Talk:Emo

Post-punk connection?

Despite emo's roots in the hardcore scene, when one looks at the "emo" themes of today, it seems to me that there's also some kind of lineage back to "post-punk" bands like Joy Division and even The Cure and Depeche Mode. I don't know even remotely as much about emo as most contributors here, but am I completely tripping by seeing this connection? Many emos are accused of 'copying' Punk and Goth, with references to emo music and dress style (see CRITISISM section) 76.197.242.108 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you maybe correct. The problem is whether there is a source for it. --neonwhite user page talk 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I attempted to say before, there is a source for this and its in Time Magazine; contermporary EMO is a fashion/subclutre; once again, the sources are in LA Weekly and Time Magazine; and I am sure we can dredge up many others that are being regularly suppressed. Contemporary Emo is more about aesthetics and lifestyle; and has only tenuous roots with the Hardcore Punk scene of D.C. of the mid 80's. The subculture/fashion is so radically different. But one can see the similiarty or lineage in the fashion of the Post-Punk, New Wave, Goth, Indie styles.

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

New Section

The information in Wikipedia about Emo is unprecise and a "fiction". If you want to receive the real information about emo, then visit http://www.youdontknowemo.tk. Thank you.

I am removing my posts on this discussion page. The primary reasons are that the title of the page I had put up EMO (Scene) was taken down and then combined into New Section which is misleading to what the original contribution intended; the other reason is that, if one simply reads the above responses, both Cheesr and Neonwhite respond with nothing but what wikis policy says...

I have the right to edit my own posts. I have the right to remove them.

Respect that.

Fiendflug (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Fiendflug

Why is Fall out boy on the emo list

Wtf? Since when was Fall out boy ever "emo"? Their band has absolutely NO emo elements whatsoever. Hell, even Rage against the machine is more emo than Fall out boy, and they aren't even an emo band. Just because their band members wear emo clothes does not mean that their music is. I suggest that someone correct this soon, before I have too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.234.10 (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the media call them that. [2][3][4]

--neonwhite user page talk 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But they are still not an emo band. They may share clothing similarities but that is not enough to define a bands music style regardless of what the media thinks. How about a seperate list from bands that have been called emo to bands that meet the standards to be emo and therefore are emo.72.81.226.247 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

The media, in this case, are verifiable sources, this is what articles on wikipedia are based on. This is policy and the only standard we use. --neonwhite user page talk 03:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that the media was not a verifiable source I said that Fall Out Boy wasn't an emo band and they are not. As the media calls them an emo band we can say that they are a band that has been, uh, called emo by the media, but with just media (varifiable but not reliable), that really is as far as we can go. Since their music style not really emo as they lack almost all elements required we cannot say they are disinctly an emo band, that is why I suggested a seperate list.72.81.226.247 (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

That's only your personal opinion, unfortunately it counts for nothing as far as wikipedia is concerned. Genres have always been defined by the media. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for info on how information is sourced. If information is verified it can be included. --neonwhite user page talk 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot argue with me about something I did not say. Reread my post. I agreed with you as far as varifiability and I still do. I also agree that if it's varifiable it can be used and I never said it could not. Thus, because the media is varifiable, and varified, it should be included. I take issue with the reliability and the confusion it causes. Several parts of the media say Fall Out Boy is Emo but other parts call them Pop Punk. The media usually gets these two genres confused. That is why I suggested lists. One list for bands that have been called emo by the media (like Fall Out Boy), and one list for bands that can be defined, beyond the shadow of doubt, as emo (Hawthorne Heights).72.81.226.247 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

The only way wikipedia defines anything is by using verifiable sources such as the media. So the lists you suggested would be identical. --neonwhite user page talk 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the problem. I do not think I have communicated the lists a clear and understandable way. Sorry. What I mean is since the media has already, more or less, defined the emo and pop punk genres, and since the media has contradicted itself on the classification of some bands (Fall Out Boy and some others listed),we make two lists. One list for bands in which the media has contradicted its classification, and the other for bands have been called emo by the whole media. Or do no such bands exist? If so then your right, the lists would look identical, and I will drop the issue.72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

