just something I did off the cuff to give a possible idea of what I'm thinking. Lynchenberg (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Including the Cure's name in the Legacy section, would be completely ludicrous. Woovee (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why?Lynchenberg (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Because The Cure were never influenced or inspired by Bauhaus in any way. Woovee (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The point is various bands were credited with invented goth but most rejected the term. Not that the Cure was influenced by Bauhaus. Lynchenberg (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it's hard to follow what going on in this section due to its length and confusion of POV, so forgive me if I missed something here.

I don't see a problem mentioning bands or artists as long as they are cited by the band members themselves or from citations that state them as influences.

If I recalled correctly, they [Bauhaus] referred to themselves as a "dark glam" band rather than goth.[Martin Aston Big Ups: Bauhaus’ Kevin Haskins Dompe and David J Haskins Pick Their Bandcamp Favorites https://daily.bandcamp.com/big-ups/big-ups-bauhaus] "To wit, Bauhaus members have always rejected the goth tag, instead presenting as “dark glam”. [Martin Aston 10 essential Bauhaus records" https://thevinylfactory.com/features/10-essential-bauhaus-records/] From the start, the band eschewed the label ‘goth’, preferring their own description: “dark glam”.

By the way, the British Magazine, "New Musical Express" (NME) had a front page picture of Robert Smith with the word "GOTH" (yes, in capital letters) in the title. I can show you the link to the picture/magazine here. I didn't see Robert Smith suing or complaining to NME if Smith was so insulted by the word. I understand that Robert Smith doesn't like the label "Goth", but the word in itself is not an insult or demeaning. It can mean many things. For example, the label "hippie" or "nerd" is not an insult into itself. Some people proudly identify themselves as part of that group. It's all about the context. I don't mind the Cure or Bauhaus being labelled goth. However, I do think The Cure/Robert Smith or the members of Bauhaus have the right to have an opinion of whether or not they agree to the label. Anyway, it's a fact that Peter Murphy is crediting bands like the Cure for creating gothic rock. That doesn't mean he's 100% right in terms of gothic rock history. However, it is interesting to hear the opinion from the "Godfather of Goth" on who helped created the genre. Ninmacer20 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Well Martin Aston is a hagiographer, he's been writing dithyrambic articles about the group for more than two decades, he's not the most neutral journalist. I won't choose articles from him. Wikipidia is not a blog for fans to portray their favourite band in the best way possible neatling choosing some sources while omitting some other more critical sources like Simon Reynolds ! Woovee (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem citing Aston. Aston is part of the literature on the band, and our job is to summarize the literature for the reader. Aston, and Reynolds, and all the rest. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just leaving this here: "The Cure were cool. They made very cool alternative pop music. Robert’s bloody talented." - Peter Murphy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynchenberg (talk • contribs) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Musical style and influence Reprise

I feel like we're overdoing all the quotes and references at this point. I did support mentioning the bands David J felt Bauhaus was closest to and Peter Murphy's references to reggae being influential on the band, but now it seems like the section is constantly being edited to pile on more and more quotes and references to endless bands and styles being name-dropped. I can see it getting to a point where it's impossible to read or edit, which is what happened in the section on Legacy and Influence, which is so over-referenced at this point that I gave up trying to condense it because I just get lost in code every time I hit "edit." I'd hate to see the musical style section get to this point as well.Lynchenberg (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I see your point. The reason why I put bands and artists such as the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Robert Smith and have many references and quotes to their wiki-articles as well. But yes, I do see that adding too many references and quotes can make the whole article/section unreadable. I'll try to fix it. Ninmacer20 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those articles much, but I think in all cases we should just keep it to the most consistently cited or most important influences. Most people, especially those who do music as a career, are going to like all kinds of artists from all over the musical map. It's going to be a never-ending list if we

Stuff like early ska/reggae/dub, the Velvet Underground, David Bowie, punk rock, etc is consistently cited enough by the band to be worthy of inclusion, but if we start including Doris Day just because they band mentioned once they enjoyed her, there's really going to be no end to it. It's the same problem with the section on Legacy which I don't think I could fix at this point without deleting it entirely and starting over. Bauhaus are a fairly popular, well-known band, if we're going to be listing every artist who even mentioned liking Bauhaus from Elliot Smith to Moby the article is just going to turn into an endless list of bands and recording artists.Lynchenberg (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Influence.

