Jump to content

Talk:Bauhaus (band): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,445,123 edits
 
(44 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Bauhaus|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Pop music}}
{{WikiProject Pop music}}
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes
{{WikiProject Biography|musician-work-group=yes|musician-priority=mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative music|importance=high}}
|class=B
|musician-work-group=yes
|listas=Bauhaus
|musician-priority=mid
}}
{{WikiProject Alternative music|class=B|importance=high}}
| blp=yes
| blp=yes
}}
}}
Line 22: Line 17:
}}
}}



== Musical style and influences ==

Bringing up {{u|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 {{u|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 {{u|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. [[User:Ninmacer20|Ninmacer20]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 17:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making a discussion thread for me, {{u|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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 (band)|Gang of Four]], [[Cabaret Voltaire (band)|Cabaret Voltaire]], and [[the Pop Group]]." This stuff is interesting and relevant. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&oldid=868526008#Musical_style]:
:{{xt|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]}}
:{{xt|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]}}
:{{xt|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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

:Edit: More comments. This sentence {{xt|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 {{xt|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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 {{xt|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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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"" [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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 ? [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Ninmacer20|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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 [https://vcreporter.com/2005/12/goth-is-dead/]
*''"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 [https://www.uncut.co.uk/features/bauhaus-on-bela-lugosis-dead-it-was-the-stairway-to-heaven-of-the-1980s-123408/] [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 13:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

* This topic about goth had already been discussed in this talk, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#Genres_and_consensus] and you can read my contributions, {{u|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. "''[https://post-punk.com/the-bubbleman-cometh-an-interview-with-daniel-ash/]. 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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 02:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Bis repetita. That was then [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=710273858&oldid=710188201] --- 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 {{u|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 ? [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 13:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Including the Cure's name in the Legacy section, would be completely ludicrous. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::Why?[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 18:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::::Because The Cure were never influenced or inspired by Bauhaus in any way. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.isu.pub%2F140823142208-31ca80c9f1649808ac819359207af058%2Fjpg%2Fpage_1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fissuu.com%2Fsiouxsiesioux%2Fdocs%2Fnme.originals.goth.magazine.2005&tbnid=MEePu2ZqS8GTVM&vet=12ahUKEwjn2eP01KvuAhUH-4UKHbH8Ab0QMygAegUIARCrAQ..i&docid=6UQzLY24EmpEuM&w=1099&h=1493&q=nme%20goth%20special&ved=2ahUKEwjn2eP01KvuAhUH-4UKHbH8Ab0QMygAegUIARCrAQ 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. [[User:Ninmacer20|Ninmacer20]] ([[User talk: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 ! [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 23:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

* '''[https://www.spin.com/2011/07/tough-questions-peter-murphy/ Just leaving this here]''': "The Cure were cool. They made very cool alternative pop music. Robert’s bloody talented." - Peter Murphy <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lynchenberg|contribs]]) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)</span>

== 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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ninmacer20|Ninmacer20]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 19:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


== Legacy and Influence. ==
== Legacy and Influence. ==
Line 149: Line 25:


Okay, I don't agree. The section does not quote every single sentence by a Bauhaus member, it is one Kevin Haskins quote about his perspective on their legacy as an influential goth band. Hardly an essay or every quote and seems relevant and I don't see what's non-neutal about it, as this isn't my opinion, it's a band member's opinion. If you want to counterbalance with a dissenting opinion from another source, that would be fine by me. As your your accusations, this is just speculation about I don't think it matters whether I'm a Bauhaus fan or not. I think my edit history makes it clear I have a variety of interests and edit often, I don't just use it for this issue. Let's see what other people think. Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? [[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC) <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1634072479}}
Okay, I don't agree. The section does not quote every single sentence by a Bauhaus member, it is one Kevin Haskins quote about his perspective on their legacy as an influential goth band. Hardly an essay or every quote and seems relevant and I don't see what's non-neutal about it, as this isn't my opinion, it's a band member's opinion. If you want to counterbalance with a dissenting opinion from another source, that would be fine by me. As your your accusations, this is just speculation about I don't think it matters whether I'm a Bauhaus fan or not. I think my edit history makes it clear I have a variety of interests and edit often, I don't just use it for this issue. Let's see what other people think. Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? [[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC) <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1634072479}}

