text:
Talk:Apologetics/Archive 1

I found this article unattributed, but seeming to refute the idea that no empirical proof of the existence of God is possible. I have some background in theoretical physics and I personally found it to be quite convincing but would like to hear the opinions of others. If it is correct it is indeed "the most important and astounding scientific discovery in human history."

Modern Science finds God (Perhaps the most important and astounding scientific discovery in human history.)

There was a time when science seemed to be the enemy of religious belief – that time is no more! Modern physics and cosmology (science of the origin and development of the universe) now provide firm objective evidence of the existence of God, confirm the primary attributes of God, and show how God created the physical existence out of ‘nothingness’. This knowledge comes from a critical analysis of the ‘Big Bang’ theory, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, and work being done in quantum physics. The concepts behind this esoteric scientific knowledge can now be presented in such a way as to be understood by any person with a modern education.

1.	We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out of nothingness (meaning – no time, no space, and no matter). 2.	We also know that the beginning of the creation of the universe took place by light coming into existence at a singularity (a point with no dimension). 3.	We know that the matter of the physical universe was brought into being by photons (little packages of light energy) which, when colliding with each other, formed the virtually infinite number of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in various combinations make up everything in our physical world. 4.	In essence we can now accurately say that all the matter of the physical universe, ourselves included, is actually light slowed down. 5.	We know that the space which contains our physical universe is expanding. This is a concept so alien to human thought that until Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity early in the 20th century it had never occurred to any of the world’s great minds, but was stated in the Qur’an over 1400 years ago when Allah told us, “I am expanding the universe with my power”. Even Einstein was so astounded by his discovery that he falsified his data to show a universe that was not expanding, because he well understood that an expanding universe implies there was somewhere in the distant past a moment of creation for the universe. 6.	Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity (which he actually called his Absolutism Theorem because he realized he had found the one thing in a relative universe that was absolute) is about the special qualities of light. 7.	The Special Theory of Relativity allows us our first objective glimpse into that which exists beyond the material world. 8.	We could have found anything once we got our first glimpse beyond the material world, but what we did find is indeed remarkable. We find Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity showing us that the non-material existence beyond the physical world consists only of absolutes, and some of those absolutes are remarkably similar to what virtually everyone’s religion has considered being the primary attributes of God. 9.	Example One: As the speed of light (300,000km per second) is approached then time slows, and at the speed of light time does not pass. This means for a photon of light which travels at exactly the speed of light, time does not pass. Therefore the photon is outside of time, and ETERNAL. 10.	 Example Two: Since no time passes for a photon of light, and that photon can be observed at different places in space, therefore that photon of light is simultaneously in those different places (and many other places) at the same time, and therefore OMNIPRESENT. 11.	 Example Three: Since every bit of matter in the physical universe is created by the energy of light, and that light energy constantly sustains and directs the activity of every bit on matter in the physical existence, then there is no power other than the power of light, light energy is all the power that exists, and therefore OMNIPOTENT. 12.	 Example Four: Since all knowledge that exists, that ever existed, or will exist, is stored by light energy and transmitted through light energy then there is no knowledge beyond that intrinsic to light, and therefore OMNISCIENT. 13.	 Furthermore, light does not actually exist within the physical existence although we can somehow perceive it. As you approach the speed of light one of the three dimensions (length, height, and width), the dimension in line with the direction of motion, becomes progressively less, and at the speed of light that dimension becomes zero. To determine volume we multiply height times width times length, but if any one of those three dimensions is zero then the volume is zero, and that thing therefore does not exist in the material universe. Light occupies no volume of space and therefore has no existence in the physical universe. 14.	 And, while everything in the physical universe has some mass greater than zero, which is a necessary characteristic for existence in the material world, light has no mass at all. As you approach the speed of light mass increases, at the speed of light mass is infinite. Regardless of how tiny the amount of mass you begin with, that mass rises to infinity at the speed of light. Since photons travel at the speed of light and do not reach infinite mass it means that they had zero mass to begin with, and light therefore does not actually exist in the material world. 15.	 In the physical existence everything is relative, the absolute existence or non-existence of any quality is not and can not be expressed, everything exists between those two extremes of the continuum from absolute expression to absolute non-expression. We find, though, that beyond the material existence all qualities either exist in an infinite state or have no existence at all, there is nothing in between.

The great significance of the above findings is they destroy any possible notion of the physical universe existing as a fixed number of material particles which are moved about by a fixed set of physical laws. It is exactly this incorrect understanding of the physical existence which forms the basis of the scientific philosophy of materialism. It is the philosophy of materialism, particularly secular materialism, which has allowed the belief in God to be so powerfully challenged by unbelievers in these past few hundred years, more or less from the time of Isaac Newton.

It is no longer intellectually possible nor logically reasonable, in light of the finding of modern physics and cosmology, to hold the view of the atheists (that there is no God). The only logically reasonable, and intellectually honest, conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of modern science is that God does exist, that the attributes of God are absolute, and that God did create the physical universe (including human life). We are presently at the beginning of the transition point from a secular materialistic world-view to a spiritual, God-centered world-view.

NOTE: These are only some of the simplified conclusions of a major work in progress, but we felt they are of such great significance that we had an obligation to offer them to the ummah (the human society of Allah’s Creation). The scientific facts behind these interpretations represent a virtual consensus by a number of the world’s leading physicists, including several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists. The interpretations themselves are at the cutting-edge of Islamic theological thought, but have so far been very warmly received by Muslim scholars across the world.

Is this apologetics?
I'm unfamiliar with this writer, but is Zacharias' book a work of apologetics at all? If it is, this is not the aspect of it that is relevant at Apologetics: "Another modern apologist is Ravi Zacharias, scholar of world religions from India, and author of The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha which compares Christianity with world religions and other modern movements."

Does the article need to be made clearer, or just this reference? Or is the new edit just a muddle that can be reverted? --Wetman 20:51, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, Zacharias is a modern apologist. I will therefore reinstated the edit, and will place a link to his organizational web page for your info. He is a very popular speaker at universities (worldwide - because of his extensive knowledge of eastern religions) as an apologist for Christianity. Pollinator 00:45, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooops - I see someone has already taken care of it... 01:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Tactics of Apologia
Ran across Tactics of Apologia in clicking on random articles... that article is in need of major work and could perhaps be merged into Apologetics. -- NYArtsnWords 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal (moved from article)
"This is an inaccurate picture of apologetics. While it captures some of the truth behind the concept, it unnaturally assumes that the individual who engages in the apologetic will omit truth as an attempt to deceive the hearer.  This is not necessarily accurate.  We see every day that individuals in political circles use rhetoric to convey a message or agenda.

''A message can be deceptive but that does not necessarily mean that all messages are untruthful or inaccurate. Above you find the statement, “Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause”. True apologetics is primarily concerned with arriving at the TRUTH and not deceiving the listener or reader.''

''The statement above is actually an example deceptive propaganda rather than apologetics. It uses a type of logic but is lacking context and support of its claim.''

Example:

If some A’s are B’s and all B’s are C’s then all A’s are C’s.

This is a false statement but unfortunately, it is the logic used by the above writer."

(written by ) This seems like an issue with the content rather than content itself. If someone wants to rephrase this to conform with NPOV go ahead. --Daniel Olsen 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics and World War I
The reason I put links, in the apologetics article, that are strange and to do with World War I, in an edit, was because I was making a metaphor and a comparison.

First, I compare all the contradictions and exclusivity between all the religions and their beliefs and claims in the world and the fact that it is difficult to know and find out which religion is the "one true religion" to the stalemate in the trenches, battlefields, and battlefronts of World War I. Second, I compare the fact that many of the arguments made by religions for them to be the one true religion are very weak and easily refuted and that there are more counter-arguments than arguments to the very heavy casualties of World War I. Third, I also compare that and many of the unsuccessful attempts by religions to give arguments for their beliefs (e.g. Intelligent Design) to many of the early unsuccessful attempts of the warring nations to break the stalemate (e.g. Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Passchendaele).

