Talk:Gothic rock

Woovee has made a lot of reverts. So I've opened this up to talk about proper sourcing and a discussion about the origins of goth. There is one blog source I used but could easily find an academic source that says the same thing. It makes no sense why you jump to disruptively remove a bunch of additions to articles rather than add a "verification failed" or "clarification needed" template so improvements can be made. The lead as it is now seems to outline how goth happened, and then it's subsequent proliferations.

You did something similar at post-punk were you kept removing a bunch of what I added and I had to painstakingly add it back. Even though if you just marked what parts needed better sourcing or improvements we could have together done that. Editing a music page isn't a fight between who is right or wrong. It's interesting. I had a bit of a clash with Issan at horror punk a bit ago but it ended amicably because being able to find sources for claims and dig into history to find out what really happened is how collaborative editing should be done. Not endless edit-wars and reverts. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The lead has been improved with shorter sentences to keep the flow. Mentioning the Sisters of Mercy is indeed relevant per wp:Lead and has been put back.

It is better to call NME's writer Richard North like this as his articles were signed by this name: mentioning his real name is unimportant and non-encyclopedic.

The link leading to a website which reproduces British copyrighted texts of Record Mirror without paying the authors was rightly edited out per our rules. Woovee (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sisters of Mercy literally are named in the body as the main band that made goth what it was "Simon Reynolds cited the shift between gothic music to traditional goth rock being primarily influenced by the Leeds band, the Sisters of Mercy." you make no sense. I'm reverting what you're doing again and you should use citations. The pen name thing is just pedantic... I'm not even gonna talk about that. But your critic of Record Mirror is unfounded since the site itself says in its TOS anything that breaches copyright is to be removed. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

My issue with you is the following:

Removing "deathrock" from the lead when in the body it is mentioned it was a subgenre of goth rock

Removing other goth rock subgenres from the lead when they are mentioned in the infobox

Removing "positive punk" from the lead when it is understood as an early term for "goth"

Removing the NME coinage of the term when it was a pivotal moment in the scene's history

Removing Sisters of Mercy from the lead when they are cited as the band that basically helped create traditional goth

Removing mention of the "Batclub" from the lead when it was the most influential venue in the development of goth

You see my problem now? Removing all this valuable information is disruptive. One of your edit summaries literally reads "deathrock shouldn't be in the lead" per WHAT? You have been accused of disruptively editing on other pages with your edits as well... Aradicus77 (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You also removed half of the stuff in the lead THEN re-added half of it. So what was the point in that? Why are you trying to change the current lead so much when it's the perfect length summary without oversimplifying / omitting key information? If you want to remove naming of positive punk bands / shortening sure. But why cut the coinage of North and the Batcave and Sisters of Mercy? Aradicus77 (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Also go on the Wikipedia search bar and search "worldradiohistory.com" and you will see how many hundreds of pages are citing and linking PDF's to the site! Aradicus77 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

A) The lead includes mentions of positive punk, the batcave, and "deathrock" the most famous subgenre that grew out of gothic rock in the US.

B) Two music historians Simon Reynolds & John Robb advance that the "positive punk" term was an "unsuccessful attempt" to qualify the scene and that it was in fact a "loosely-affiliated scene".

C) A wp:primary source of a 19-year old fan in 1982 is un-encyclopedic per wp:trivia. Primo, she is neither a journalist or a music historian, and secundo, she mentioned the Cure as positive punk which is wp:undue. Woovee (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Woovee has there been a discussion that determined that World Radio History violates Wikipedia's copyright policies?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the discussion. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_407#help_with_link_spam_to_copyvio_references_at_worldradiohistory.com.