==RfC: Quote from Kevin Haskins==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Clear consensus that a band's own properly attributed view is appropriate for inclusion on the page about said band. Except for [[WP:BLUDGEON]] by the sole objector, I don't see much arguments, let alone convincing ones (in light of NPOV or V), to not include this. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
}}


Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? [[User:Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
:Referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1043002754&oldid=1042985307 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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=1042987236]. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1000637227&oldid=1000609789] 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]. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Binksternet}} you're strongly encouraged to reply to these interrogations which are legit. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1000637227&oldid=1000609789 ''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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1000637227&oldid=1000609789 last January], to include in the article a quote of Bauhaus singer pigeonholing another band The Cure as goth. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 23:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1042985307&oldid=1042875243] 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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 23:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Yet '''I'm''' the one being denigrating. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1001927497&oldid=1001503973]. 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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 02:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ '''a note to {{u|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:
{{xt|"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.".}}[[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 16:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
:::This [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1043155289&oldid=1043042106 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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 07:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
: or what about this {{xt|"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.}}. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Media,_the_arts,_and_architecture], and then answer to this issue [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1043160339&oldid=1043156272] that is specifically addressed to you. And finally, my request is adressed to the user who filled the rfc. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

{{reply to|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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk: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 [https://twitter.com/quantick/status/1434799893282017282]. Murphy once praised their music while minimizing the songwriting quality of Joy Division [https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/peter-murphy-bauhaus-was-the-seminal-moment-in-that-time-joy-division-was-not-6454262?showFullText=true]. 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 [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 22:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
:::[[wp:bias|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 [https://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/peter-murphy-bauhaus-was-the-seminal-moment-in-that-time-joy-division-was-not-6454262?showFullText=true], 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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:@|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 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 ? @ {{u|Ohnoitsjamie}} - [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 12:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
:::{{u|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? [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 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. [[User:Korny O&#39;Near|Korny O&#39;Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O&#39;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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Korny O&#39;Near|Korny O&#39;Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O&#39;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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Korny O&#39;Near|Korny O&#39;Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O&#39;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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Korny O&#39;Near|Korny O&#39;Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O&#39;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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Korny O&#39;Near|Korny O&#39;Near]] ([[User talk:Korny O&#39;Near|talk]]) 03:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:::Woovee promising to include irrelevant quotes is a threat of [[WP:POINT|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. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Closure_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1048462333], that your knowledge about the post punk and gothic rock genres is shallow, according to this [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Binksternet/0]. It shows that you only clean music articles about post-punk bands,[https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Binksternet&page=Bauhaus_(band)&server=enwiki&max=] 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 [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Binksternet&page=Louis_Armstrong&server=enwiki&max=]. 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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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. '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>08:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)</small>
::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 [[wp:bias|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. [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Paine%20Ellsworth/0] [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk: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''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>21:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)</small>
::::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. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 22:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
:::::It is not a "humoristic trait" on Wikipedia to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] to fellow volunteer editors. In fact, it's taken very seriously as one of the [[WP:5P4|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''!'' '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>10:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)</small>
:::::It also should be pointed out to you that as long as a quote is [[WP:RS|well-sourced]] and several editors have come to [[WP:consensus|consensus]] to include it, that is all Wikipedia requires for its inclusion. Anything else would be, well, non-neutral and POV (another of the [[WP:5P2|five pillars]]). '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&numsp;-&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>10:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)</small>
*'''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. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}