I tried cleaning this up so it's better organized, in that the bands listed as representing a particular genre in fact represent that genre. And . . . wow, was that a big job considering how many there are and how long the reference lists are. In looking at many of the cited sources, it's dubious how many of them (such as Reggie Watts and Elliot Smith) even cite Bauhaus as an influence on their music and those who are just mentioning Bauhaus in passing in the context of making some broad statement about the history of music or bands they were aware of when they were younger. I won't delete these, but we really ought to think how many of these are actually worth including and perhaps agree not to add any more? It makes the section really hard to edit and do we really need to list every band whose ever mentioned liking Bauhaus, let alone every band whose ever mentioned Bauhaus period? Lynchenberg (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Quote from Kevin Haskins

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.

---

Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? User:Lynchenberg (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Referring to this edit.

Discussion

• Yes, it should be included. It's interesting for our readers, and gives insight into the band's viewpoint. We don't use bandmember opinions to change genres, relying instead on WP:SECONDARY sources, but this one quote is not trying to redefine the band. Rather, it is adding to the reader's knowledge about the band. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Note, wp:canvas. User Lynchenberg had campaigned in a non neutral manner on Binksternet's talk page [7]. Woovee (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not non-neutral campaigning. Lynchenberg was taking a gamble; I could just as easily have said that I was against the quote. What you're seeing is Lynchenberg asking me for advice, and me giving advice. Nothing unusual about that. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

It was not a gamble. Binksternet had already supported Lynchenberg's will to include that The Cure defined the goth genre according to the singer of Bauhaus Peter Murphy [8] on 16 January 2021. Copy / Paste of Binksternet's previous comment: "I'm in favor of keeping the comment from Peter Murphy saying the Cure was defining the goth sound while Bauhaus was doing reggae and punk like the Clash." That speaks volume, this is why they want to do the same with the Banshees. And then if other quotes from Bauhaus members are found saying that Murphy considers, Killing Joke or The Birthday Party (band) were more goth than Bauhaus for some other random reasons..., Binksternet would also surely agree to add them. They are up to transform a part of this article in a platform, on the goth genre according to Bauhaus members [and their fans]. Woovee (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet you're strongly encouraged to reply to these interrogations which are legit. Woovee (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Note, I did not "campaign." I asked a more experienced user for advice on what to do in this situation. I did not ask him to comment here or influence his role in the discussion, I didn't even expect him to take part in it. I do not know Binksternet personally and only know of him because I've seen him edit articles I've edited for years so I thought he would know what the appropriate course of action would be. This is clear when reading what you linked to. It's also clear you keep calling ignoring whatever I say and accusing me of being a biased Bauhaus fanboy who wants to distance them from the term "goth." I will state openly I've never removed anything to do with goth from the article and I don't mind the term; my edit history shows no attempt to distance any artist from the term, quite the contrary, I added Nick Cave to the notable goth figures category. To me, goth is just a kind of music and it's a kind of music Bauhaus plays. I've never written otherwise. You continue skewing what I say with the same canned response and accusations, ignore my attempts to discuss the issue with you, and whenever the issue looks resolved, lie in wait for a month to half-a-year to come back, hoping you'll be able to get away with skewing the article, and when I challenge you, make skewed accusations like I am a Bauhaus fanboy with a single-purpose account even though I edit all kinds of articles on all kinds of subjects.Lynchenberg (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not know Binksternet personally and only know of him because I've seen him edit articles. I didn't even expect him to take part in it.