Now let me talk about the comparisons to do with my edits: Fourth, I compare the arguments of the Christians for the existence of a theistic God and Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian countercult movement, Christian missions, and their criticisms and arguments against other religions, pantheism, parapsychology, and the New Age, etc, to the Spring Offensive of World War I, by Germany. I compare the fact that the Christians are (or at least seem to be) pretty successful in their attempts to show that their religion is true and that they are false, right now, to the fact that the Spring Offensive was actually pretty successful, and it achieved great results, at first. I compare the arguments of the Christians to the tactics used by Germany in the Spring Offensive. I compare the fact that, at least now, Christians do (or at least seem to do) have more arguments and apologists for their religion and against others than other religious believers, to the fact that Germany had more troops than the Allies, at first. Fifth, I compare the apologists for other religions and pantheism (e.g. A. L. De Silva, Gunapala Dharmasiri, Red Jacket) to the commanders of the Allied armies (e.g. Ferdinand Foch). I compare organizations for the apologetics of pantheism (e.g. World Pantheist Movement, Universal Pantheist Society) to the United States during World War I. Sixth, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) refute and counter Christianity and its arguments and to defend belief in pantheism to the Second Battle of the Marne. Seventh, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) "fight back" against the Christianity and even challenge, reject, and refute it, to the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Eighth, if they succeed in refuting Christianity and showing their religion or pantheism to be true, then I compare that to the Allied victory in World War I.

The Anonymous One 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Raelians
We do not need an entry for everyone who does not engage in apologetics, and statements like "there are many websites that shun them" that have nothing to do with apologetics. Kungfukats2 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

POV in "Colloquial Usage"
This line "Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning. " seems to be one point of view from opponents of apologetics. Simply saying they "have been characterized" does not seem to undo the weight it lends to the anti-apologetic feel of the segment. If this idea is going to be included it should be followed by a common response of apolotics to this accusation, or it should not be included.

 * The above statement is mine. I thought I would come back here to see if anyone had made a change to the section or commented on what I had to say. I also looked again at the section in the article and reread it. The entire paragraph that makes up the section "Colloquial Usage" would make one think that most people speak of apologetics in a negative manner. I also looked a bit more at the rest of the talk page and found that someone had, at one time, posted a rebuttal to the claims in "Colloquial Usage" making that section 2 or 3 paragraphs and obviously a bit larger. Instead of rewording or cutting down the extra that didn't need to be there, user Daniel Olson simply removed all but the current paragraph leaving it very anti-apologetic POV.  In addition to the entire section having the anti-apologetic feel, it doesn't seem to me to be labeled right.  It seems a bit more like it should be labeled "Criticisms" instead of "Colloquial Usage" since the latter gives one the idea that the word apologetics is most often used in a negative manner. I have never made edits to actual articles, but this one seems simple enough that I may if no one else does soon. Or perhaps getting rid of the whole section as it does not contain any references, though I think having a "Criticisms" section is a good idea. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The quoted segment should be on the wiki page. Regardless of the 'position' that usage represents, being a more colloquial and less historically established usage, it is used in that manner commonly and leaving it out of Wikipedia would leave the information grossly incomplete. It is in fact the very reason i visited this page as dictionary definitions were proving inadequate.

I dont understand the need for a paragraph commenting on how people /should/ use the phrase be it pro or con as that would be unnecessary and POV, but the quoted segment, or some permutation thereof, is necessary to include because its how a notable portion of people /do/ use the term today. This wouldnt be POV as there is no suggestion to the reader as which interpretation they should use, and including the quoted information itself is no more POV than including the etymology of the word. Why there would need to be some extra paragraph condemning that usage of "apologists" is what i dont understand especially when there is no such recommendation of the term either.

"opponents of apologetics" and "anti-apologetic" criticism is irrelevant to the colloquial usage as they have specific correlation with apologetics defined as: "discipline of defending a position (usually religious) through the systematic use of reason." and not the colloquial usage. The usage is not what is in contention as when an apologist is called such, in a colloquial manner, it wouldnt be the usage of the word they would dispute but the accusations it implies. So presenting anti-apologist to mean anti-the-colloquial-usage-of-apologetic is a misrepresentation of the term here. The colloquial usage is not some sort of endorsement but just an alternate, pervasive, and modern definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.171.206 (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Reliable sources for any of these claims? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Mormonism
Why is 'Mormon' a sub-section of Hinduism? To begin with, the correct section title should read "Mormonism" not "Mormon, and it should be a sub-section of Christianity (since Mormonism is "Christian Primiitvism" according to the opening passage of the "Mormonism" article). Or at the very least it's own section, if not a sub-section of Christianity. I would edit it myself, but couldn't figure out how to edit the table of contents. To have it listed under Hinduism is misleading, blatantly inaccurate, and I would expect is a result of outright vandalism, honestly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.44.142 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Obviously a mistake, now corrected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You're arguing between Tolkien and Rowling. It's all bullsh!t and made up, my friend. You can have any figure decide they are part one sect or another. That's how religions work.

-G

Propose to remove text from lead that conflates apologetics and apologist
The term apologetics does not refer to political apologists. The following should be removed from the lead as misleading, the word apologetics is not used in politics as is described, but as the word apologist alone, just as is seen in the sources cited.

''In political usage, apologetics is used in a negative fashion to describe the defence of controversial actions or policies, like terrorism or politically repressive governments.[2][3] '' Comments?

KSci (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed lead change defining the scope of "apologetics" more narrowly in terms of religious concepts.
This change would address a problem where the topic's subject matter is taking two divergent paths "the disciplines of religious apologetics" vs. "defending a non-religious position as an apologist". Note that christian apologetics is a separate topic.

This change would narrow the scope of the definition of "apologetics" to include only religious apologetics to match the religious project category.

"Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, 'speaking in defense') is the theological or religious discipline of defending beliefs and doctrines through the systematic use of information."

KSci (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Propose to modify sentence in the article lead to clarify scope of usage.

 * proposed change modifies this sentence

"In modern usage the term 'apologetics' is largely identified with debates over religion and theology in the USA and is rarely heard in the UK (although the related word 'apologist' is used in British English)." to say this instead. "In modern usage in the USA, the term 'apologetics' is identified with debates over religion and theology. The term is rarely heard in the UK."

KSci (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization of topic
I made some changes already, but I think even greater changes to this entry are needed. Most notably, I think the paragraphs on Tertullian and John Henry Newman need to be moved beneath the Religion header and their appropriate faiths. The purpose of the Religion section seems to be to name notable apologists and their texts as categorized by their religion. Tertullian and John Henry Newman are clearly apologists for specific religions. The Native American Red Jacket's paragraph should also be moved under the religion header, because he is cited for defending his religion.

Then, the section that is presently labeled "Notable apologists" should be relabeled. The preceding headers, "Religion" and "Literature" are definitive types of apologists whereas the remaining apologists are unique and notable for defending something other than religion and literature. Perhaps the new header should be "Other types of apologists" or "Notable apologists of other causes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.198.128 (talk • contribs) 28 November 2014

Most of the above reorganization suggestions were implemented.

KSci (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits and invitation for additional improvements
I've made a number of edits to clean up this article, which was disorganized, repetitive, and often off-topic. I implemented some of the suggestions in earlier talk. This article would benefit greatly from expert review and additions to most all of the non-Christian entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism
Under the section, Roman Catholicism, it is written like an advertisement, and should be remedied or removed. It names no old apologists, only newer ones, and names a CD, and where to buy it.--Craxd (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I removed the reference to the CD and where to buy it, as suggested.

KSci (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Evolved meaning
The meaning of the word "apologist" has evolved to often mean "unconditionally defending a [predetermined] position with no regard for reasoning or logical consistency, evidence or empirics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The article placement in Wikipedia indicated the intention that this should be an article about religious apologetics. I "un-evolved" it to remove the extraneous and non-religious material described, as you suggested.

KSci (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Social movements and apologetics
A form of apologetics that is not considered is that associated with social construction, especially around gender. There is a considerable volume of Feminist apologia and a somewhat smaller volume of masculinist stuff. While this is conventionally regarded as "advocacy" much of it is quite obviously an apologetic and thus deserves to have a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.84.253 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this subject matter would be within the scope of the articles purpose, which seems to have been to include only the topic of religious apologetics.

KSci (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Consistency of the presumed topic of the article
The title of this article is "Apologetics" but most of its sections—most egregiously, the lead section—are written as though the topic were "Apologist". Can we talk about either changing the title to "Apologist" or rewriting the text so that it is predominately about apologetics rather than apologists? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel like this article isn't biased enough. You can't defend a faith using reason because it is precisely that. A faith. Faith is believing in something even though there is no evidence for it and you have no reason to believe it. In short, religious apologetics need to be ridiculed for their wasted effort trying to convince rational thinking people that their batshit insane religion is legitimate.