==RfC: References referring to or about bands other than Bauhaus==
==RfC: References referring to or about bands other than Bauhaus==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640116875}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1640116875}}
.
{{rfc|media|rfcid=61CDCCE}}.
Is it necessary to include a cited source unrelated to Bauhaus that describes Siouxsie and the Banshees as art rock?
Is it necessary to include a cited source unrelated to Bauhaus that describes Siouxsie and the Banshees as art rock?
:Referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1055580377 this edit].
:Referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=prev&oldid=1055580377 this edit].
Line 240: Line 37:
'''No''' and '''Yes''' Summoned by bot. This is a bit to unpack and I haven't read the long history and prior Rfc. For the first, I think the legacy section should be about the band's legacy and how they see it. It gets too weedy if you try to discuss the Banshee's genre here. People aren't coming here to learn about the Banshees. For the second, I think it's a useful quote to include since it's the band discussing their influences. [[User:Timtempleton|<b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b>]] [[User talk:Timtempleton|<sup style="color:#800080">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Timtempleton|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
'''No''' and '''Yes''' Summoned by bot. This is a bit to unpack and I haven't read the long history and prior Rfc. For the first, I think the legacy section should be about the band's legacy and how they see it. It gets too weedy if you try to discuss the Banshee's genre here. People aren't coming here to learn about the Banshees. For the second, I think it's a useful quote to include since it's the band discussing their influences. [[User:Timtempleton|<b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b>]] [[User talk:Timtempleton|<sup style="color:#800080">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Timtempleton|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' and '''Yes'''. The first question involves a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] in which Bauhaus isn't mentioned but a comparison is being made. The second question is simply a matter of helping the reader understand where Murphy was coming from, how Murphy views the milieu within which Bauhaus formed. The practice of inserting a footnote in the reference is covered at [[WP:FOOTNOTE]] which says "A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." The Murphy quote satisfies the requirements. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
*'''No''' and '''Yes'''. The first question involves a violation of [[WP:SYNTH]] in which Bauhaus isn't mentioned but a comparison is being made. The second question is simply a matter of helping the reader understand where Murphy was coming from, how Murphy views the milieu within which Bauhaus formed. The practice of inserting a footnote in the reference is covered at [[WP:FOOTNOTE]] which says "A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." The Murphy quote satisfies the requirements. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
::*It is correct to say that this appendix <s>{{xt|"although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" "</s>}} can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.
::*One notes that all the sources in this wiki biography contain footnotes reproducing the quotes in their entirety inside the ref. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 00:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


My take is this. I just thought the information on Peter Murphy feeling Bauhaus was reggae-inspired was relevant information, and Haskins saying they felt more art rock than goth was relevant information. I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation. I don't see any harm in having these references either, but if it really bothers Woovee that much I am fine with omitting them as it's not necessary to provide the relevant information. If we're to omit that however, we should also omit the quote about Siouxsie and the Banshees playing art rock as it's not necessary. I also want to state that this is the last time I want to comment on the matter. Woovee's made this very personal and I've been going through a lot lately. It's not really relevant here specifically what, but I am not doing well right now and had been avoiding editing Wikipedia as during a time I was feeling increasing emotionally unstable I made a comment I regret. I had not been following this discussion as a result, but had not logged out of Wikipedia on all devices, so when Woovee pinged me on my page, blaming me for the results of the rfc and going on about how he "despises" me and making more accusations. I reported this to an administrator who quickly responded to the out-line-comment I made during my issues with another matter, but rather than telling Woovee to desist as I was told to desist, I was essentially told to go fuck myself and my edit asking for help was reverted. This has made me realize responding was a mistake, and I would like to take a break from Wikipedia in general to leave this matter behind entirely. When responding to this rfc, I would like to respectfully ask Woovee to avoid making this personal if the administrators won't, and not to ping me privately or bring me up again. Just argue the issue on it's own merits, and if all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue. I just want this to be over. Peace. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 00:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
My take is this. I just thought the information on Peter Murphy feeling Bauhaus was reggae-inspired was relevant information, and Haskins saying they felt more art rock than goth was relevant information. I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation. I don't see any harm in having these references either, but if it really bothers Woovee that much I am fine with omitting them as it's not necessary to provide the relevant information. If we're to omit that however, we should also omit the quote about Siouxsie and the Banshees playing art rock as it's not necessary. I also want to state that this is the last time I want to comment on the matter. Woovee's made this very personal and I've been going through a lot lately. It's not really relevant here specifically what, but I am not doing well right now and had been avoiding editing Wikipedia as during a time I was feeling increasing emotionally unstable I made a comment I regret. I had not been following this discussion as a result, but had not logged out of Wikipedia on all devices, so when Woovee pinged me on my page, blaming me for the results of the rfc and going on about how he "despises" me and making more accusations. I reported this to an administrator who quickly responded to the out-line-comment I made during my issues with another matter, but rather than telling Woovee to desist as I was told to desist, I was essentially told to go fuck myself and my edit asking for help was reverted. This has made me realize responding was a mistake, and I would like to take a break from Wikipedia in general to leave this matter behind entirely. When responding to this rfc, I would like to respectfully ask Woovee to avoid making this personal if the administrators won't, and not to ping me privately or bring me up again. Just argue the issue on it's own merits, and if all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue. I just want this to be over. Peace. [[User:Lynchenberg|Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 00:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