It is against the truth. Binksternet had already supported Lynchenberg in this Bauhaus (band) talk page last January, to include in the article a quote of Bauhaus singer pigeonholing another band The Cure as goth. Woovee (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Woovee, I said I was done discussing this and would accept consensus, but you're continuing to fabricate things to make me look bad in the hopes my arguments won't be taken seriously instead of engaging with those arguments. I never tried to hide that Binksternet supported my argument in the case of Bauhaus before, it's right here on this talk page. And just because Binksternet happened to support me previously doesn't mean I know him personally or that I even expected him to respond to this particular discussion. Binksternet has reverted my edits before on other articles and has argued against positions I've held. Stop trying to tell me what's in my head or ascribe motivations to me that aren't there. In the link you provide, all I do is ask for advice as I don't know how to handle this situation because last time I handled in the wrong way and you continue being so unreasonable, as you continue to demonstrate by still trying to smear me even though I've said I'm done arguing and am fine leaving it up for other commenters to decide. All you're doing by continuing to pull these ad hominem attacks is making yourself look worse by demonstrating you routinely read things into situations or statements that aren't there, whether it's Peter Murphy hating the Cure because he felt more aligned to the Clash's mix of reggae and punk, Kevin Haskins trying to blame Siouxsie and the Banshees for the goth subculture because he felt Bauhaus were more of an art rock band, or all that I have some conspiracy with Binksternet to "blame bands other than Bauhaus for goth" because I asked his advice on his talk page. If we've really got this secret cabal, wouldn't it make more sense for me to contact him somewhere that doesn't leave an obvious public trail, like Wikipedia? I said I will not argue anymore because I've made my case and you ignore it, so I don't see the point. But I will continue responding to any irrelevant personal attacks you continue making. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It is canvassing, especially when there are denigrating. It was also good targetting by User Lynchenberg as user Binksternet had also already supported them on this talk page on 20 January 2021. Woovee (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The definition of denigrating is unfairly criticizing. Looking at the edit history, what have I said that is unfair? I am frustrated, but everything I've said is factually inaccurate and can be verified in the edit history. I've also been open about when I've stepped out of line in edit-warring when I shouldn't have and making an incident report when that was the incorrect course of action. You're the one who keeps tossing these accusations at me, claiming I hate The Cure or I'm some obsessed Bauhaus blogger, none of which you can prove. Lynchenberg (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No this [9] is WP:UNDUE and WP:BIAS. A member of a band is not a music historian, he can't judge. This musician doesn't like the goth genre which was attributed to their band. It is also not relevant to transform this article in an essay about the goth genre. Woovee (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Describe how Haskins is being used to represent a "music historian". I think he is being used to represent his own viewpoint. Since he is a member of the band, and this is the band article, I think it works just fine. The cited source even selected the quote as worthy of highlighting in a pull quote format. Not undue emphasis at all. The WP:BIAS guideline has no relevance to this issue. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not the role of an encyclopedia to relay the opinion of a musician who doesn't stand being tagged goth by all the journalists. Transforming this article in an essay about goth is not relevant, simply to please two Bauhaus fans/ wikipedia users who want to rewrite history. Woovee (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet I'm the one being denigrating. Lynchenberg (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes My goal here is just to provide information on this band and the quote wasn't even my addition. One short paragraph is hardly an essay and one quote is hardly a comprehensive list of everything every band member said. Doing so seems to be deliberately skewing the situation to remove information that has been interpreted a particular way. This skewing has been consistent and any passes I've made at a real discussion have been ignored or met with the same canned response.Lynchenberg (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lynchenberg's goal may be to include every single quote by a member of Bauhaus charging other bands for the goth tag. Lynchenberg already found one about the Cure[10]. It is not relevant to transform this article in an essay about goth from the prospective of Bauhaus' members only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Bauhaus fans should write their own book to gather their favourite random quotes of their idols blaming other groups for inventing goth. Woovee (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