DISCUSS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.127.202 (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with this assessment and modified the lead to narrow the focus to religion and clarify what appears to be the original intended topic of religious apologetics.

KSci (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Plato
The Plato section doesn't mention how he's an apologist. --Arperry 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true, and I agreed, but modified to remove a duplicate references to Plato and what appeared to be excessive detail digressing on the Plato topic.

KSci (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Apologetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821133320/http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html to http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718093548/http://www.catholiceducation.org:80/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Page Deletion
@Mark viking - Thank you for giving your attention to the apologetics page. I see that you are a veteran editor, so I could use some advice on how this page might be revived/improved. I've worked on this a few evenings, but didn't see how it should be cultivated for more appeal. If you are willing to discuss the options for doing this, I'd be greatly appreciative.

KSci KSci (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Deletion was not a consensus opinion. Proposal withdrawn   K Sci    (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi KSci, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I think you have done good work on improving the article. I removed the proposed deletion because the problems you described--how to create a neutral article, what is due weight for the different aspects of apologetics, some editing conflicts--are all matters of editing, not deletion. Deletion is for when a subject is not notable or has no reliable sourcing, or that the article is so bad, that it is harmful or unreadable. None of those seemed to be the case here, so deletion seemed controversial to me. Of course, I have no authority and if you think the article is truly hopeless, you could bring it up for discussion at Articles for Deletion.
 * As for improving the article...as a lay reader with no particular expertise, it strikes me as a broad concept sort of article, where the idea of apologetics is present in many religions, but may be treated differently in each. Broad concept articles are fine; a typical structure is a set of sections, each section being a summary of a main article, or if there is no main article, with citations of its own. The article is already partly of this structure. What this article may usefully discuss beyond a list of summaries, is some sense of comparative apologetics--what is similar and what is different among different religions? For this, the article would need sources that compared apologetics in different religions, in order to avoid synthesis on our part. Are there any sources out there that discuss comparative apologetics? --Mark viking (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I too am even slower in giving you a response. There's no hurry here, so that's not a problem.
 * I listed the page for deletion to see if there was any interest at all in keeping it. You qualify!
 * Ironically I listed the article for deletion after I spent quite a bit of time cleaning up a vandalism mess by some people with more than a little anti-religious POV. The vandalism was, it seemed, unopposed by any actual religious apologetics editors. The template at the top of the page says this article is of high importance, but it appeared to me that the article was abandoned.
 * I was not sure I wanted to "sign up", if you will, to keep an eye on this article so it wouldn't get trashed again. I have since decided that I will keep an eye on this article and perhaps add to it here and there. I know Christian and atheist apologetics pretty well, and I know a decent amount of Islamic apologetics (there is overlap). I also know some deist apologetics, but deism is more a category than a specific religion.
 * I'm taking your advice with the hope that as the article improves editors with the requisite knowledge will come forward.

 * Thanks for responding, Mark, and for taking the time to offer suggestions.

 *   K Sci    (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apologetics/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Dark wave

Hlo sir — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:A411:5099:8CE3:73D5:24DC:AA9D (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and out of date
I edited this page a few years ago and gave up because of ridiculous edit wars. The page has since been ridiculously vandalised - the whole section on Tess Records and the return of Clan of Xymox is gone (but there's still a picture of Faith & the Muse with no mentions in the text). The section on Crüxshadows, one of the most successful darkwave-based bands (admittedly they added a lot of futurepop over the years), has also been removed.

And there's nothing on the new generation of darkwave - Linea Asperea, Boy Harsher, Cold Cave, Soft Moon, Selofan, She Past Away, Lebanon Hanover....

goth subculture and Darkwave culture
I removed "In many countries, the Dark Wave movement also included the early Goth subculture (trad goth). " because: Xr 1 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Darkwave is a music movement and it just can't contain anything but music genres.And as far as I know goths are people.
 * 2.Darkwave is a part of the goth scene but it's completely wrong to say that goth scene is or was included in the darkwave movement.I mean neither EBM and dark ambient nor deathrock and positive punk are from the darkwave genres.

 * Absolute nonsense. Dark Wave is a musical movement with Dark Wave listeners. The listeners are called Wavers. And this is a culture.
 * "Darkwave is a part of the goth scene". Absolutely POV and historically incorrect. --Ada Kataki (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it? So why all goths listen to it?? Also the Wavers, you mentioned, listen to the Darkwave music and are not part from it. Music may have its own but could not contain subculture. Also - I have added sources.Stop removing sourced information! Xr 1 (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Listen to what? Neoclassical? Ethereal? Electrowave? Gothic rock? New German Death Art? Not every Goth listen to these genres. Furthermore the musical preferences of a Goth are not relevant. Do you think, if a Goth listen to Jazz, Jazz music becomes a Gothic genre?. --Ada Kataki (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, not every goth listens to them but if most goths listen to them and they are connected somewhat to goth rock, they will become part of the goth scene.And darkwave is one of the first movements/genres to be in this scene! Also Etherial, Electrowave, Neoclassical are forms of darkwave! 88.87.6.55 (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * POV, POV, POV. And historically incorrect. --Ada Kataki (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and how you can prove it's historically incorrect?! Xr 1 (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It's absolutly simple: Im older than you. You're only a teenie. You'd never seen the 80s. --Ada Kataki (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Some people love Bauhaus and can't stand the Sisters, that's all a matter of personal preference. Then there's people who lean more heavily towards darkwave, or ethereal, or ebm or industrial or deathrock." this clearly shows that darkwave is a part of the goth scene. Xr 1 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Concerning the main issue. First of all:@ ADA ATAKI and Xr: stop this childish edit war!
 * I believe the problem of this dispute lies in the fact there's a misunderstanding in the fact the DW term may have different senses according periods.
 * While many people generally tend to use the DW term as distinct from music like gothic rock today (since 90s), it seems like this term may also be used as an even larger umbrella term including gothic rock. Hence maybe the reason of your disagreement. Just an hypothesis. Trying to find a solution to this stupid edit war. But there's another lattent confusion: people confuse gothic subculture with gothic rock. In a certain sense, notion of darkwave may include gothic rock, but it doesn't mean it includes gothic culture. On the contrary gothic culture includes DW.

 * Frankely speaking, I never heard of a darkwave culture ( furthermore as a distinct culture from gothic CULTURE.)
 * I've been into gothic music for over 20 years and I never heard or read anything like Darkwave being an autonomous culture per se (that would include Gothic subculture!) DARKWAVE IS a MUSIC not a CULTURE. But I may be mistaken. Provide reliable and verifiable sources and I'm ready to change my mind.

 * If you're so sure of this Ada Ataki, then describe wavers distinct fashion, their distinct imagery, their distinct litterature, their distinct ideology,etc... And above everything PROVIDE SOURCES, AND NOTHING ELSE BUT SOURCES. I don't wanna hear of your usual personal essays. I wanna hear of Verifiable sources.
 * And futile and arrogant arguments like this " Im older than you. You're only a teenie. blabla." are irrelevant here, you may impress kids with such absurd arguments in ordinary life, but this won't help you here in wikipedia. First, noone can verify your alleged age. Second because you're older and have experience doesn't prove you're not mistaken. 3rd, your age doesn't prove anything with respect to Wikipedia's policy anyway. The fact you may be older than him doesn't prove anything. Forget it, you're not into a dick contest, you're in an encyclopedia. Get over it. Claiming you know better than others just because you say so isn't sufficient to legitimate your claims.  Provide sources instead. And once again refrain from making personal attacks and being uncivil. There are many articles where you've been uncivil, engaged into edit wars and making personal attacks and insults. Keep that way and all you'll get is being blocked. No matter you are right or wrong, I'm really tired to see you attack, belitle everybody who disagrees with you. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * If you don't mind, I would like to inject my opinion; and it is my opinion only. I don't want to get involved in this battle, just provide an input. I'm interested in this discussion, and think it will help to clear up some things I'm also wondering about. I'm 58 years old. I am absolutely NOT a Goth, never have been and never will be. (I know what Goths are, btw; there are several here where I work.) I love neoclassical dark wave. I listen to it all the time; that and classical. In my opinion, neoclassical darkwave has absolutely nothing -- nothing -- NADA to do with the Goth subculture. And to make the blanket assumption that everyone who listens to darkwave is a Goth is just pure nonsense. Gothic rock is a specific genre. Goths as a rule listen to Gothic rock. Goths may listen to darkwave, but that does not mean that darkwave is or has ever been part of the Gothic subculture or Goth movement. People like me resent being linked with Goths. Both types of music share similar temperaments, but darkwave refers to 'music that is more introspective, moody, emotional, and artistic -- less rock and roll oriented.'  Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I disagree with you DG, sure I can understand people who don't consider themselves as goths but like neoclassical DW, wish DW was not associated with gothic culture. But no matter non goth people listen to it, culturally speaking DW IS basically connected with Gothic culture. While goths may listen to music like Industrial, dark folk, EBM, which are not primarly associated with gothic culture, this is not the case of DW. No, darkwave is culturally associated with the goth culture. I got a book which confirms this (Carnets Noirs, this book deals with the different tendencies of gothic music). Genres directly associated with gothic culture include Gothic rock, Death rock, gothabilly, Darkwave, Coldwave, most notably.
 * Oh btw if you pay more attention to your source, you'll notice this phrase:
 * "A fairly new term that refers to a branch of gothic music that is more introspective, moody, emotional, and artistic -- less rock and roll oriented."