It is correct to say that this appendix <s>{{xt|"although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" "</s>}} can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
*If Lynchenberg, "sees no reason to name drop" "siouxsie and the banshees" in the body of the article for Haskins' quote, they will have to ping/contact all the users who replied to their previous rfc, and ask them if they would not oppose to this change. And to avoid confusion, they'd show them the new version they would like to see in the body of the article, and write it inside this {{xt| }, to make it in green color. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::If the person setting up the RfC changes their mind, they can !vote differently. The RfC stands by itself, though; its question is not voided. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


== Implementing the RfC conclusion about Kevin Haskins quote ==
== Implementing the RfC conclusion about Kevin Haskins quote ==
Line 266: Line 66:
Let's keep the wording proposed by the successful RfC. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Let's keep the wording proposed by the successful RfC. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


***Concerning the rfc about Kevin Haskins' quote: it is correct to say that this appendix {{xt|<s>"although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" "</s>}} can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 14:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
::*It is correct to say that this appendix {{xt|<s>"although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" "</s>}} can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.
::: Haskins talks about "[[Goth Movement]]" and music and art-rock, It is more about the genre. Concluding "goth movement" could be transformed in [goth movement|goth subculture] rather than [goth movement|gothic rock], or vice versa, is [[wp:original research]]. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::::It's simply reading comprehension. Goth subculture is goth movement... same idea. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

== Murphy's view about their legacy ==

This version had been present in the article from 8 months, from February'21 until August'21.
:{{xt|Murphy felt contemporary dark bands like [[the Cure]] had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth.}}. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
::What does "dark bands" mean? Not clear to the reader. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

::::{{u|Binksternet}} What was this about ? -> "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1059396507&oldid=1059370046 Re: your edit summary of 9 December 2021 "the RfC overrode your wording preference from earlier in the year. You cannot restore it"]"
::::There wasn't anything relative to The Cure in the question that was asked in this rfc (which was based on a Kevin Haskins interview). And here the part about the Cure is based on a Peter Murphy interview.
:::::see below the rfc and also the specific edit or instance on which people were invited to give their opinion.
::::: Reminder - copy / Paste of the rfc:
::::::"''Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? [[User:Lynchenberg]] ([[User talk:Lynchenberg|talk]]) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)''
::::::''Referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1043002754&oldid=1042985307 this edit].''"
:::: [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 02:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::Before the RfC, you were doing everything you could to blockade other editors' changes in that paragraph, browbeating Lynchenberg, edit-warring, behaving badly, even interfering with the RfC wording. The RfC decided very strongly against you. Through the RfC, you lost the power to change how Bauhaus is described in that paragraph. Yet you decided you were the paragraph's arbiter anyway, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1052614599&oldid=1052443708 framing your preferred version] as the notional RfC result, which was absolutely false, and a violation of [[WP:Tendentious editing]]. You should stay out of that paragraph altogether. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
::::::: This is not how our community works. We don't hold a grudge on anybody like you do it right now with this kind of posts and attitude.
:::::::No decision was ever made at a ANI to prevent me from posting in that section of the article! This remark from you "you lost the power to change how Bauhaus is described in that paragraph." is your own opinion /judgement. And you keep on bullying me endlessly repeating and reposting the same unpleasant things, trying to discredit me.
:::::::You haven't replied to my question, because this rfc was not about The Cure in the Peter Murphy interview but about the content of another reference / source, a Kevin Haskins which concerned another sentence in the section. This is counter productive.
:::::::Last November, you commented on this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1055980252&oldid=1055860528], replying "[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1055908603&oldid=1055861592 what "dark bands" mean? Not clear to the reader]" to which I took note and withdrew the "dark" adjective [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1055980252&oldid=1055867250]. That was fine, the version was stable. And one month later in December, once I had stopped editing on this article, you suddenly changed your mind and erased the edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1059396507&oldid=1059370046] on which we both agreed in November. This is [[wp:pointy]], and stubbornness. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

== RFC: Which version should we use ? ==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 05:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1649653279}}

Which version should we use ?

Version 1 :
{{xt|<br />Peter Murphy said he felt their contemporaries had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth.[97] <br />Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that other bands were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".[98]}}

or

Version 2 :
{{xt|<br />Peter Murphy said he felt contemporary bands like the Cure had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth [97] <br />Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".[98]}}

Referring to the footnotes of references 97 and 98 which both include the entire quotes of the musicians, inside the brackets:

[97] : "[Peter Murphy:] 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".