One quote from Murphy saying he felt The Cure had a bigger hand in developing goth (which I originally added in the musical style section discussing their reggae influence and alignment to The Clash, but which I moved to legacy because you threw a tantrum that Murphy mentioned the Cure), one from Haskins saying he thought it was Siouxsie and the Banshees (which I did not find or add, I'm just preserving), and one from Ash saying "actually, we ARE undeniably goth" (which I've made no effort to remove) is not a catalogue of random quotes blaming bands for inventing goth, and at a whopping three or fours sentences, is not an "essay." Stop telling me what I think Woovee. I've told you where I stand on goth multiple times and you ignore me. Stop telling me what my goals are. I've told you what they are and you say, "No, it's this." Stop insulting me, especially in this passive-aggressive "I'll-write-about-you-like-you're-not-present-in-the-discussion" way, then complain that I'm "denigrating" you when I start getting annoyed. I've tried to have a reasonable conversation with you for months now. You ignore what I say or skew what I say or insult me. If you're so big on Wikipedia etiquette, why not WP:Assume good faith and try to reach an understanding? Because you're not succeeding in changing my mind. You are however, succeeding in getting under my skin. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We have been trying to make this article good for years but now there has been damage and a lack of focus in 2021. Including random quotes concerning the origins of goth in the biography of a band on an encyclopedia, leads nowhere. It is wp:undue in such a big proportion that it has become a big editing problem. What users Lynchenberg and Ninmacer have been doing for months, is WP:PUSH. Woovee (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is their legacy if not the origin of goth? Is that Reggie Watts or Elliot Smith acknowledged their existence? Is it that Jello Biafra mentioned he listened to them once? The section needs work, but I've been editing this article for far longer than 2021, I did not just show up then. I think three or four sentences acknowledging their legacy as one of the key goth bands and their own feelings about that is relevant. If we want to improve the section, why not massively cull the namechecking? But before that, please, answer me this. If we don't acknowledge their legacy as the first or one of the first gothic rock bands, what is that legacy? And can you (for all your claims that I am trying to "rewrite history") source that other legacy beyond "here's twenty nu metal bands who say, 'Hey yeah, Bauhaus is kind of cool, I listen to them sometimes." Why don't we work together to make the article better instead of you pointing the finger at me based one four sentences, three of which I didn't even write? I'm right here man, talk to me. Lynchenberg (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Not at all. All the quotes from Bauhaus' members about goth saying who is more goth among their post-punk peers, are not relevant, because this wiki article is not about the goth genre. The band's legacy is to have inspired and influenced many acts, and this is why there are quotes of many musicians revering the band mentioned in the article. Woovee (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't it be both? I don't think three or four sentences stating their feelings on inspiring goth or being the first goth band is excessive, and while I think some examples of acts they influenced in other genres are notable, listing every act who ever covered them or mentiond them is excessive. The reason I think these quotes are worth keeping isn't because they're giving specific bands credit for goth but because it paints a portrait of how they seem themselves in realtionship to the history of the genre, which is relevant given they're often considered its creators. The specific bands they mention don't matter to me. The interesting part of the quote with the Cure is that Peter Murphy felt they were working more in the punky reggae tradition of the Clash (whether or not that's how it came off to listeners), the interesting part of the Haskins quote is that they felt they were more in an art rock mould, the Ash quote is interesting because it's acknowledging how they appeared to an audience. I promise you, the farthest thing from my mind when considering these quotes is the band trying to pin the goth tag on other specific bands. I understand goth is considered a distasteful term in some circles but I don't think it comes off this way in the selected quotes or in the context of the article. It's just that if a band are considered the Godfathers of Goth, you can't really avoid mentioning that briefly in the opening and I don't think three or four quotes is excessive. Any more than that, yes, but right now we're just at three and I don't plan on adding any more. If you think that Bauhaus is coming off as a non-goth band in this section, feel free to add more quotes making it cleaer they played goth. But we can't just ignore that aspect of their sound, image, and legacy. I think the best thing for this section would be to next explore their influence outside of goth but to be trim it so it's only the non-goth bands they most notably influenced. That section is so long now that I wouldn't know where to begin cutting stuff and would be happy to leave that in someone else's hands. Thank you for being polite with me and addressing me directly in this response by the way, it is appreciated. Lynchenberg (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ a note to Lynchenberg about the presentation of this rfc:

it would need to be changed because it doesn't present well the stakes of this edit.