Aradicus77, read through that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:10, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Reproducing British copyrighted texts without paying and having the permission of all the authors is a copyright infringment. That's why the British music press has created a paying website, Rock's Backpages. Woovee (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't know much about how World History Radio operates or whether it had permission or not. Doesn't look like it for Record Mirror. My comment wasn't a challenge, to be clear. I wanted to know if this has actually been talked about (and it has).--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Woovee clearly has some kind of bias against Richard North or the positive punk label as he keeps trying to make biased edits that discredit the influence of the genre. He cites Reynolds and paints North's label as being "an attempt" to describe the emerging goth subgenre, and that it "failed". This is only one source by the way, which for such a controversial assertation would require many more sources. I then added 2-3 sources that claim positive punk was one of the main progenitors of goth music only for these to be reverted for no reason. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Right now the amount of cutting the origins of goth section has is egregious it makes no sense that anachronistic progenitors have more information written about on the article than the actual main history of goth music. And most of this is linked to the amount of trimming done by User:Woovee on the section related to positive punk. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The article has been stable for nearly ten years. Users agreed with the version online. That version was true to the history of the genre as related in high quality secondary sources. It related this.

The history of the genre started in the late 1970s and the scene gelled around 1983. It was a diverse scene. Gothic rock music historians who were journalists in the British press and published well received books on the music genre, Simon Reynolds, Mick Mercer, John Robb and Cathi Unsworth, all mention the existence of a briefly used term in the NME during four months between February and May '83. That term was called positive punk. The other music papers such as Melody Maker, Sounds and Record Mirror didn't embrace it and kept on using the gothic adjective. The NME 'positive punk' term was coined by a journalist who was also guitarist of the band Brigandage. Finally in June '83, NME took notes and rallied the other three music papers and they prefered to use a shortened version of gothic rock which became goth rock or simply goth. No wikipedia user basing on sources felt relevant to call a section positive punk in our wiki article as it was mainly a tag used by one journalist/goth musician only. Until now. These days one user wants to emphasize that term and would like to include it in the lead which is wp:undue. That goes along with short cuts such as keeping on including 'punk' for the origins of the gothic genre in the box whereas it is post-punk only. Woovee (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

According to WP:STABLE, "The term "stable version" is no longer used in this context" you are using. I've been meaning to bring this up to you for a few years now, but your policing of this and a few other articles do seem to conflict with WP:OWN, and I think your message here shows this quite overtly. Also, Wikipedia policy now includes WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, which directly conflicts with the mentality you are pushing. Wikipedia is supposed to be edited and revised.

On the topic of the content, the current lead, even with Aradicus77's edit, still does not pass MOS:LEAD, which says leads should "identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." There is many more "important points" to the history of goth than what were described in the lead of your stable version. For example, it makes no reference to its fusion genres or derivative forms, and never even discusses the Sisters of Mercy, which the body says changed the landscape of what goth sounds like. The current lead improves these aspects to some extent. According to WP:OTHERNAMES, the term "positive punk" is relevant to the lead. However, I do agree that mentioning plain old punk is WP:FRINGE. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Even if my edit isn't the best. It's far more informative than what Woovee was pushing. I'm looking towards if anyone can add more to the lead to completely clarify the important aspects of goth rock and its later proliferations, since for a long time the lead only mentioned post-punk bands and not really anything related to goth. At the moment I've added the positive punk and batcave bands, but the lead is still missing "prime" traditional goth bands and all that. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Basing on the policy of no wp:undue, this new version of the wp:lead and the body of the article, is true to high quality secondary sources available about this music genre that are the books of renowned music journalists such as S.Reynolds, M.Mercer,J.Robb and Cathi Unsworth.

The name of the NME journalist and musician / guitarist of the band Brigandage, R.North, appears in the body of the article.