 * Oh and don't misunderstand me, of course DW and neoclassical are different from gothic rock. I completely agree. But when making such a reasoning you're making an amalgam between music aesthetic and cultural considerations. Culture is not music aesthetic itself. Several styles may be different and belong to a same SUBCULTURE. It doesn't need to be aesthetically similar.On a side note the term DW is an umbrella term which includes very different stylistic tendencies, including tendencies very close to gothic rock. So don't let yourself be misguided by what you know of Neoclassical DW.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Frédérick, I certainly don't know the history of gothic music, nor how dark wave originated. It is very likely that it did originate within the matrix of gothic music. Having read about gothic rock from Piero Scaruffi's website (whatever you may thing of him), I find the origin of DW confusing at best. While DW may have originated within the matrix of Gothic music, it has also certainly gone its own way, and left much of the Gothic sub-culture behind. In short, it has become more artistic, less rock-oriented, more introspective. Lastly, it certainly would be great to be able to engage in a constructive discussion on this topic without having to engage in flame wars; not that I'm accusing you of starting any; just making an observation. Thanks for your input. I hope to hear from you again. Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 * As I already said I completely agree with you: DW, ethereal wave and neoclassical have certainly gone their own way aesthetically speaking (musically speaking if you prefer). There's no question they are different in terms of musical aesthetic and expressivity . But that's beside the point . No offense, but currently you're still making the same amalgam I was mentioning earlier: you apparently identify gothic rock (a music style) with gothic (a culture including fashion, literature, visual art, attitude, social comportement, and several different types of music, etc... ). Gothic culture CANNOT be reduced to gothic rock. It is generally admitted that gothic culture is associated with several other genres including post-punk, deathrock, coldwave, gothabilly, darkwave and even ethereal wave and neoclassical (as being subgenres of Darkwave). These music are generally regarded as gothic no matter they are obviously different. DW doesn't belong to gothic rock music, yes! On the other hand DW is indeniably associated with gothic CULTURE and world. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Frédérick, if you read the first few sentences of the darkwave article, it refers to DW as a movement. So, according to the WP article, DW is a movement, not a genre. Therefore it is not the same as the gothic movement, unless you consider DW to be a sub-movement within the larger gothic movement. This is confusing at best. I'm not sure how you would describe the DW movement apart from the music itself. Thanks for giving me your time. Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Dear Daniel, here again I agree with you, Darkwave IS indeed a movement. Who said I disagree? But there’s actually a misunderstanding going on here. You apparently confuse movement with subculture. Yes, darkwave is a movement but this is a MUSICAL movement not a cultural movement like gothic subculture. And I agree DW is not a genre. As already said by me, Darkwave is a large umbrella term refering to DIVERSE types of music. So I'm perfectly aware this is not really a genre per se, if by “genre” we expect to have common musical traits. As Darkwave covers too many various types of music to be considered as a unified genre. No one denies this here. But no matter DW encompasses various aesthetics, the term Darkwave refers exclusively to MUSIC not to other cultural aspects. So when we're talking of Darkwave we are talking of several different musical approaches, yes, but nothing else but music. Hence my unformal (and apparently misguiding) use of the term "genre" applied to Darkwave, even though I agree it is notreally a genre per se.

 * But one thing is sure this ensemble of music are directly connected with gothic culture .As explained in the referential book of gothic music Carnets Noirs, in the large article dedicated to Darkwave, Darkwave is a vast movement of gothic music revival in the early 90s coming from Germany when early goth rock was in a phase of stagnation ( Carnets Noirs, "Darkwave" p.167-185) If you need quotes just ask. It is said that Darkwave is a way to make new with old through diverse types blending. The movement includes bands directly inspired by gothic rock, as well as some other bands blending goth, indus and electro, some other applying a darker touch to  electronic ( Carnets Noirs, "Darkwave" p.167), some exploring blending with classical or medieval music, etc…( Carnets Noirs, "Darkwave" p.168. )
 * Yes Dw is a musical movement, no question about this! but I doubt there’s a distinct and specific culture of darkwave, I mean distinct from gothic culture. But If you guys think I’m mistaken. Then provide sources describing a typical culture of Darkwave including wavers distinct fashion, their distinct imagery, their distinct literature, their cinematographic references, their distinct ideology, their distinct imagery, their distinct social comportment, etc... just like gothic subculture has its own characteristic on these points.

 * Seriously, the culture associated with this Darkwave is just gothic culture as far as I know. Keep in mind not to confuse music with culture. Gothic rock is not synonymous to gothic subculture. Gothic subculture emerged from gothic rock, but gothic culture is not the same thing as gothic rock.  Gothic culture includes other musical styles beside gothic rock And
 * Gothic culture includes darkwave even though Darkwave,as a large musical movement, may encompass (according to certain views) some more gothic oriented rock bands.

 * As already said gothic culture can’t be reduced to gothic rock. Yes gothic rock is the core of this culture, but gothic culture also included diverse other types of music including the musical movement named Darkwave, post-punk, coldwave, deathrock and so on.

 * There are countless sources which confirm that. Darkwave IS part of gothic culture. Even the source you used in your posts confirms this: Darkwave is “A fairly new term that refers to a branch of gothic music that is more introspective, moody, emotional… and so on”

 * Gothic culture CANNOT be reduced to gothic rock. Absolutely Bullshit. Read Dave Thompsons book. The first Goths were Bauhaus and Siouxsie freaks in black clothes, fishnet, pikes etc. They're Goth rockers. If they're no Goth rockers, then they're Dark Wavers or nothing. Remember, in your country, Dark Wavers were called "corbeaux", not Goths.

 * Moreover is Dark Wave not a music style. There are synths, there are guitars, there are flutes and violins. Is Psyche a dark wave group? Or Joy Division? The Sisters of Mercy? Where is the stylistic connection? They all were post-punk-/wave groups. That's the only connection. --Ada Kataki (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Ada kataki,
 * I can see you’re still very familiar with rules of civility and edit wars in wikipedia. Aren’t you? Anyway just a tip: when you want to reply arrogantly to a post make sure to read it carefully first. Because for the moment you mostly missed the point.

 * "The first Goths were Bauhaus and Siouxsie freaks in black clothes, fishnet, pikes etc."
 * I completely agree:
 * Who said the contrary? Not me. So what’s that got to do with anything?
 * Who denied goth rockers were at the origin of gothic culture? Not me

 * I said gothic culture cannot be reduced to gothic rock, because other music like post-punk, deathrock, gothabilly, coldwave also belong to gothic culture. So your comments are completely beside the point. Of course gothic rock is at the origin of the goth culture.

 * And yes, indeed in my country people who recognize themselves as part of the gothic culture may be called “corbeaux” occasionally, but most frequently they’re just called Goths or gothics. Indeed “Corbeau” is used just as a synonymous to "Goths". Why you think you can apply such a fictive distinction between Corbeau and goth in France. Too bad! I’m very well placed to know you’re mistaken. Sorry but such a distinction doesn’t exist here in France. Words like Gothics, Goths, corbeaux, and even your national “Gruftie” in France are all synonymous.  So you don’t prove anything by arguing this.  Call it bullshit, if you will. This doesn’t change anything.

 * Moreover Dark Wave is not a music style. There are synths, there are guitars, there are flutes and violins.

 * I agree. But here again that’s beside the point.DW isn’t indeed a genre, it’s a musical movement. But because it is not a genre but a large musical movement doesn’t mean it is a distinct culture from gothic.