Genres are always subjective and open to personal interpretation. Different songs, different albums have different styles. I'm not sure it matters that some articles refer to them as a different genre. Stuff about pop punk and bands noted as such, really belong on the pop punk page. I doubt anyone is going to be confused by a band being included on the pages on several different genres when the genres are linked. --neonwhite user page talk 02:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

True enough. Still from what I've read on this discussion page some people are getting confused and some others are getting angry. Usually I wouldn't care, but I'm afraid this could lead to vandalization of this article. Suggestions anyone, or leave as is?72.81.226.247 (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

Though it's worth little, my opinion would be that Fall Out Boy are very emo, their image is emo, their music has an emo tone and the song subject matter is also emo. Not that thats a bad thing, i like some Coheed and Cambria and thats quite emo. I'm also having a pretty hard time understanding why you might think that Rage Against the Machine has anything to do with the emo genre. - Crabid (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what 'emo' means (who does?) but I'm thinking that something like this approach can be found in very early rock'n'roll recordings by people like Little Richard, Johnnie Ray, Jerry Lee Lewis, Screamin' Jay Hawkins (and a cadre of blues artists that might even include Robert Johnson), Arthur Brown (musician). Maybe it'd help in defining what 'emo' meant/means in later rock by comparing/contrasting it with the work of these pioneers. Twang (talk) 25 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.245.224 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to sound rude, but your opinion is incorrect. First, if by image you mean their clothing style, heh, you can't define a bands music style by their clothes. One of the reasons I say this is because aside from, well, it's wrong, almost all bands, be they emo punk (insert favorite emo band here), pop punk (Blink-182, FOB, Green Day, take your pick) indie (Death Cab for Cutie and whatever indie band that does so that you choose), etc (Panic at the Disco, I say them because, well, outside wikipedia they really don't match any known or defined genre), use the emo style of dress. In my opinion it's because this style of dress is popular among us kids today (specificly teens in high school). In other words it's a way of marketing themselves to us. Second, I should like to know what songs you are listening to because they really haven't done that many that fit the emo discription of music as has been defined in both wikipedia and the real world (the difference being sourced information vs facts). Some? Maybe (and what modern band hasn't made songs that sound emo), but definitly not most. As far as emo being bad, no one said it was. If anything I'd say it's more good than bad. In any case the arguement is not that we should remove them (we have sources that call them emo, and thus, they belong on the list), but that we should do something to reword it or something to that nature, because as it is, it may attract vandals. BTW when I say modern, I mean bands that are popular/semi-popular to the younger generations of today (high school and below).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot don't forget to sign your posts by typing in four tildes, and mister twang, your approach sounds like OR to me.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

We dont change articles cause they may attract vandals. --neonwhite user page talk 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say we should. However there are some things we could do to the article, mainly wording it better, without changing the articles content, and that could improve it. BTW, it might just be the typing print, but you did just come off as a bit hostil. Don't mean to offend or anything just thought I'd let you know. Then again it might just be me.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It was short and to the point as i was busy, it wasnt intended to be hostile. I read we should do something to reword it or something to that nature, because as it is, it may attract vandals.. and considered this a suggestion that text should be removed because some users may object. Which would be a misunderstanding. see WP:NOT#CENSORED. Besides the page is semi-protected and vandalism is pretty minimal. If it is to be reworded it should be to improve it's legibility. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you. BTW, I didn't mean content should be taken off because some users may object, actually I belive we should be adding on to it (within wikipedia policy and guidlines of course) not removing content. Heh, you hit it right on the button though, I ment it should be reworded to be more legible. I think I may have failed to communicate that properly so that's my fault. Sorry mate.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

personally i don't like Appropriately or not at the beginning. My suggestion would be to change it to a list such as List of power pop musicians. If there are enough. --neonwhite user page talk 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think... that I can agree with that. Now the only thing is... are there enough? :)13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Emo musical groups category has a nunmber --neonwhite user page talk 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I created the article List of emo artists, it still needs entries and more importantly citations. --neonwhite user page talk 20:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll start looking for entries and citations and see what I can do to help.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrific idea. We already killed List of emo bands because it wasn't manageable. Category:Emo musical groups is a better list for the simple reason that the editors of the band's article can decide whether or not the band qualifies as "emo".