Firstly, the edit that you want to include in the article was partly OR, Haskins didn't mean, "bands like" the Banshees, he talked only about one band. Then, the question should be more turned like this: "Does Bauhaus member Haskins' opinion, mentioning that the Banshees were more goth than Bauhaus because he considers that his band were more art rock than the Banshees, be included in the article? One user considers that it is not relevant to include the opinion of a Bauhaus member towards the genre of another band because this article is neither about the Banshees or about the goth genre.".Woovee (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This suggestion of yours is utterly non-neutral, a violation of WP:RFC which says we should "include a brief, neutral statement" about the issue. Your suggestion places argumentative wording in the supposedly neutral statement. Any "stakes" that you feel are weighing on the issue should be addressed in discussion. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is written in green is neutral and clearly explains what this rfc is about. The presentation is also problematic because Haskins doesn't really talk about the goth subculture (which is what is written in the edit) but more that he considers his band was art rock and the Banshees were more goth than Bauhaus to his view. Woovee (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

When I talk about goth, I mean as a musical genre not as a subculture. I think it comes off that way in the article too. Beyond that, I think I'll just let any other commenters decide on this. I've made my case multiple times and at length and I feel exhausted at this point. I'll accept whatever the consensus is. Lynchenberg (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

or what about this "Does Bauhaus member Haskins' opinion, mentioning that the Banshees were more "goth" than Bauhaus because he considers that his band were more "art rock" than the Banshees, be included in the article? Concerns were raised because music genres are usually determined by journalists and this may look like a quote of a musician pigeonholing another band than his.. Woovee (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