 * I've been into gothic music for over 20 years and I never heard or read anything like Darkwave being an autonomous culture per se (that would include Gothic subculture!) DARKWAVE IS a MUSIC not a CULTURE. But I may be mistaken. Provide reliable and verifiable sources and I'm ready to change my mind.
 * If you're so sure of this Ada Ataki, then describe wavers distinct fashion, their distinct imagery, their distinct litterature, their distinct ideology,etc... And above everything PROVIDE SOURCES, AND NOTHING ELSE BUT SOURCES. I don't wanna hear of your usual personal essays. I wanna hear of Verifiable sources.

 * "Is Psyche a dark wave group? Or Joy Division? The Sisters of Mercy? Where is the stylistic connection?"

 * What that got to do with anything? Did I say they were supposed to have a stylistic connection? No I didn’t.

 * As for your little edit war, you keep on going and you still keep on deleting sourced material?Fine, You've been blocked for 24 hours yesterday for that, but apparently you want some more. Fine, keep on being uncivil and engaging into edit wars like this, you're going to get what you want soon.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Goth subculture and Darkwave culture discussion (part II)

 * But I may be mistaken. Provide reliable and verifiable sources and I'm ready to change my mind.
 * I only have German sources. In Germany the culture was called Dark Wave Culture or Dark Wave Scene, not Goth. Goth was only a part from the Dark Wave movement. It's the same thing like New Wave and the New Romantic culture. New Romantics were a part of the New Wave movement. You cannot divide both cultures, because it was a cultural coexistence with many overlaps. It's like Sinti and Roma (Sinti are a subgroup of Roma people). --Ada Kataki (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Ada kataki, I agree New Romantics is a part of new wave. Your comparison is interesting but comparison doesn't prove anything. Because New Romantics is part of new wave movement doesn't necessarilly prove gothic culure is part of Darkwave.
 * Such a reasoning just doesn't prove anything. Please no personal essays, no comparison, no metaphors, JUST SOURCES.
 * In Germany the culture was called Dark Wave Culture or Dark Wave Scene, not Goth.

 * No offense, but once again you seem to confuse "culture" with "music". "Culture" is a term refering to a sociological movement whereas "Scene" refers to a MUSICAL movement exclusively. So "darkwave culture" and "Darkwave scene", in their strict sense, are not synonymous. Yeah sure music is one of the possible aspects of a culture, but it doesn't mean culture is synonymous to music. Culture includes music, but also lifestyle, values, symbols,literature, conventions, fashion, imagery, ideology, cinematographic references, and so on... whereas the term "scene" only includes musical aspects of a  movement.
 * For my part I completely agree there's a Darkwave scene, but I totally disagree there's a darkwave subculture, just like there's a gothic subculture.
 * Provide sources even in German. It doesn't matter. Rules of wikipedia allow sources in non-english languages especially when they concern cultural aspects from that country. I read German, so give scans (just like you did on My Dying Bride issue or Ethereal Wave's one) that would be perfect. A quote where it reads something like "Darkwave ist eine Subkultur" as well as something like "Gothic ist Teil der Darkwave-Kultur".

 * So if you can provide explicit sources like this, at least we could specify "in Germany, Darkwave is considered as a culture encompassing gothic culture. But this is not the case in France and apparently in other english speaking cultures, Darkwave is considered as a music scene only, not as a culture. I have already provided sources supporting this:  Darkwave is considered as a musical movement within the gothic subculture. But perhaps it's different in Germany.

 * Just an idea here: historically we seem to have had Goth or Goth-like subcultures emerging in many places at once. You have the UK Goth scene which was different from the US' scene, and from the sound of it the origins & musical styles of the German & French scenes appear to be different still. Heck, the scene in the north of England in the early 80s was hugely different from the scene in London. Germans who we in the UK would recognise as Goth may well have started off by calling themselves Dark wave, since in Germany art & musical movements are often termed "Irgendwas-Welle". If you put yourself in the Germans' place, as a young German Darkwave fan you're bound to look at the UK scene & think "Ha, they're doing our thing! They're a type of Darkwave!", while in the UK we'd be "Ha! They're doing *our* thing! They're a type of Goth!". As I see it you have 2 independent scenes with a massive overlap. Skiamakhos (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Don't misunderstand me though, as my source notes, I completely agree that Darkwave (in terms OF MUSIC) may encompass styles like goth rock, electro, cold-wave and so on... But in terms of CULTURE per se, gothic  subculture encompasses darkwave music. As my source notes, Darkwave is a musical revival of gothic MUSIC. If you need scans, I provide them. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 * In my experience, Goths typically listen to Gothic Rock, Ethereal, Darkwave and Deathrock. To use the word "Goth" in description of music one assumes you are referring to the kind of music that a Goth will typically listen to. In which case this does not only apply to Gothic Rock but Ethereal, Darkwave and Deathrock as well. I would argue that this would not apply to Industrial as many shun that genre and EBM as well. Many I know despise metal so that's right out. But to claim that Darkwave has nothing to do with Goth is just plain foolish and ill-informed.Very Old School Goth (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The first usage of the term?
In the article, it says "The first usage of the term appears to have been in the 1980s". The quote is incorrect and "appears " should not be used as is an unencyclopedic word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalied04 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Why do you think it's incorrect? I own a handful of music magazines from the 80s, and in 1988 there is a mention of Dark Wave in connection with Joy Division. --Ada Kataki (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dark wave is a music genre
I've changed the lead paragraph to specify that dark wave is a music genre. I'm concerned that some people might consider this controversial, as it was previously described as an umbrella term and as a "movement". The trouble is that Wikipedia doesn't recognize a "movement". While dark wave is very broad, it is still essentially a music genre. Punk rock, for example, is equally broad and has an equally diverse number of derivatives, but is still described as a music genre. Aryder779 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't agree with you. Dark wave isn't a music genre. It's an umbrella term that describes different post-punk genres with dark tunes and themes. A music genre is Gothic rock, Ethereal or Neoclassical. --Chontamenti (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with both of you. Well, actually I agree with Chontamenti for most part of it: I agree Dark wave isn't a music genre, but an umbrella term including several different genres. I agree it includes Ethereal wave and Neoclassical music. But on the other hand I disagree Gothic rock is part of Dark wave. According to my source ("Darkwave" in the gothic book Carnets noirs),Dark wave is described as more recent movement than gothic rock. It is described as a large musical movement that emerged when original gothic rock seemed to be a bit exhausted in the end of the 80s. DW gave a new breath to gothic music in the 90s. DW approach is very diverse, it includes different kind of music that blends gothic rock/post punk inflections with differents other genres (Electronic, indus, ethereal, classical). But there's no stylistic unity that characterizes the genre. It's way too diverse to consider it as a unified genre per se.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember it as a genre. It is basically New wave with a dark sound. The original true gothic music was actually punk and not post-punk. Groups coming out during the post-punk era with the gothic theme were called dark wave. RottingSouls (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

 * My problem with Carnets noirs: The autor thinks that Dark Wave and Neue Deutsche Todeskunst would be one and the same thing. But the NDT is only a German-language genre within the Dark Wave movement, started by bands such as Das Ich, Goethes Erben, Relatives Menschsein and early Lacrimosa. In Germany, Gothic rock was a part of the Dark Wave movement. A British Gothic rock collection also agrees with me. --Chontamenti (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Btw: Maybe Gothic Rock, Ethereal Wave, Neo-classical, Cold Wave, Electro Wave & Neue Deutsche Todeskunst show different stylistic characteristics. But the origin of all the genres is the Post-punk movement and the Do it Yourself philosophy of the late 70s/the early 80s (Don't forget: Neo-classical artists such as Dead Can Dance and In the Nursery were formed as simple Post-punk bands). --Chontamenti (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

,> Electro Wave (Anne Clark, Pink Industry, Psyche) |                         |                          |                          +> Gothic Rock aka Gothic Wave   (Bauhaus, Siouxsie & The Banshees, Cure) |              |                          |               |                          |               | Punk --> Post-Punk            `---> Ethereal Wave (Cocteau Twins, Love Spirals Downwards, Lycia) -- |                                                                      |                          |                                                                       |                          |                                                                       |                          +> Neo-classical (Dead Can Dance, In the Nursery, Love is Colder Than Death) <--- |                         |                          |                          +> Cold Wave (Clair Obscur, Norma Loy, Leitmotiv) regional movement in france |                         |                          |                          +> Dark Cabaret (Sex Gang Children, The Vyllies, Rozz Williams) |                         |                          |                          `> Neue Deutsche Todeskunst (Das Ich, Goethes Erben, Relatives Menschsein)                                                                         ''regional movement in germany with influences of gothic rock, post-industrial, neo-classical and electro wave''

If you can't do that, then I will have to seek administrative help.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also just as an aside, Wikipedia is not the end-all be-all of information about microgenres like this, nor is it supposed to be a guidebook for musical artists (WP:NOTGUIDE). Most of this article is just a big series of "some dark wave groups include X Y Z, other dark wave groups include A B C". Anyone can Google "dark wave bands" and get the same recommendations on countless other sites.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 * "Because all of the citations are German-language books, it's virtually impossible for myself to verify whether any of these claims are actually supported by the sources."