The whole point of having a short list in the article is because there is significant value in noting which bands belong to the "third wave". Otherwise, all the article mentions is Jimmy Eat World and Dashboard Confessional, which isn't anywhere CLOSE to a suitable answer.

We should immediately point the "artists" article to the category page and restore some form of the list here. If the issue is sources, then we should only include bands in the list here that can be adequately sourced.

The whole point of the third wave section is to point out the dubious nature of the term and the difficulty in identifying which bands are "emo". The current version severely damages that point. -- ChrisB (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... both of you (ChrisB, Neon white) are obviosly more expeirenced at this the me so I'll let you two dicide what should be done and than I'll help out (sorry about my spelling).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The list is an extension of the one on this page due to the many problems with it. It is designed to be more inclusive than previous lists to avoid POV vandalism. If you want to format the list by 'waves' then do, but the problem would be the fact that the whole 'waves' thing is poorly sourced. We can't say what bands should and shouldnt be in the third wave when the existance of the third wave is not sourced. I found the category page to be badly sourced too. Alot of the bands on it are not sourced properly in there own articles. The list can be simply used as a navigational tool. The whole thing about the 'dubious nature of the term' seems like original research to me. --neonwhite user page talk 00:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Any published article describing current "emo" bands can stand as a source for the existence of the third wave.

The use of "waves" in this article was already justified months ago - we're allowed to denote the different variants of the genre. We're not claiming that current emo goes by the term "Third Wave" - if we did, it would be capitalized that way. We're simply demarcating the well-defined periods of the genre. If we didn't use the word "wave", we'd have to use another term - which would be under the same scrutiny for being "original research".

You want "dubious nature of the term"? How about the fact that for each reliable source that calls Coheed and Cambria an emo band, there's another one that says they aren't. Same for 30 Seconds to Mars. So what's the answer, report both or neither? It's not original research to point out the problems with the term - otherwise, the article and the sources make no sense.

Wikipedia guidelines are pretty specific - content should not be altered solely to avoid vandalism. That's not a legitimate reason to remove the list from this article. If you don't like constantly reverting it, don't bother - let someone else do it.

A separate list is cumbersome and nearly impossible to manage. Plus, it's completely redundant. If you think that bands aren't sourced properly in their articles, then fix the problem. That category list will be there whether or not the bands are sourced - creating a brand new list just compounds the problem by adding another page to be managed. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt alterted to avoid vandalism, it was changed a) because it was out of place to have a criteria-less list that largely relied on OR in the middle of this article and b) to bring it into line with the style of other similar artilces. The list is simple to manage and we dont not create articles cause they are hard to manage, there are many other similar lists that are managed just fine. Categories and lists co-exist and compliment each other. The idea of a 'thrid wave' is not sourced. Find me a specific source that defines the 'waves'. --neonwhite user page talk 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, did you even read what I wrote? We're not coining the term "Third Wave". It's the title of the section, nothing more. No matter what we call the section, someone could argue it was an unsourced term. Third wave, third branch, third period - whatever. It's not a term.

The concept is used on a Featured Article: punk rock. Notice that "second wave" isn't capitalized.

Here, emo defined by one source (MTV News):

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1537277/20060727/afi.jhtml

Nearly every strain of emo was on display in the scorching 90-degree heat over the course of the nine-hour marathon: screamo with two lead singers and one guitarist (Marilyn Avenue); screamo with one singer and two guitarists (Classic Crime); screamo with a metal edge (Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, the Bled); goth-tinged screamo with scary pancake and scar makeup (Aiden); classic-rock-inspired emo (the Sunstreak); the three guitarists/ two backup screamers variety (Vaux); the Coheed and Cambria-type (the Junior Varsity); and straight-up, classic emo (Thursday, Emanuel).

For the record, this isn't MTV. MTV News is a journalism source, fully conforming to WP:RS and WP:V.

Does the New York Times count? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/arts/music/16sann.html?pagewanted=1&8dpc&_r=3 I can keep going if you'd like.

Claiming that there isn't a "modern" branch of emo (regardless of what it is) is just willful arrogance. The sources are there - and more than just that one - despite the fact that you might personally disagree with them. Ignoring them is pointless, and is a disservice to the article.