What S.Reynolds and J.Robb wrote about the positive term is also mentioned. There is no use to call a sub-section positive punk because the term was never adopted by the whole British music press at the time which was composed by four weekly music papers: NME, M.Maker, Sounds and Record Mirror. Woovee (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Man you have a clear bias. The main thing is these journalists you cited weren't even writing about goth history as a whole in the books you cite. They barely have anything to really do with goth history. I don't know why you take their word as such gospel. Another thing is you remove every other source and act like Reynolds is the sole speaker on the genre. It's bordering on disruptive editing. Since you are getting rid of so much important information. Just to somehow cram in these writers. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Who are you to say there's no use for the term positive punk? Per what?? Sources like the New York Times I cited have retrospectively christened "positive punk" as an early progenitor of goth. You also removed the Batcave once more in your recent edits when that was one of the main venues that led to emergence of goth. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the mention of "positive punk" in the lead should be brief. There also doesn't need to be a designated sub-section heading. I agree with Issan Sumisu here, though, that you, Woovee, are approaching this with a bit of an WP:OWN mentality here. Other sources and perspectives are valid.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Positive punk is barely mentioned in the lead in my revision, bands like Alien Sex Fiend were early goth as well as positive punk Aradicus77 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@3family6

The version of the article I stand for - link here , includes in the lead:

a) "positive punk" as a briefly used term by the NME.

b) the mention of the band "Sisters of Mercy" who wanted a "return to rock music".

c) the "subgenre death rock" which was a US music scene emerging at the same time.

This version

respects the guideline of wp:lead.

One has to be precise in a discussion.

Which are the points or the sentences that you disagree with ? Woovee (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu I forgot to also ping you for that other reply above. Woovee (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that version. I believe that the current version largely reflects that. Is there something about the current lead that you object to? I am largely, if not entirely, in agreement with you, I think.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@3family6

@Issan Sumisu

How can you support the other version that ...

1) ... erased high quality secondary sources such as books by Simon Reynolds and John Robb in the body of the article, two sources that analyzed the term "positive punk"

2) ... includes a primary source in the body of the article which is an interview of a member of The Mob who advances something original.

3) ... includes another primary source in the body of the article which is an interview of a fan who was a 19 years old in 1982 and claims today that The Cure were positive punk.

4) ... erased in the body of the article the mention about the NME journalist as also the "guitarist of the band Brigandage".

When there is a historical point that is unclear, an encyclopedia has to choose high quality secondary sources.

One can not cite two primary sources that are interviews of two relatively unknown persons : an old fan of a scene and an obscure musician/ band that don't even have an article on wiki, as something valuable to advance original opinions per wp:undue. Woovee (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Woovee I want to better look over the article. I agree with you that all of that content and those sources should be included. I jumped in here because for some reason this page is on my watch list, I must have edited it a long time ago. I saw that there was this conflict and so I've been trying to mediate.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu Why do you keep on prefering the other lead with an extended endless sentence mentioning the Batcave club ?

The mention of the Batcave club is not necessary in the lead as the Batcave was instrumental in the birth of the subculture.

Advancing it was instrumental in the gothic rock genre is a short cut and so an wp:original research per wp:STICKTOSOURCE. Woovee (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Woovee I tried to restore this version, please let me know if there's stuff I ended up excising or otherwise removing that you think should be included. Aradicus77, same thing: What changes to the current version per my edit do you propose?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Why did you remove the Pere Ubu source when it explicitly calls their first single gothic rock in 1978?? You also removed Woovee’s Peel addition and a bunch of info on positive punk Aradicus77 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those corrections, I'll fix that.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and tried to fix things, what do you think now?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@3family6

As you previously replied that you agreed with all the points I have raised, as my version is the best written and it includes as it had been asked, in the lead positive punk, a few of the new bands of 1983 and a focus in Sisters of Mercy and the mention of the subgenre death rock... per undue, why have you not made a copy / paste of my most recent version to put it back in the article

Similarly in article body, you haven't corrected the edits that withdrew high quality secondary sources which were the views by Simon Reynolds and John Robb.