[98] : "[Kevin Haskins:] I’ve always felt though that Siouxsie and the Banshees, who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock". [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

::;References [97] and [98] with titles, links and footnotes:
::[97] : {{cite web |first=Julian |last=Marszalek|url=http://thequietus.com/.../06637-peter-murphy-bauhaus... |title=Peter Murphy Interviewed|website=[[The Quietus]]|date=26 July 2011 |access-date=27 November 2015|quote=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.}}
::[98] : {{cite web |author1=Robert Gourley |title=Bauhaus Between The Covers [Kevin Haskins interview]|url=https://pleasekillme.com/bauhaus-undead/ |website=Please Kill Me |publisher=PleaseKillMe.com |access-date=18 April 2021 |date=January 25, 2018|quote=I’ve always felt though that the [[Siouxsie and the Banshees|Banshees]], who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock.}} [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

;!Votes:
*'''Version 1'''. Like user:Lynchenberg [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1055638874&oldid=1055637075 said], I don't find necessary to mention The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees in the main text, as the footnotes already reproduce the entirety of the quotes including the names of those bands. [[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
*Here's a voting notice for ''version 1'' from [[user:Lynchenberg]] who found references 97 and 98. See more of his opinions in the ''comments'' section. [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1055638874&oldid=1055637075 "From Lynchenberg (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2021"] "I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text" "In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either" "If all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue".[[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
*'''Version 1''', as long as the more specific quoted material remains in the notes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

;Comments:
*Here's the comment of [[user:Lynchenberg]] (who found the references 97 and 98) and who doesn't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees in the main text. I copy / paste his view because of the last sentence of this message below :
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1055638874&oldid=1055637075 "From Lynchenberg - 00:32, 17 November 2021"]:
::"I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation".
::"If all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue."
:"[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1043440411&oldid=1043439294 "From Lynchenberg - 03:37, 10 September 2021"]:
:: "I'm willing to not quote the parts where they mention the other bands ... as they're not necessary."
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&diff=1043438154&oldid=1043436310 "From Lynchenberg on 03:37, 10 September 2021"]:
::"We could reach a compromise by not naming any other specific bands in the Haskins quote and just focusing on how he views Bauhaus."
:--[[User:Woovee|Woovee]] ([[User talk:Woovee|talk]]) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

{{od}}This RfC is poisoned by its offering of green text versus red text examples. It's non-neutral and should be closed with no result. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

===Edit-warring by Woovee===
The phrase "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential" has been the target of a long-running battle by Woovee. Woovee removed the phrase seven times in one day in July 2021,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1031798420&oldid=1030312106] five times in September, ten times in October, six times in November, and now in 2022 has done it again.[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Bauhaus_%28band%29&type=revision&diff=1079059414&oldid=1078972692] Woovee was described as the "sole objector" to the phrase at the "clear consensus" we obtained last October in the [[Talk:Bauhaus_(band)/Archive_1#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins]]. Changing that consensus now with a flawed RfC is not going to happen. It's not strong enough to overturn the previous consensus. At this point it's a behavioural issue. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 05:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, Woovee drove autistic[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User%3ALynchenberg&type=revision&diff=1003779616&oldid=1000814026] user Lynchenberg from the project by hounding him about Bauhaus. Lynchenberg had a long-running problem with Woovee's behavior,[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Binksternet&diff=prev&oldid=1000513786] and was repeatedly gaslighted and devalued by Woovee. In the end, Lynchenberg finally threw in the towel and said basically "whatever", which are the comments that Woovee is happy to quote now, picking up Lynchenberg's surrender flags as battlefield souvenirs. But Lynchenberg fought for a long time against the misrepresentation of sources that Woovee was inserting into the article. Lynchenberg should not be listed as an ally of Woovee. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 06:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:31, 12 November 2024


Legacy and Influence.