 * I'm afraid YOU are not Wikipedia. If you want to know what's written there you have to learn German. Or ask some users with a German background. These sources are reliable. That's what you have to accept. The language doesn't change anything.

 * "Wikipedia is not the end-all be-all of information about microgenres like this..."

 * You mean microgenres like chillwave, chamber pop, baroque pop, avant-pop and others? These articles don't include many book sources. And some of them don't include a single one. They are even less reliable than the sources of the dark wave article.

 * "it's not clear why so many of these artists have to be listed"

 * Your arguments don't make sense. You call dark wave a "micro genre" but on the other hand you criticize the "big" amount of bands in this article (and it's not really that big, because in fact there are thousands of dark wave bands worldwide).

 * "From what I can tell in the article, there is synthesis - things like "cold wave" and "gothic rock" are stated to be subgenres of dark wave when nothing of the sort is suggested in the article body."

 * Since the 80s, goth and cold wave bands (like Clair Obscur) have been described as dark wave. What's your logical understanding? The books support this fact, especially "Handbook Popculture".

 * "Another suspicious example: does the 11th citation state "dark wave was coined in the eighties," or is it just a 1980s-published review of "Love Will Tear Us Apart" that calls it "dark wave"? If it's the latter, then that absolutely does constitute original research."

 * That's some kind of common knowledge. It's well known that the term was coined in the early/mid-80s. Three sources (!!!) prove the use of the term in German and Swiss magazines, including Germany's most popular music magazine SPEX (you can compare it to Sounds, SPIN, Option and others). And there are many more. In this case, primary sources prove that the term is not just a stupid neologism. And that's important, especially for users who spread their own ridiculous POV ("The term was originally used in obscure European circles" - yeah, sure, dark wave is a religious, occult sect) or feel the urge to destroy other people's work. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 * (Only gonna respond to two of those points)
 * re: "some kind fo common knowledge..." read WP:CK, if you haven't/can't cite a source that pinpoints when exactly the term was coined, then the article should not be presenting a case for what might be one of the earliest uses of the term.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * re: Your arguments don't make sense ... it's not really that big, because in fact there are thousands of dark wave bands worldwide that's exactly the problem, if you're going to arbitrarily fill the article with random bands without presenting significantly qualifying information, then this is not really an encyclopedic article, but more like your personal research paper. see WP:CHERRYPICK and WP:NOTGUIDE. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 * This article doesn't have to explain everything. For details you have to read the articles of the subbranches, e.g. cold wave. And stop removing valid sources that support the use of the term in the '80s. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 * Seems like you're agreeing with me here? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 * With what? Throwing templates around and removing sourced content? No. Surely not. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 * We agree that "the article doesn't have to explain everything." As in, it doesn't need to rattle off dozens of random bands. I wouldn't have to apply templates if you simply addressed this issue. The reason I had to nuke the article originally was because I had no way of verifying whether you were using Wikipedia as your personal dark wave recommendations blog. I still have a hard time verifying many of the claims because of the way you cherry picked your favorite bands into the article. For example: "The movement spread internationally, developing such strands as French cold wave" - does Mercer 1980 state this, or does SPEX? I'm guessing it's Mercer, but it'd be nice to double check first.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 * "The reason I had to nuke the article originally was because I had no way of verifying..."
 * Nobody really cares about your problem concerning verification. Again, YOU ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA. If you want to know what's written in these books and magazines, you have to BUY THEM. Or go to a library. If you can't read German texts, ask someone who translates the sources.

 * Please, what? The dark wave article doesn't have to explain what the term post-punk means. The article post-punk already exists. And there you'll find a definition. New Wave and post-punk are the foundations. That's what the lead says. Short and straight to the point.

 * Furthermore, the citation by Isabella van Elferen supports the fact that dark wave is a term from the '80s. Your manipulation of the article content is what i call vandalism. If you continue, i'll report you to an admin.

 * "For example: "The movement spread internationally, developing such strands as French cold wave"
 * I know exactly what you mean. But it is a simple fact that the music produced by seminal cold wave bands such as Clair Obscur has been described as dark wave. The sources underline this fact. It's not my personal opinion.

 * "your favorite bands"

 * You are wrong. Many of those bands were not added by me. I'm not the only person who edited this article. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I concur with, I also demand to expand the in-line citations in the Dark Wave article so that they include direct quotes from the German texts translated in English. I'd like to see this for all the sources in the lead. Woovee (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Subgenre sources
Ref 10
 * Source: Dark Wave ist ein ... Oberbegriff für düstere Spielarten des Wave, der auch Gothic darunter subsumiert. Cold Wave bezeichnet eine Untergattung experimenteller, minimalistischer Elektronikmusik aus Frankreich.
 * Google translate: Dark Wave is a ... generic term for dark varieties of the Wave, which also subsumes Gothic. Cold Wave is a subgenus of experimental, minimalist electronic music from France.

I'm not sure what "subsumes gothic" means here, but this text definitely does not say dark wave is a cold wave subgenre. If "the Wave" means "new wave" then that would mean dark wave is a subgenre of new wave. This could also be saying that goth is a new wave subgenre, which sounds more accurate to me.

Ref 11
 * Source: Die Dark-Wave-Szene unterteilt sich unter anderem in den klassischen Dark Wave, den Gothic-Rock, elektronische Gruppen oder auch den Neofolk.
 * Google translate: The dark wave scene is divided among other things in the classic dark wave, gothic rock, electronic groups or even the neofolk.

This seems to suggest that the dark wave scene contains overlap with goth rock, electronic, and neofolk. The inclusion of "electronic" should be enough to prove that the author does not consider goth and neofolk "subgenres" of dark wave.

Ref 12
 * Source: Genre der Dark-Wave-Musik, das durch verschiedene Stilmittel und Komponisten der Romantik, der Alten Musik oder der Neuen Musik inspiriert ist.
 * Google translate: A genre of dark-wave music inspired by various stylistic devices and composers of Romantic, Early Music or New Music.

"Neoclassical dark wave" doesn't even appear in this quote.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 * "I'm not sure what "subsumes gothic" means..."
 * That's exactly the problem. Thee old problem. You don't know anything about this topic, neither Goth nor Dark Wave. This is definitely not your field of expertise. Furthermore, if you don't speak German, whose problem is it? Surely not mine. Again. YOU are NOT Wikipedia. If you don't understand shit, don't edit the article. It's that easy. I don't talk about the same shit over and over again anymore. I simply revert your shit.

 * ""Neoclassical dark wave" doesn't even appear in this quote."
 * There is an ISBN. Move your ass to the next library. I don't give a fuck. I'm not your gofer.--RivetHeadCulture (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 * If you don't want to clarify your German sources then you shouldn't be contributing to English encyclopedias. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Wrong. It's your personal problem. Not a Wikipedia problem. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Do I get blocked if I remove these supposed "subgenres" from the infobox, as well as the unsourced "typical instruments"? I've explained why that information accounts for OR. There doesn't seem to be any hope that RivetHeadCulture will provide better sources, and I can't find anything myself. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * "There doesn't seem to be any hope that RivetHeadCulture will provide better sources..."