And you ignored my other point, so here it is again: the emo band list is redundant of the category list. The new list is already a disaster of bad lists and bad sources - I don't see any single reason that we should keep them both around. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your missing the point completely, we cannot define bands as 'third wave' if the fact that the 'waves' exist isn't even sourced. Where are the years coming from? What source defined that? Unless you have sources that say those bands are 'third wave' anybody can remove them as original research. I'm sure that punk rock waves are much better sourced than this. It has been written about at length unlike emo. We cannot just invent a history. It has to be sourced. If there are sources for this find them. Not sure what your point about mtv news and ny times is. You ignored what i said. Categories and lists co-exist and complement each other. They are not exclusive. Lists do not replace categories and vice versa.. This is the consensus. Read Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. The new list is well sourced and a very good list article according to all list guidelines. --neonwhite user page talk 16:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not missing the point at all. We don't use "third wave" as anything other than a section split. WE HAVE NEVER CALLED ANY BAND A THIRD WAVE EMO BAND. EVER. There were only two instances where "third wave" was used in the aricle (which I just removed), and they only related to the Criticism section, which mostly relates to modern emo.

If you don't like the section splits, take them out, for crying out loud. They only demarcate the obvious splits in the timeline. Remove them and the article is EXACTLY THE SAME.

Again, you basically nuked the modern emo section by removing the mention of every band in it. There are modern emo bands, we have sources (eg, the NY Times and MTV News) to support it, and thus they should be mentioned.

My point about the list apparently went completely over your head, so here is in more visual terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_emo_bands&oldid=45783795

That's the old version of the list. Scroll through the history, and see for yourself what a ridiculous trainwreck it was. Every other week, somebody would completely rewrite it to fit their concept of what emo was. And once nobody was paying attention to it, it became an unsourced, uncontrollable pile of garbage.

I really don't care if the guidelines allow them to co-exist. In this case, lists don't work, and that should be crystal clear by the history of the old list. A list that everyone can freely alter to fit their own POV cannot possibly be better than a list that's dictated by the editors of each band's article. Few (if any) of the editors of the band articles will ever even LOOK at the list, and would otherwise have no idea that their band were suddenly being assigned to emo.

Your list is one person's consensus (yours) over the consensus that should probably already exist with each band's article. -- ChrisB (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

and neon white, the media isn't always a reliable source, especially in this case, as much as i don't like Fall Out Boy, i agree that they shouldn't be under Emo. If one or two media sources say something about a culture, it's not very reliable. It's only really reliable to people in that culture. The only way a reporter etc. could be reliable is if they were interviewing a band or were part of a culture, other than that the New York Times can't decide whether something is in a culture because they aren't close to it making it just an opinion. Media sources say wikipedia's unreliable, you don't see on the wikipedia page saying "wikipedia is an unreliable encyclopedia..." you just see a "Criticism of Wikipedia" section, even though the MEDIA says that wikipedia's unreliable, there's no actual thing labeling it as unreliable. which totally contradicts what you are stating --72.220.166.36 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see what 'culture' has to do with anything, this is about 'genres' which are defined by the media and as far as wikipedia is concerned the mainstream media are a reliable source because they have a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking. Wikipedia is unreliable because it doesn't have any editorial oversight whatsoever. If you disagree with policy take it up on the relevant talk page. End of discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you fail to see what 'culture' has to do with music, then you obviously have never been to a show, and were never part of a scene. Watch American Hardcore (film), read Our Band Could Be Your Life, two well put-together documentary pieces about the origins of hardcore and post-punk, respectively. Music, like any art, is a reaction to the world around it, and so it has absolutely everything to do with culture, and to relegate the grouping of musical styles and bands solely to post-hoc labeling to sell more records is absurd. I don't care who calls themselves what, but to ignore the cultural contexts from whence the music came is absolutely silly. Eric Clapton shares almost nothing in common with Charley Patton, but we still call them both blues; the trick there is that when one talks of the blues, the music is inextricable from the cultural context. That's obviously a contrived example because Ian MacKaye was no share cropper, but the point still stands. 72.237.31.206 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They are special. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xdrowningxangelx (talk • contribs) 03:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

?71.179.8.102 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They're called emo because someone in charge of hot topic or something like that noticed that "emo" kids thought that the bassist was emo and thought it was cool so this person or people took advantage of it to make some money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.150.43 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

HOLY CRAP, BATMAN!!! WTF?!!!