[edit]

I've decided I want to try discussing this properly and make another attempt at improving the article. My argument for keeping the comments from band members about Bauhaus' influence and/or lack thereof on the goth scene and/or music style is as follows. I think it's relevant to have the band's perspective on their legacy if it isn't excessive and third-party sources are cited too. The third-party source says they are considered the inventors of goth. One band member says he felt other bands were more influential another accepts the label. To me, that is presenting the information neutrally and takes up only five sentences. Arguably, it's the only part of the section that gives any real information, the rest just catalogues every band that's ever mentioned Bauhaus. If we wanted to cut down on or cut out that catalogue and add other voices (like more music historians) to the section to give a more complete overview of the band's legacy I'd be in support of that. I'd also be open to suggestions to make the section read more neutrally. But don't go deleting information until it's been agreed on here and don't accuse me of having ulterior motives like hating The Cure or being an obsessive Bauhaus fanboy. Lynchenberg (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wp:undue [1] it is not relevant to transform this article in an essay about the goth genre, either quoting every single sentence by a Bauhaus member. A member of a band is not a music historian or a music expert. There is a big problem of editing by two Bauhaus fans, non-neutral approaches in the present case, which is bordeline to this, WP:SPA. Woovee (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I don't agree. The section does not quote every single sentence by a Bauhaus member, it is one Kevin Haskins quote about his perspective on their legacy as an influential goth band. Hardly an essay or every quote and seems relevant and I don't see what's non-neutal about it, as this isn't my opinion, it's a band member's opinion. If you want to counterbalance with a dissenting opinion from another source, that would be fine by me. As your your accusations, this is just speculation about I don't think it matters whether I'm a Bauhaus fan or not. I think my edit history makes it clear I have a variety of interests and edit often, I don't just use it for this issue. Let's see what other people think. Should Haskins' perspective on the band's influence on the development of gothic rock be included? talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: References referring to or about bands other than Bauhaus

[edit]

. Is it necessary to include a cited source unrelated to Bauhaus that describes Siouxsie and the Banshees as art rock?

Referring to this edit.

Is it acceptable to include a quotation from Peter Murphy that also associates the gothic rock genre with The Cure in a citation where Peter Murphy says he felt Bauhaus was closer to reggae-punk like The Clash?

Referring to this edit. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

No and Yes Summoned by bot. This is a bit to unpack and I haven't read the long history and prior Rfc. For the first, I think the legacy section should be about the band's legacy and how they see it. It gets too weedy if you try to discuss the Banshee's genre here. People aren't coming here to learn about the Banshees. For the second, I think it's a useful quote to include since it's the band discussing their influences. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No and Yes. The first question involves a violation of WP:SYNTH in which Bauhaus isn't mentioned but a comparison is being made. The second question is simply a matter of helping the reader understand where Murphy was coming from, how Murphy views the milieu within which Bauhaus formed. The practice of inserting a footnote in the reference is covered at WP:FOOTNOTE which says "A quotation allows readers to immediately identify the applicable portion of the reference. Quotes are also useful if the source is not easily accessible." The Murphy quote satisfies the requirements. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is correct to say that this appendix "although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" " can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.
  • One notes that all the sources in this wiki biography contain footnotes reproducing the quotes in their entirety inside the ref. Woovee (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My take is this. I just thought the information on Peter Murphy feeling Bauhaus was reggae-inspired was relevant information, and Haskins saying they felt more art rock than goth was relevant information. I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation. I don't see any harm in having these references either, but if it really bothers Woovee that much I am fine with omitting them as it's not necessary to provide the relevant information. If we're to omit that however, we should also omit the quote about Siouxsie and the Banshees playing art rock as it's not necessary. I also want to state that this is the last time I want to comment on the matter. Woovee's made this very personal and I've been going through a lot lately. It's not really relevant here specifically what, but I am not doing well right now and had been avoiding editing Wikipedia as during a time I was feeling increasing emotionally unstable I made a comment I regret. I had not been following this discussion as a result, but had not logged out of Wikipedia on all devices, so when Woovee pinged me on my page, blaming me for the results of the rfc and going on about how he "despises" me and making more accusations. I reported this to an administrator who quickly responded to the out-line-comment I made during my issues with another matter, but rather than telling Woovee to desist as I was told to desist, I was essentially told to go fuck myself and my edit asking for help was reverted. This has made me realize responding was a mistake, and I would like to take a break from Wikipedia in general to leave this matter behind entirely. When responding to this rfc, I would like to respectfully ask Woovee to avoid making this personal if the administrators won't, and not to ping me privately or bring me up again. Just argue the issue on it's own merits, and if all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue. I just want this to be over. Peace. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Lynchenberg, "sees no reason to name drop" "siouxsie and the banshees" in the body of the article for Haskins' quote, they will have to ping/contact all the users who replied to their previous rfc, and ask them if they would not oppose to this change. And to avoid confusion, they'd show them the new version they would like to see in the body of the article, and write it inside this {{xt| }, to make it in green color. Woovee (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the person setting up the RfC changes their mind, they can !vote differently. The RfC stands by itself, though; its question is not voided. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing the RfC conclusion about Kevin Haskins quote