You should cop my last version and paste on the current version. Woovee (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Woovee I don't know why that stuff got missed or how. I'm not even sure which content it is, I've been trying to check. If you go ahead and copy paste in the content by Simon Reynolds and John Rob, it definitely would not be edit warring.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 09:08, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't want you to start another edit war, we reached consensus here before we start editing again. Explain why you have removed mention of

1. Flesh for Lulu, Play Dead, Gene Loves Jezebel, Blood and Roses, and Ausgang.

2. 45 Grave and Christian Death

3. aesthetic variants on the scene such as cybergoth and mall goth Aradicus77 (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You have also removed mention of the Batcave after we agreed here that these were the important things to mention in the lead Aradicus77 (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion stop removing content from the lead that's already sourced in the body User:Woovee. And add back the sources and some of the content you put into the body. But I don't agree with your biased way of depicting the positive punk scene in the body, which I think User:3family6 should look into. The old revision of the scene is far more neutral while yours depicts the positive punk label as if it was some kind of peripheral unimportant precursor to goth that was seldom used. Aradicus77 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77 positive punk was used for a couple months by one publication.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 09:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

"Before the term goth settled into place, the emerging movement was briefly known as positive punk".

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2023-05-22/cruel-world-siouxsie-iggy-pop-festival

I am not denying that positive punk was a brief precursor. My problem is how Woovee's edits phrase it. He uses language like "failed" to christen the scene and so on. That just kind of reads like trying to discredit positive punk as a label when it was pivotal to the start of goth. Before my edits, this page was focused heavily on post-punk bands like Siouxsie and the Banshees and Joy Division when they weren't even "real" goth music. The reason I've been trying to get this proper lead and sourcing in is because there is a misconception here where "gothic rock" is being attributed to post-punk bands moreso than the actual pioneers that made the genre such as groups like Alien Sex Fiend or Southern Death Cult. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

That's something that you and Woovee should hash out here, before implementing changes. I can look through the sources, so far Woovee has made a better argument in that regard. As to "positive punk", it was a term used for a few months. Were/are those bands important? Yes. But they very quickly became known as gothic rock.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Enough of the other version with original research, short cuts.

If this other user doesn't get that an encyclopedia is not a blog with OR, then the discussion is over.

Thr other user doesn't even register that the Los Angeles Times' 2023 source (a concert review) was written by Simon Reynolds who is the same journalist who wrote the high quality secondary source "Rip it up", containing a long chapter about this music genre. Woovee (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

In that same source he says positive punk was the brief label for gothic rock beforehand, your accusation of original research is bizarre when all I'm doing here is trying to encompass a better article.

The bands I previously mentioned that you removed should be added back such as Flesh for Lulu, Play Dead, Gene Loves Jezebel, Blood and Roses, and Ausgang they are already mentioned in the body Aradicus77 (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a fair point, but please don't you see how User:Woovee's language is hostile or just not co-operative? I've already laid out the issue I'm seeing with the current article. Your revision I agree with, then he comes in removes that stuff and then says I'm turning the article into a blog. Is that not insane? Aradicus77 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aradicus77 of the two of you, I've encountered a lot more hostility and aggressiveness from you.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Where?? This guy is telling me I'm doing original research and now I have to talk the same way he has been talking with accusatory points. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning Southern death cult and co etc as "pioneers" is original research and is an opinion of an ordinary user. Wikipedia is not a platform for personal opinions. Users into original views should use blogs instead elsewhere Woovee (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

When did I call them pioneers in the lead? I'm just relaying what's in the body. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