 * User:Cullen328 told you already in April:
 * "Ilovetopaint, we allow references to reliable sources in any language. And reliable sources need not be readily available online. Your personal difficulty in reading a source of does not make the source unreliable."
 * These sources are reliable, published in sociological and musicological books. You have to accept that. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I wrote that back in April, . What may not have said back then that I will say now is that combative editing about "subgenres" is deeply unproductive and very unhelpful to this encyclopedia. Do not be a genre warrior. That never ends well. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * This is not a genre dispute, it's a failed verification dispute. It would be infinitely more helpful if you can offer YOUR opinion on whether or not the sources above are actually referring to the terms "neofolk", "gothic rock", etc as "dark wave subgenres". My issue is not with the accessibility of the sources, but RHC's tendency to embellish them, and taking advantage of the fact that only a very specific type of editor (not me) will be able to verify their claims. I can't even add cite-check to this article without being reverted by RHC. Is WP:SYNTH not a valid concern on Wikipedia anymore?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Nothing failed here. Again, it's your personal problem.
 * "YOUR opinion on whether or not the sources above are actually referring to the terms "neofolk", "gothic rock", etc as "dark wave subgenres"."
 * Check it by yourself. There are institutions in this world called "libraries". Why should other people translate it for you? It's not their job, neither Cullen328's nor mine. Can't you understand that? --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't have the time or money to fly to Germany and France. That's why we have cleanup tags, so other editors who can verify the sources know that the article has issues that need to be resolved. ---Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Again. That is YOUR personal problem, and nobody else's. No one cares about your time and your money. And seriously. What kind of argument is that? Books are available in every Western country, even in the U.S. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * WP:BURDEN:

 * Exactly. Everbody can buy these books, everything is listed in the article, including page number and ISBN. Case closed. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution
 * --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I added these genres, because they are subgenres. It's not my fault if User:Ilovetopaint can't read or understand the sources. How can he edit an article if he doesn't understand words and context? I even made copies of several book pages. He doesn't care. He always tries to destroy the article. That's inacceptable. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"Typical instruments" sources
The infobox lists: Guitar, bass guitar, drums, drum machine, synthesizer, sampler, violin, cello, piano, percussion

The lead lists: "chordophones such as electric and acoustic guitar, violin, and piano, as well as electronic instruments such as synthesizer, sampler, and drum machine."

The nearest citation reads: "Dark Wave ist ein ... Oberbegriff für düstere Spielarten des Wave, der auch Gothic darunter subsumiert. Cold Wave bezeichnet eine Untergattung experimenteller, minimalistischer Elektronikmusik aus Frankreich." translation: "Dark Wave is a ... generic term for dark varieties of the Wave, which also subsumes Gothic. Cold Wave is a subgenus of experimental, minimalist electronic music from France."

None of those instruments are listed in the body, and the only source does not support these claims. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Does this article suffer from WP:SYNTH?
Here are some claims taken from the article Dark wave, followed by the cited text used to support that claim. Please pay close attention to the phrasing of the claim and the phrasing of the sources. Ask yourself, "are they 100% saying the same thing?"

Based on these examples, is it reasonable to suggest that the article possibly contains synthesized claims, or claims that are not supported by the sources? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes — Every claim misrepresents the sources to varying degrees, i.e. Gary Numan is actually described as being dissociated from "gothic rock" (Claim E), coldwave is actually described as a subgenre of French electronic music (Claim A), and so on. The least obvious might be Claim C — if we are to presume that the claim is true, then logically the author must also be including "electronic music" as a subgenre of this niche 1980s music, which is nonsensical. These are all red flags for the article's integrity, and if the content can't be removed, it should at least warrant the inclusion of cleanup tags like cite-check or synthesis. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * (addendum) Should also be noted that "post-industrial" does not appear in the cited source (Claim D). Additionally, the instruments of Claim B might appear in the source (on another page?) but there is nothing to suggest they are common to the genre. I would argue that synthesizers and vocals are the only "typical" instruments of dark wave (I don't think a handful of bands that used cellos should account for the entire genre). --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 * You didn't understand a thing. Dark Wave is not an electronic music genre. It's the darker side of New Wave music. The most common instruments are guitars and synthesizers. That's a fact. The Neo-classical and Neofolk genres as part of Dark Wave music rely on the use of classical instruments such as strings and woodwind but also synthesizers. "Handful of bands" is, again, YOUR POV and underlines your lack of knowledge. Obviously, the genre in this article is not your preferred field of interest. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Meh – Claim B and maybe Claim A are the only claims that aren't directly supported by the quoted source. Claim B seems like a fairly small leap to make if those instruments are considered common to the other genres that Darkwave encompasses (which would need to be backed up by sources). Claim A is a bit ambiguous, depending on whether the experimental French music in question is considered part of "Wave" music, or a separate category. I could see that going either way depending on what the rest of the paragraph looks like. signed,Rosguill talk 22:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes and No — Assuming that the claims, as stated in the RfC, fairly represent the text (which I haven't yet read!), certainly some of them extrapolate from the quoted source statements, or (worse, I think) allow ambiguous interpretations. For the less informed reader might conclude from E that Gary Numan or DM was a gothic rock act!  Specifically:
 * Claim A looks reasonable based on the source.
 * Claim B includes cello and piano as "common" which is not in the source given for A and B.
 * Claim C looks reasonable based on the source; but you might find sources that say otherwise.
 * Claim D is totally not supported by the source.
 * Claim E is sloppy, and might be rescued by better phrasing. (As might much music!)

yoyo (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * As i said before. You don't understand the context. You can't interpret a sentence without another. That's a fact. And it's not my job to elucidate every single source. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I would like to request that the RfC be rephrased more neutrally. I appreciate the effort that was put in to clearly lay out each of the claims and its cited evidence, but the follow up questions are unnecessary and inappropriate for an RfC (per WP:RFC, take it to WP:ANI or arbitration). signed,Rosguill talk 22:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 * @Rosguill:
 * Claim A: We have to read it in the right context. On fifteen book pages the whole chapter describes the music of the "Schwarze Szene" (is there an equivalent English term like dark scene or dark culture? The term Goth culture seems a little bit limited). One sentence doesn't work without another. The first sentence of the quote describes Dark Wave as an "umbrella" that encompasses Gothic Rock and related styles. In this context, the following sentence describes Cold Wave as another "Untergattung" (engl. literally "subspecies" or "subtype", of course it means subgenre, German language is versatile), a more "experimental" subgenre from France based on minimal electronic instrumentation and sound (literally "a subgenre from France based on experimental minimalist electronic music"). The chapter isn't about electronic music from France. It's about the history of the "Schwarze Musik" (you may translate it as music of the dark scene or dark alternative music).
 * Claim B: Absolutely right. The instruments appear in all of these subgenres, electric guitars and bass guitars but also acoustic guitars are common in Gothic Rock and Neofolk music. More classical instruments are common in the field of Neoclassical music, especially string instruments, pianos, percussions etc. Electronic instruments appear in the styles of Electro-Wave or Synth-Wave (in other words synthesizer-based New and Dark Wave music) and Cold Wave music, especially synthesizers, sequencers and drum machines. Drum machines also appear in Gothic Rock music... and so on... And there are bands who blend all these instruments. Dead Can Dance for example used guitars, drum machine and classical instruments. And so did In The Nursery. Some Gothic Rock bands employed violins, some Cabaret Noir acts use electric guitars etc. Of course, there are many more instruments, for example the Chapman Stick, but these instruments in the infobox are the basic instruments of Dark Wave music and they are clearly underpinned by the list of subgenres. Most books contain a separate chapter for each of the subgenres, including a list of instrumentation. I don't wanna flood the infobox with tons of references for each instrument. That can't be the solution. The subgenres are sourced, and so are the employed instruments that have been described in the books. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

 * @Ilovetopaint:
 * Claim E: "Dark electronica" is not really an established genre term. Gary Numan (Tubeway Army) and Depeche Mode are well-known as synthesizer-based New Wave bands. No one will deny that. So this must be some kind of nitpicking. The source describes these bands as Dark Wave. And that's what counts. Or what is the issue here?
 * "Gary Numan and Depeche Mode were associated with gothic rock and synthesizer-based new wave music." That's definitely not part of the article. You read it wrong. The article text says that Dark Wave describes artists whose music is/was associated with Gothic Rock and (or) synthesizer-based New Wave music. The term describes two subtypes of music. Or better: "...associated with Gothic Rock as well as synthesizer-based New Wave music."
 * Most of your arguments here rest solely on these suppositions:
 * "Dark wave" is equivalent to "dark electronica" and "dark alternative music" (or "Schwarze Musik")
 * [X] instruments are common to dark wave
 * Per WP:VERIFY, you have to provide inline citations to sources that directly support these claims. You have never accomplished this, neither in the body nor the infobox. Fortunately, I have my own source that defines "Schwarze Scene" as an umbrella term, not a synonym for "dark wave" like you suggest:
 * "SCHWARZE SCENE: German term, literally translates to "black scene" and used since the 1990s to describe all the so called dark alternative music styles swirling around Goth: industrial, darkwave, electro, metal, neofolk and medieval, including BDSM/fetish culture""
 * I'm going to ping, as they will likely have expertise on this issue. Also, with regards to the "French experimental music", it's interesting how different your translation is from Google's translation of a syntactic structure that basically amounts to "X is Y".-Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 * "Dark wave" is equivalent to "dark electronica" and "dark alternative music" (or "Schwarze Musik")"

 * I never wrote that. You simply fabricate claims.