[edit]

In September–October, we decided to include a quote from Kevin Haskins. The quote in question is as follows:

Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".[1]

References

  1. ^ Robert Gourley (January 25, 2018). "Bauhaus Between The Covers". Please Kill Me. PleaseKillMe.com. Retrieved 18 April 2021. I've always felt though that the Banshees, who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock.

Woovee removed the quote seven times on the same day in July 2021,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] violating WP:3RR, and five times in September. In October, Woovee removed the quote ten times, and in November six times.

What does Woovee want? Here's a comparison of proposed text versions. First is a version put forward by others:

  • Peter Murphy said he felt their contemporaries had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth. Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".

Here's the version that Woovee kept inserting:

  • Peter Murphy said Bauhaus "were more aligned to The Clash than anything else that was going around. The Cure and those people really solidified what became goth". Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt: "the Banshees who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement [...] Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock", although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock".

I don't have any problem with the Murphy quote adding mentions of the Clash and the Cure. The problem I have is with Woovee's removal of the link to Goth subculture, the swapping of clear summary text for more of a bandmember quote, and the addition of The Guardian assessment of the Banshees as art rock, which has nothing to do with Bauhaus, and is thus a violation of WP:SYNTH. I also have a problem with Woovee's novel reinterpretation of the RfC; the losing party in a consensus-forming discussion should step aside and let the consensus stand, not fight it tooth and nail. Purposely interfering with an established consensus is WP:Tendentious editing.

Let's keep the wording proposed by the successful RfC. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is correct to say that this appendix "although The Guardian also considered the Banshees as "art rock" " can't be included in the article as it doesn't talk about the band Bauhaus.
Haskins talks about "Goth Movement" and music and art-rock, It is more about the genre. Concluding "goth movement" could be transformed in [goth movement|goth subculture] rather than [goth movement|gothic rock], or vice versa, is wp:original research. Woovee (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply reading comprehension. Goth subculture is goth movement... same idea. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy's view about their legacy

[edit]

This version had been present in the article from 8 months, from February'21 until August'21.

Murphy felt contemporary dark bands like the Cure had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth.. Woovee (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does "dark bands" mean? Not clear to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet What was this about ? -> "Re: your edit summary of 9 December 2021 "the RfC overrode your wording preference from earlier in the year. You cannot restore it""
There wasn't anything relative to The Cure in the question that was asked in this rfc (which was based on a Kevin Haskins interview). And here the part about the Cure is based on a Peter Murphy interview.
see below the rfc and also the specific edit or instance on which people were invited to give their opinion.
Reminder - copy / Paste of the rfc:
"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)[reply]
Referring to this edit."
Woovee (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before the RfC, you were doing everything you could to blockade other editors' changes in that paragraph, browbeating Lynchenberg, edit-warring, behaving badly, even interfering with the RfC wording. The RfC decided very strongly against you. Through the RfC, you lost the power to change how Bauhaus is described in that paragraph. Yet you decided you were the paragraph's arbiter anyway, framing your preferred version as the notional RfC result, which was absolutely false, and a violation of WP:Tendentious editing. You should stay out of that paragraph altogether. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how our community works. We don't hold a grudge on anybody like you do it right now with this kind of posts and attitude.
No decision was ever made at a ANI to prevent me from posting in that section of the article! This remark from you "you lost the power to change how Bauhaus is described in that paragraph." is your own opinion /judgement. And you keep on bullying me endlessly repeating and reposting the same unpleasant things, trying to discredit me.
You haven't replied to my question, because this rfc was not about The Cure in the Peter Murphy interview but about the content of another reference / source, a Kevin Haskins which concerned another sentence in the section. This is counter productive.
Last November, you commented on this edit [10], replying "what "dark bands" mean? Not clear to the reader" to which I took note and withdrew the "dark" adjective [11]. That was fine, the version was stable. And one month later in December, once I had stopped editing on this article, you suddenly changed your mind and erased the edit [12] on which we both agreed in November. This is wp:pointy, and stubbornness. Woovee (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Which version should we use ?