NOT neutral is anything about "One user considers" or "concerns were raised". Just let the suggested text speak for itself in the RfC. Down in discussion you can lay out all the stakes. Binksternet (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate, "concerns were raised" is acceptable, you can start reading this other current rfc as an instance [11], and then answer to this issue [12] that is specifically addressed to you. And finally, my request is adressed to the user who filled the rfc. Woovee (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet:No doubt this will be linked to again as an example of some kind of conspiracy theory, but is there any procedure in place for getting Woovee to stop making up accusations about me and insulting me? He is not responding to the substance of what I say. I am tired of making the same arguments only for them to be deflected with speculations about my true motives when I've laid out what my motives are multiple times. I've also made my case so I'm happy to let anyone who responds to the rfc decide. I just don't want to deal with these personal attacks anymore and all they're doing is obfuscating what the discussion is really about. He's making it about my supposed motivations for wanting particular content in the article rather than whether or not they should objectively be in the article. I don't have a problem with the term "goth." I like Siouxsie and the Banshees and The Cure. But even if I hated those bands and the term goth, that's not relevant. I have no interest in looking up more quotes by Bauhaus members mentioning other goth bands. I just think that having each of the band members give their take on their style is interesting. I think it's interesting for the reader that Murphy saw the band as reggae-punk, that Haskins saw it as art rock, and that Ash saw it as goth; allusions to other bands are incidental. I think the discussion should be on the merit of that and not my character or alleged hidden agenda. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Problematic user-to-user behavior should be reported at WP:ANI. Make your case as succinctly as possible, with a few diffs to show examples. Elaborate later if asked. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. For now I won't report anything but I will make a brief report if it continues (I understand I do overwrite in my responses and I'll try to cut down on that).Lynchenberg (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Concise answers, please, most of your edits on this rfc are far over ten line replies; it is way too long. And be very careful of what you are doing, it is useless and counterproductive to copy paste parts of sentences someone has said outside this rfc section like you did in the second half of your reply. I note that you refuse to reword the rfc whereas the problem is due to the choice of users selecting sources with quotes of Murphy & co pigonholing other bands rather than choosing sources and quotes of Murphy & co when they only talk about their music without tagging other groups. I am afraid that this is impossible to find any agreement in a near future because you do not want to compromise Woovee (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're just being weird now. I haven't copied and pasted a word. that should evident to anyone whose read my reply. At best I paraphrased what the article said before you deleted information, and you're the one who keeps copy-pasting the line about how the band members aren't music historians, I'm turning this article into an essay on goth music, and it's unencyclopedic to trash others bands. You make no attempt to respond to any of my rebuttals to these claims, you just repeat them.It's also convenient you want the article reverted back to yesterday's version rather than the September 2nd version, which is what we had before you started removing sourced information from the article based on nothing but assumptions and personal interpretations. I thought perhaps we could reach a compromise by not naming any other specific bands in the Haskins quote and just focusing on how he views Bauhaus, as usual, no dice with you. At this point, it's not even about this specific quote being in the article for me, it's about how this is not how Wikipedia should work. The person who refuses to stop reverting, refuses real discussion, and only gaslights, insults, and makes biased assumptions should not be the one who dictates what's in the article. Lynchenberg (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As usual you refuse to reply to the important point. -> The problem is due to the choice of users selecting sources with quotes of Murphy & co pigonholing other bands rather than choosing sources and quotes of Murphy & co when they only talk about their music without tagging other groups. When you deign to reply to this, this discussion will be productive. Woovee (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no rule against referencing quotes that mention other bands. The only reason you are against this is because of your personal interpretation of how it makes those bands look. I'm willing to not quote the parts where they mention the other bands if it really bothers you that much as they're not necessary, but throwing them out entirely or demanding entirely different quotes purely because you don't like what it may or may not imply about other bands is irrelevant to whether the quotes are worth citing.Lynchenberg (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• There isn't any defined rule, but an encyclopedia guarantees a certain quality. When there is plenty of material available, - it's the case here, Bauhaus gave tons of interviews - why would an encyclopedia include quotes that are controversal when there are a lot of itws that aren't. In that genre, goth, no band liked to be tagged. Bowie hated the glam rock umbrella and he never pigeonholed his peers. Marc Bolan did it for Bowie, Gary Glitter. A NME journalist of the 1980s David Quantick recently remarked that every goth band used to adopt the same tactic in interview; when they were asked if they accepted the goth label, they invariably answered "No", and then, afterwards each one couldn't help naming other bands in the goth genre [13]. Murphy once praised their music while minimizing the songwriting quality of Joy Division [14]. One would not be surprised to find one statement from him pigeonholing Nick Cave. I have got articles with Bauhaus. I'm sure I'll find quotes of them in which they talk about art rock in a neutral way. That said, the band's legacy is wide, they didn't just help spawn the gothic rock genre, they had an impact on US alternative rock Woovee (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't with regards to what we quote but how what we quote all perspectives with equal weight. A quote from a journalist tagging Bauhaus as goth, two quotes from Murphy and Haskins describing a different perspective, and a quote from Ash accepting the goth tag shows a variety of viewpoints. While Ash rejected the goth label harshly in the eighties, the quotes from Haskins, Murphy, and Ash are recent and Ash in particular seems to have mellowed out. In recent years, Murphy is quoted as saying the Cure is a great pop band and the entire band cite Siouxsie and the Banshees as an influence that predates them. These are not quotes trash-talking other bands. Even if they were, that doesn't mean there isn't relevant information in those sources. I would be against including the Joy Division source because it gives no information. It just says that Murphy doesn't think Bauhaus sounds like Joy Division. The quotes I wish to include actively describe Murphy and Haskins' views on Bauhaus as reggae-punk and art rock respectively. Lynchenberg (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