In the body: "Southern Death Cult became icons of the scene". Yet you remove that, you should be the one getting blocked from editing this article at this point. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Also the start of this thread was against extrapolating the phrase "positive punk". I agree with you, but that blip in early goth history is more related to several different scenes one was positive punk, and others were anarcho-punk / peace punk. I've started another thread to discuss this. Now my only problem with your edits is you continuously rephrasing the positive punk section which had been rephrased by User:3family6 but you seem to add in your own biased way of summarizing the scene implying it was some kind of unimportant peripheral term rather than just stating that it was used prior as a precursor to goth. Your phrasing borders on WP:originalresearch. The only source you have for saying it was an unimportant label by the press is 1 by Simon Reynolds. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Aesthetic variants like cybergoth and mallgoth don't need to be in the lead for this article about gothic rock. For the article about Goth subculture, they should be in the lead.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 11:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Aradicus77 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Woovee, I do actually agree with a lot of the points you made. The words I said overtly were all I meant: that the lead should be longer to fit WP:LEAD (this has now been amended); and that your heavy emphasis on a small number of writers and perspectives, and your reluctants of WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE conflicts with WP:OWN. My only intended subtext was to approach the discussion of this with WP:GOODFAITH. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Issan Sumisu

A reply in a discussion has to be productive.

In this diff , the differences between the two different versions are underlined.

The version that I support on the left that I improved with a longer lead and other significant edits for the body of the article - using high quality secondary sources by music historians and the respect of wp:undue. The other version on the right. I have already explained why the right version is problematic in my 3 previous replies.

Users of this talk page are invited to choose which version they find the most relevant.

Users have to keep in mind that it is not just about the lead but also about the content in the body of the article. Woovee (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Even if the Batcave you feel needs less attention in the lead then just trim it? Why remove all mention of it. Someone has now suggested that the Blitz should also get a mention doesnt the way wikipedia work that you suggest edits and then try to incorporate it into an article? What you are doing is removing every new edit and just deciciding that doesn’t matter. Aradicus77 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Woovee: my point was productive, it was about an expansion of the lead, which was one the points you made in the original post. And that expansion has now been made. Please stop twisting my words, you have already done this twice in this thread, it conflicts with WP:NOTHERE: editing is not a battleground. Issan Sumisu (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously Reddit cannot be sourced but through researching the early history of goth I've found a lot of connections between the anarcho punk scene at the time and the gothic rock genre: https://www.reddit.com/r/goth/comments/hwhfd7/exploring_musical_intersections_of_anarchopunk/

I added a source last month that extrapolated on that but it was removed by User:Woovee. This thread mentions the 70s and 80s zine "Kill Yr Pet Puppy" as connecting both the anarcho punk and gothic rock scene at the time and I'm wondering if finding some good primary sources in that original 70s zine would be allowed on the article. It seems the early years of goth which involved UK peace punk, anarcho-punk and positive punk haven't really been extrapolated by music journalists yet. Bands like Rubella Ballet, the Mob, Southern Death Cult and sometimes even Bauhaus were considered anarcho-punk.

Here is one source I just found: https://intellectdiscover.com/content/journals/10.1386/punk_00085_1

And here's the old source: https://sun-13.com/2020/07/28/in-defence-of-goth/

And a Mob source: https://louderthanwar.com/the-mob-and-the-return-of-all-the-madmen-as-a-co-operative-label/

Another source: https://killyourpetpuppy.co.uk/news/alone-in-a-darkened-room-with-bauhaus-an-essay-by-al-puppy/ "although Kill Your Pet Puppy was part of the ‘anarcho-punk’ scene 79 / 84 we featured as many ‘goth’ groups like Bauhaus and Southern Death Cult as anarcho ones…" By the writer of the original zine.

I'll search through the old zine and some goth books to see if there can be better sources for the connection found, since it seems to be a big part of early goth music. This source also mentions that https://sun-13.com/2020/07/28/in-defence-of-goth/ goth originally emerged through positive punk but as a very colorful style in opposition to the all black outfits of anarcho-punk, only to then return to that style at the arrival and influence of the Sisters of Mercy. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I've been looking into this recently, the most extensive coverage of it I can find is that original Richard North article. Then also John Robb's book The Art of Darkness covers this a few times, around page 261–263 (somewhat expanding on what's in that North article) and then again around 381 (Ian Astbury's links to the anarcho scene) and 491 (Bone Orchard's anarcho links), though they're not hugely extensive. This post-punk.com source (not sure of the reliability of this site) briefly discusses how Corpus Christi Records (a Crass Records imprint) put out goth like UK Decay and The Very Things and through that links Rudimentary Peni and Part 1 to positive punk and deathrock. However, I think discussing this on Wiki based on that post-punk.com article would be a bit out of the range of what the source actually says, since its mostly in passing. Issan Sumisu (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