[edit]

Which version should we use ?

Version 1 :
Peter Murphy said he felt their contemporaries had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth.[97]
Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that other bands were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".[98]

or

Version 2 :
Peter Murphy said he felt contemporary bands like the Cure had a larger hand in solidifying what became goth [97]
Likewise, Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential to goth subculture than themselves and mentioned that Bauhaus were "...more three dimensional, more art rock".[98]

Referring to the footnotes of references 97 and 98 which both include the entire quotes of the musicians, inside the brackets:

[97] : "[Peter Murphy:] 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".

[98] : "[Kevin Haskins:] I’ve always felt though that Siouxsie and the Banshees, who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock". Woovee (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References [97] and [98] with titles, links and footnotes
[97] : Marszalek, Julian (26 July 2011). "Peter Murphy Interviewed". The Quietus. Retrieved 27 November 2015. 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.
[98] : Robert Gourley (January 25, 2018). "Bauhaus Between The Covers [Kevin Haskins interview]". Please Kill Me. PleaseKillMe.com. Retrieved 18 April 2021. I've always felt though that the Banshees, who came before us, were more of an influence on the Goth movement. We chose to wear black, and our first single was vampire themed and the press tagged us. I can relate to it to a certain degree, but I feel that Bauhaus were more three dimensional, more art rock. Woovee (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
!Votes
  • Version 1. Like user:Lynchenberg said, I don't find necessary to mention The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees in the main text, as the footnotes already reproduce the entirety of the quotes including the names of those bands. Woovee (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a voting notice for version 1 from user:Lynchenberg who found references 97 and 98. See more of his opinions in the comments section. "From Lynchenberg (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2021" "I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text" "In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either" "If all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue".Woovee (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Version 1, as long as the more specific quoted material remains in the notes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Here's the comment of user:Lynchenberg (who found the references 97 and 98) and who doesn't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure and Siouxsie And The Banshees in the main text. I copy / paste his view because of the last sentence of this message below :
"From Lynchenberg - 00:32, 17 November 2021":
"I don't feel strongly about mentioning The Cure in the main text as it's not relevant to the real point about reggae. I do think it's necessary to include in the citation for context however, as that's just the standard. In terms of Siouxsie and the Banshees, I see no reason to name drop them in the main text either, but potentially in a lower citation".
"If all you want at this point is no mention of The Cure or Siouxsie and the Banshees in the body of the article, consider this me putting a vote in your favor on that issue."
""From Lynchenberg - 03:37, 10 September 2021":
"I'm willing to not quote the parts where they mention the other bands ... as they're not necessary."
"From Lynchenberg on 03:37, 10 September 2021":
"We could reach a compromise by not naming any other specific bands in the Haskins quote and just focusing on how he views Bauhaus."
--Woovee (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is poisoned by its offering of green text versus red text examples. It's non-neutral and should be closed with no result. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring by Woovee

[edit]

The phrase "Kevin Haskins felt that bands such as Siouxsie and the Banshees were more influential" has been the target of a long-running battle by Woovee. Woovee removed the phrase seven times in one day in July 2021,[13] five times in September, ten times in October, six times in November, and now in 2022 has done it again.[14] Woovee was described as the "sole objector" to the phrase at the "clear consensus" we obtained last October in the Talk:Bauhaus_(band)/Archive_1#RfC:_Quote_from_Kevin_Haskins. Changing that consensus now with a flawed RfC is not going to happen. It's not strong enough to overturn the previous consensus. At this point it's a behavioural issue. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Woovee drove autistic[15] user Lynchenberg from the project by hounding him about Bauhaus. Lynchenberg had a long-running problem with Woovee's behavior,[16] and was repeatedly gaslighted and devalued by Woovee. In the end, Lynchenberg finally threw in the towel and said basically "whatever", which are the comments that Woovee is happy to quote now, picking up Lynchenberg's surrender flags as battlefield souvenirs. But Lynchenberg fought for a long time against the misrepresentation of sources that Woovee was inserting into the article. Lynchenberg should not be listed as an ally of Woovee. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bauhaus_(band)&oldid=1256940029"