wp:Positive bias doesn't match equal weight: when the genre of a band relies on quotes of journalists, that's fine but here the part of the section mentioning their genre is 25 % from the journalist and 75% from the band. In this source [15], Murphy says, "we're just goth" "We were and are the seminal moment in that time. Joy Division is not that. It's OK, but it's actually really trashy. It's not that well-done. It's all right, good songs"; why would it be not relevant to include this in the article, while there were parts of quotes tagging the Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees, as more goth than Bauhaus. Woovee (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes I don't see anything wrong with a quote from Haskins regarding his thoughts on the goth label of his own band. I also agree that his quote is not appropriate to use as a source to dispute the goth label for the Bauhaus; regardless of what members of Bauhaus may think, there are plenty of independent sources to support that genre label. I also fail to see how his quote denigrates another band or the goth genre in general. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you say Yes for ? Is it a yes for including quotes of Murphy and Haskins pigeonholing The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees, as more goth than Bauhaus ? What's next, quotes of Murphy tagging Nick Cave's Birthday Party and Kiling Joke as more goth than Bauhaus ? All these bands said that tagging them "goth" was lazy journalism. I contribute to many other music related articles: as there are quotes of Massive Attack refusing the "trip hop" genre while pigeonholing other acts with that umbrella, do we include this too on wikipedia? is it relevant to include such quotes on an encyclopedia ? @ Ohnoitsjamie - Woovee (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, could you explain the strange relationship you have with the rfc demander, and the exchanges you had made with them on their personal talk page before going here. Is your reply here a way to excuse yourself towards some trouble and the threats of suicide you provoked to this person and the violent comments you read on their talk page? Woovee (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any relationship with the user. Their name came up on an admin noticeboard, I gave them a final warning, then read the RFC and weighed in on it. I'm sorry that the RfC is not going your way, but hounding everyone who disagrees with you probably isn't the best tactic. I'm not commenting on it further, as there's nothing more to explain regarding the warning I issued nor my opinion on this RfC. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - this is a harmless, single-sentence quote that sheds some light on the band's own relationship to the "goth" label; I don't see what the problem is. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

WHat about positive Bias. It is relevant to choose one sentence from one journalist identifying Bauhaus under the goth genre. And then is the rest really relevant ? To dilute this and to counterbalance this assertion, it would be more apt to add quotes from other journalists. But instead, two hard core Bauhaus obsessed fans both simultinously found quotes of Bauhaus members tagging famous bands The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees, as supposedly more goth than Bauhaus, and then include this on wikipedia. This opinion is only biaised Bauhaus Members opinions of themselves, because both the Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees also rejected the association with the gothic rock genre. If one introduces quotes of Bauhaus memebers tagging two of their peers in an encylopedia, do believe that it will create not a kind of war but reactions in return. I will include quotes of Siouxsie and the Banshees tagging Bauhaus as third rate band (quotes do exsit), I will include quotes of Robert Smith tagging his peers, and I would not be surprised, judging the verbal violence in the rfc demander with threats of suicide on their own talk page, that it will put them into personal crisis. If there is one partial opinion of Bauhaus members towards the Cure and Siouxsie and the Bansheees added in this article, I will also do the same at other biographies and include quotes of Massive Attack members rejecting the trip hop act while tagging their followers. I will equally include quotes of Marc Bolan tagging Bowie in an interview as a glam opportunist, etc. And I will put quotes of Lou Reed also tagging his peers. Beware, if you Bauhaus listeners, want to create a fire war on wikipedia, it will happen. There is no need to transform wikipedia as a fan site for Bauhaus listeners to portray their favourite band in a flattering manner. Woovee (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood all of this, but if some artist expresses a noteworthy opinion about another artist, then there's no reason not to include it. If Marc Bolan did indeed criticize David Bowie, then that information deserves to go into the articles about one or the other, or (probably) both. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Here lie our differences; an encyclopedia never includes any controversy in biographies (you'd see that if you took a look at encyclopedias in a library). As a long-time wiki contributor on music related articles, I see that you have never added any significant historical content to a music related article/biography and you don't measure well the stakes of this discussion. That said, I will probably ping contributors of other music related articles with high profile/popularity, users who have made some research, to have an extra opinon, because we do need points of views of longtime wiki users, who worked on A and GA articles. Woovee (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Every encyclopedia includes controversy in its biographies, including this one and the ones in the library. (Not that "band A is more goth than band B" is really a controversial statement.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't include any controversy in their biographies, and particularly no biased / self indulgent opinion of artists towards their own legacy. Woovee (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Now I don't know what you mean by "controversy". Is it your view that, if famous person commits a crime, the Britannica article about them won't mention it? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about a marginal opinion in arts in general, there are never any in any enclyclopedia, whether Encyclopedia Britannica or of another one, and here we are discussing music in the present case. Woovee (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think it's a marginal opinion, but maybe you'll have better luck convincing others here. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Woovee promising to include irrelevant quotes is a threat of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dire predictions of others starting a "fire war" is actually Woovee threatening to make war, as others are not so inclined, not having indicated anything of the sort. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