WTF happend to the article?! It now looks like it was written by someone who listend to the song "Emo Kid" way to many times!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article was vandalised by Roblew, but luckily this was caught by ClueBot, and it is now back in it's full glory! —Jimpaz (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish my grass was emo

Is there any way we can incorporate the famously hilarious t-shirt with a picture of a lawnmower and the caption "I wish my grass was emo so it would cut itself" into this article? EAE (Holla!) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's hardly encyclopedic content. --neonwhite user page talk 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

this article has undergone extensive changes since my last post.it was previously a one page slur on emo and not a factual depiction. Raycore (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

your last post was 8 hours ago the article has not changed at all in 2 days and has had no major changes for months. --neonwhite user page talk 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

possibly a malfunction on my computer, but I swear this article was vandalised yesterday morning. also, you are way too into this.Raycore (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes it was vandalized and therefore changed. No malfunction. Someone mucked with it and it was just a one page slur on the term based on the stereotype of emo(you know, my life is a black abyss, I like making out with people of the same gender, I dress in drag, I cut myself because life is too hard, that kind of crap). Oh and btw, you could add that picture, but only under the stereotype section to give people a better understanding of how some people feel about the steroetype of emo.72.81.226.247 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

Another problem with Post-hardcore

Now the genre of post-hardcore appears a fusion genre of emo...and it is completely wrong, emo derivates from Post-hardcore and not the other way around and I am truly disturbed about this misinformation...I could find references to prove this information wrong, but please, change it...At The Drive-In and Fugazi are very different things to Rites of Spring and Sunny Day Real State. The-15th (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles does not say that. Please be more clear here. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear The-15th, what?72.81.226.247 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

This information appears on the genre box...and I think it's clear enough that emo derivated from post-hardcore to understand that IT POST-HARDCORE IS NOT A FUSION GENRE OF EMO. Emo shouldn't even exist at all, here look at this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdh0Qm_5A0

So is anyone gonna change the information fo the genre box? I'm going to keep discussing this until it GETS CHANGED. The-15th (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i think it is considered they both evolved from hardcore punk. Though both terms are incredibly ambiguous. --neonwhite user page talk 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Print sources

Is there any reason why verifiable print sources that contradict the assertions of ChrisB are not used for this page? For instance, he insists "emotional hardcore" was never used prior to 1996 (according to online sources), but it was used by Ian Mackaye in a live Embrace set recorded in 1985. HeartAttaCk and MRR would also go far as verifiable source. I have a hard time accepting he is approaching this page with a neutral point of view when reliable print sources are discarded for unreliable online sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.143.226 (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I said that "emotive hardcore" wasn't used before 1996. Emo stood for "emotional hardcore" for most of its existence. The whole "emotive" thing didn't happen until recently. -- ChrisB (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some form of reference material or evidence. I did not note a footnote with corroborating evidence. My understanding has always been that it was "Emotive" long before "Emotional" and referred more to a Screamo-esque sound directed less at producing music and more at creating emotive resonance with instrument and voice. Personally, I find the functional difference to be none. 24.168.94.97 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)KaT Adams, 14:58, 2 May, 2008 (-5GMT)

Addition to criticism

I have added the point of view of established British bands on the arrival of Emo in Britain. This is backed up by an article regarding the issue from the BBC. Stealthorpe (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I refactored it. Please note you can only write what the source says. See WP:SYN. --neonwhite user page talk 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! As you can tell I don't know what I'm doing and need a little guidance sometimes!