 * 1.) The source speaks of "dark electronica". I said that's not an established genre term. I don't use the term and i never used it as a synonym to Dark Wave. The source describes the music of Depeche Mode and Gary Numan as Dark Wave. THAT's the only thing that matters. Most of us know the music of Depeche Mode and Gary Numan. In the '80s it was electronic New Wave music. And that's written in the Wikipedia article. I really don't know what you want.
 * 2.) "Schwarze Musik" is not a genre term. Unlike Dark Wave it has no "subgenres". It's more a wishy-washy catch-all term like Black music (used to describe Afro-American music). I used the term to describe the content of the book chapter. Furthermore, you have to understand the evolution of Dark Wave music and the chronological context. Until the mid-/late '90s Dark Wave was indeed the centerpiece of the dark scene/Goth subculture. That's why it was called Dark Wave culture in Germany back in the '80s and the '90s. And Cold Wave was a part of it. In music magazines of that time, French artists such as Clair Obscur have been described as Dark Wave.

 * 3.) That's a pretty good example of OR and POV. It starts already with the lemma. Schwarze Musik is not a synonym to Darkness in Music. Even the Country music of Johnny Cash can be called "dark" but it's surely not "Schwarze Musik".

 * 4.) "[X] instruments are common to dark wave" ... and sourced in the books. You can buy them online. Good luck. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I didn't write that those were your claims, I wrote that it's the suppositions on which your claims rest on, as in, they're only things that would make anything you say relevant to this Wikipedia talk page. I don't understand why you spend so much time writing these walls of texts when you could end all SYNTH concerns by simply posting your sources. I've posted mine. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 * The answer is pretty simple: Most of the artice text IS already sourced. You never will be satisfied, no matter what i do. I made copies of several book pages, i added tons of quotes (which is not really my job). You repeatedly use the article as a battleground and accuse me of faking sources. All this looks much more like a personal fight. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

 * Just a quick question about how you understood C and E: are you aware that the terms "industrial music", "post-industrial music" "dark wave", and "dark electronica" all refer to different things? The point here is whether it's SYNTH to attribute a claim about one genre to another, like post-rock to rock music, or electropop to electroclash. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am indeed aware of how music genres work, and more importantly solidly feel that the sentences in the sources as quoted establish the claims that are made and with the exception of the issues in A and B that I noted in my vote, although I think RivetHeadCulture has addressed these concerns. That having been said, I can see how a mistranslation of "Schwarze Szene" could significantly change the supposed content of the cited sources. signed,Rosguill talk 03:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, for the record, the string "post-industrial" never appears in the source. Conflating "post-industrial" with "industrial" is like calling the Beatles "post-Britpop". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 * As i said before, this source was not added by me but by User:Donnachadelong approx. 12 years ago, i guess. Attrition started as a Post-Punk/Post-Industrial band and turned into a Dark Wave group. It shouldn't be hard to find some reliable sources. --RivetHeadCulture (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

 * That would be good. yoyo (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

 * I added the source, but not in the way it's currently used! Once upon a time, there was a quote from the article that contained the ref. Someone along the way has just added it to their name. And, it's important to remember, that the term post-industrial was really only a thing from 1982 (the end of Throbbing Gristle) and 1991/92 when people started calling bands like Nine Inch Nails and Ministry industrial. Industrial started to be used then for all music that had previously been called post-industrial (like The Young Gods). Attrition's music has always had a darkwave element, but that term wasn't used in the UK in the general sense it was used elsewhere. It came to be applied to bands like Attrition who were somewhere between Gothic Rock and industrial. Donnacha (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

And lo - there was "dark wave"
For those who didn't feel the term "Krautrock" quite scraped the very bottom of the oil drum of stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.74.80 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Dark wave


text:
Katanning, Western Australia

Katanning is a town located 277 km south-east of Perth, Western Australia on the Great Southern Highway. At the 2016 census, Katanning had a population of 3,687.

History
The name Katanning is derived from the native name for a camping place. That native name for the camp was 'Kartannup' - 'Kart' meaning head and 'annup' meaning meeting or camping place. In the very early days before town settlement, a big group of traditional custodians lived in the area. When the community of another district would visit annually, Kartannup was the head camp or meeting place. In the 21st century, in one of the many possible examples of the attempted re-writing of history, some have tried to suggest that Kartanup, means "clear pool of sweet water", or that Katanning, means "spiders on your back". Others suggest that the place is named after a local Aboriginal woman.

The first Europeans to explore the Katanning area were Governor James Stirling and Surveyor General John Septimus Roe who travelled through the area in 1835 en route from Perth to Albany.

In about 1870, sandalwood cutters moved into the area but they did not settle. It was not until the development of the Great Southern Railway, a land grant railway built by the West Australian Land Company from Beverley to Albany in 1889, that the township came into existence.

The townsite was initially developed by the West Australian Land Company. The state government purchased the railway and the townsite in 1896 and later formally gazetted the town in 1898, when the population of the town was 226, 107 males and 119 females.

In April 1891 the Premier Roller Flour Mill was opened in the centre of the town by brothers Frederick Henry Piesse and Charles Austin Piesse. The mill provided an important cash market for local wheat growers. Initially the mill supplied flour to the whole of the Albany district, replacing more expensive imports from Adelaide. At that time Albany was Western Australia's principal port. The ground-floor street frontages of the mill were converted into shops from the 1930s, including a music shop, butchers', dress shops, a barber, and tearooms. By 2008 the building was owned by the Shire of Katanning, which sold it for $1 to a private developer who renovated the by-then dilapidated building and turned it into a hotel and restaurant that opened in 2018.

Katanning remains an important centre on the Great Southern Railway to Albany.

Climate
Katanning sits on the border between the warm-summer and the purely subtropical mediterranean varieties with January and February being just below 22 C. Under the Köppen climate classification it is classified as Csb.

Features
A statue of Frederick Henry Piesse (by sculptor Pietro Porcelli) was erected in 1916 and stands beside the railway line in Austral Terrace. The Piesse family constructed a regal mansion which was named "Kobeelya" and after being used for many years as a girls' boarding school, is now a conference centre managed by the local Baptist church.

Katanning features a unique playground of oversized structures named the "All Ages Playground". The town has many other attractions, including a state of the art recreation, leisure and function centre.

Katanning has a relatively large Muslim population, of about 350 people, and consequently has a mosque, the Katanning Mosque. The vast majority of local Muslims originated in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and travelled to Katanning to work in the local abattoir, which was established in the late 1970s.

Other religious buildings include churches from Anglican, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Seventh Day Adventist, Uniting, and Wesleyan denominations, along with a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall.

The town has a castle-like structure which was built as a winery. The town's entrance features an antique truck loaded with imitation wool bales, a windmill, and several sculptures of sheep made from corrugated iron.

The town has become a regional service centre for the Great Southern and services the nearby towns of Broomehill, Tambellup and Woodanilling plus several more. It contains three primary schools, Katanning Primary School, Braeside Primary School, and St Patrick's School, and a high school, Katanning Senior High School.

Transport
Katanning railway station has an elevation of 1024 ft above sea level and a rail distance of 225 mi from Perth.

Notable residents

 * Shai Bolton, Australian rules footballer.
 * Kevin O'Halloran, gold medallist in the 4 × 200 m freestyle relay at the 1956 Summer Olympics in Melbourne was born and raised in nearby Kojonup, and the pool is named after him.
 * Percy Gratwick, posthumous Victoria Cross recipient in World War II was born in Katanning.
 * Angela Ryder, a Wilman Noongar woman.
 * Tiah Toth, AFLW player.
 * Mark Williams, Australian rules footballer.
 * Lydia Williams, goalkeeper for the Australia women's national soccer team.
 * Alan Quartermaine, WAFL footballer for East Perth, Sandover Medallist 1975.
 * Dave Shaw, cave diver.

title: Katanning, Western Australia