OK. I've noticed that User:3family6's revision of the positive punk section seemed to have the right middle-ground in neutral point of view as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_rock&diff=prev&oldid=1315656976

I added the John Peel quote from User:Woovee's version.

Now this thread is about Woovee's constant reverting of the lead.

Woovee has not explained the following edits:

1) Why remove the mention of Flesh for Lulu, Play Dead, Gene Loves Jezebel, Blood and Roses, and Ausgang from the lead when they are sourced in the body as early goth groups

2) Why remove mention of Christian Death and 45 Grave pioneering deathrock in the United States when that is also mentioned in the body Aradicus77 (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Christian Death and 45 Grave are now included in the lead-- 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

What's the explanation for removal of Flesh for Lulu, Play Dead, Gene Loves Jezebel, Blood and Roses, and Ausgang Aradicus77 (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Also what's the explanation for removing the image when the rule on Wikipedia is that if an image is notable enough to represent a genre it should be used as seen at Rhythm and blues. Is it that crazy to call Robert Smith the face of goth rock? Aradicus77 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Woovee Aradicus77 (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Your edit summaries are incredibly misleading! "Aradicus77 is in the minority with 2 edits in a row from 2 different users and yet Aradicus77 is still pushing for the control of the article. Constant wp:Edit warring and wp:OWN"

When user Bruce was just fixing a linking error and not even regarding your edits. And you have been the one being accused of WP:OWN by 2 users in a previous talk page thread and now trying to spin it back on me, when I have incorporated a lot of your additions. I do not understand why your language is so hostile, yet I'm the one being regarded as if I'm being hostile and closeminded with improving this article. Edit-warring is also in reference to straight reverts. I haven't reverted you until right now, before I kept all your edits! You are the one starting an edit war by manual reverting and not even citing per any MOS rule why you are removing crucial information. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed per WP:LEADIMAGE that lead images aren't necessary if it's contentious what should represent the page. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yet you had done a wp:OWN editing by reverting one edit by @Valboo and one edit by user Woovee about this image. This proves that you kind of consider only you can decide about what can be put in and put out in the article. Woovee (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what WP:OWN is, Woovee. Aradicus77, I would advise that you discuss major changes first before just implementing them. I think you and I have a similarly WP:BOLD approach, but given the problems and disputes your approach has caused in this particular topic area, I strongly recommend discussing first.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm blocked so obviously I can't do that at the moment. I have no other things to really add, but most articles I edit I use that approach which you have said you use too, it's Woovee being pedantic and challenging every little thing as you've seen at glam rock. I'm not opposed to people challenging new edits, but constant reverting and removing sourced information makes no sense. Aradicus77 (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This is about this diff

The source - an article by Cathi Unsworth written in 1989- was reprinted on the Guardian website in 2015. The slogan "we are gothique punks" proclaimed by UK Decay singer in interview in 1981, has been moved to expand the previous short sentence which briefly cites UK Decay. This move and rewording have been made as journalist Cathi Unsworth has since 1989 published a in depth book about goth subculture (2023) in which she still mentions the UK Decay slogan / manufesto but she doesn't make the same attribution in 2023, toning it down - as she has since found out a lot of other quotes in the press archives. Woovee (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit summary from a different user "The source explicitly says that UK Decay where the first contemporary goth related group to use the term to describe their music" advances quite the same thing but objects to the rewording and prefers it to be mentioned in "Ethymology". Woovee (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)