wp:LIE and out of context reproduction of sentences : "do believe that it will create not a kind of war but reactions in return", quote well next time. Your reaction is exaggerated, you did this obviously because I wrote [16], that your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow, according to this [17]. It shows that you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,[18] reverting, asking sources. I have also never seen you adding anything consistant historically at other music related articles, sorry, even at the Louis Armstrong article [19]. We should wait for more input from longtime contributors who worked on A and GA music articles. You don't get the stakes of this discussion because you're a watcher on these post-punk / goth related articles. Several experts in music related articles, want to write biographies while paying attention to wp:due and wp:undue weight. It should be anyone's concern. Woovee (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. It's always a good idea to include quotes from such a person, specially when the words go counter to what one might expect. That makes Haskins's words even more interesting. I think it would be a good idea to include them as long as they are backed by reliable sources. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 08:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The question is not about whether one can include a quote of Haskins about their music. The issue is : is it relevant to include a quote of Haskins tagging other bands The Cure and Siouxsie and the Banshees as more goth than Bauhaus according to their own partial view. All the gothic musicans have one thing in common: they reject the goth tag in interviews while accusing ther peers as being more goth than their own group. The rfc demander cheated their question on purpose: they had presented themselves as a Bauhaus fan in previous discussion, which means their edits are positive bias And their purpose is to soften and reshape the image of their favourite band on wikipedia. You profile shows that you have never contributed to any music related article and more specifically to any article about the post-punk / gothic rock genres and the bands under these umbrellas. [20] Woovee (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations! My initial rationale stands because it appears that, while what you say is true, it does not change my opinion. Changing others' opinions might be easier for you if you just remember that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Best to you! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I didn't expect anything relevant that replies to the content of my previous explanation; all of the users in this Rfc appear to read the answers in diagonal. To your concern, supposedly humoristic traits are not what one demands for in a Rfc. Woovee (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "humoristic trait" on Wikipedia to be civil to fellow volunteer editors. In fact, it's taken very seriously as one of the five pillars. It is considered wrong to be anything less than civil or to WP:BADGER. The only point I'd hoped to make with you is that if you ever expect to be successful in your endeavors on Wikipedia, then you will want to change the tone of your responses. Again, we wish you only the best! P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It also should be pointed out to you that as long as a quote is well-sourced and several editors have come to consensus to include it, that is all Wikipedia requires for its inclusion. Anything else would be, well, non-neutral and POV (another of the five pillars). P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes - certainly a band member's opinion on their band's genre and relationship to a genre that they have been considered to pioneered is worth noting on the band's article. starship.paint (exalt) 05:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, I think it provides reasonable context to what the band thinks about the "goth" label where it is used. I do not see any particular reason it should not be there. It is not forbidden to use material where the band discusses itself, and in this instance the material is not unduly self-serving or any of the other red flags for a subject discussing themself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:56, 10 October 2021 (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.