82.45.100.175 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. This page might help. If you need help then you are welcome to ask. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bullet for my Valentine

I think it would be appropriate for "Bullet for my Valentine" to be added to the little bit about screamo in the section about the third wave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.24.9 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? They don't seem to be a band of any major importance. --neonwhite user page talk 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? In modern day theyre one of the main bands classed as emo/screamo. Just because you dont like them or havent heard of them doesnt mean they deserve a place in this article due to their popularity in the current emo scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.24.9 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They just arent that important. They aren't that popular and regardless popularity does not equal importance. Find some articles that cite them as an important or notable band within this genre. Even if they are known by this genre which their article suggests they aren't. --neonwhite user page talk 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neonwhite they never achived mainstream success unlike the other bands that are classified in the article. XxtruemoxX (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)XxtruemoxX

Pitchfork and Drive Like Jehu

Pitchfork (formed 1986) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitchfork_%28band%29 and Drive Like Jehu (formed 1990) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_Like_Jehu (both featuring John Reis/Speedo from Rocket from the Crypt and Hot Snakes) were both from San Diego and huge influences on 1990s emo--should someone add this to the article?

Sources: "It's often easy to forget that DLJ were considered emo in their day" (Pitchfork.com) http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/d/drive-like-jehu/yank-crime.shtml

"Posthumously, Drive Like Jehu's music has been cited as a catalyst for the reemergence of emocore and for the prolific San Diego music scene of the 1990s." (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_Like_Jehu)

Stereotypes

The section on criticism notes that "Male fans of emo found themselves hit with homosexual slurs". This seemed to me like it also belonged in the "Fashion and stereotype" section, and I made a note in that section mentioning the sexual stereotypes that go along with the emo fashion (as referenced in the song parody: "can't two...or four guys make out without being 'gay'?"). This was deleted as "OR". Debatable, but let that stand for argument's sake. At least be honest and delete the similar remark in the "Criticism" section. Either it should be mentioned, or it shouldn't. My edit was only duplicating information already included (without apparent controversy) elsewhere in the article. To say that it's too contentious for one section but not another is self-contradicting. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content at hand, but keep in mind that if you add content, people will notice and possibly revert. The existing content may have gone unnoticed by the people who reverted your duplicating it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It may have been removed as original research because you not did copy the citation as well. in this case it is sourced from this article [5] so it isn't original research but could easily have looked like vandalism if the text was added without the source.

--neonwhite user page talk 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am changing this slightly as "Homosexual slur" gives the impression that it is a slur to be called homosexual. I think that this should be rectified liambennett (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Kasabian Criticism?

A lot of bands have complained about emo, what makes kasabian special? Would it be alright to delete it?--Yomoska (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

no, it recieved significant coverage including being reported in The Sun and NME [6] [7]. --neonwhite user page talk 16:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Garbage. The guy is not notable outside the UK, which alone should exclude him here.

Regardless, his opinion has no bearing, particularly given its lack of eloquence. He didn't say anything that any other person hasn't already said (and that we don't already say in the article). Hopper wrote an entire article about the subject - Meighan was throwing out his off-hand opinion.

We shouldn't be including random comments by random musicians, even if they are reported in popular media. Seriously - if Lindsay Lohan says that emo sucks, should we include it, too? Save the quotes for notable journalists and/or people that have the appropriate background to support the comment. -- ChrisB (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If her comments made a national newspaper, that's what we generally go on. --neonwhite user page talk 13:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutting Yourself

A section explaining how the term "emo" was related to cutting ones' wrist and ankles would be nice. I've always wondering this. Plzs && Thnks. Firewithinfreak (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, so no section needed. This is already covered in the stereotype section. Mdwh (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

straight edge

why is this in the see also bit?

I believe it to be there because straight edge is often associated with the emo genere. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.Akamaru Toshibo 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That was true, particularly during the first and second waves. There was a distinct crossover between the straight edge community and the emo scene. The original DC emo scene was directly linked with the straight edge scene in the area. Perhaps coincidentally, Ian Mackaye (Embrace, Fugazi) coined the term "straight edge" when he was in Minor Threat (though he never considered himself part of the straight edge community). I doubt the link is as strong now, given "emo"'s shift to the mainstream. -- ChrisB 02:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If emo was related to straight edge, then it should also be connected to various forms of punk rock. It seems rather arbitrary to make this connection simply because the two sounds were associated in DC. There are shows featuring a wide variety of musical types, but that does not mean we should associate jazz and metal. Unless there is some verifiable proof that these two have some connection, straight edge should be removed from the "See Also" section. I feel this is especially important in light of the current status of emo which, as far as I have been able to discover, has virtually no links to the straight edge movement.

We're not talking about "straight edge" as a sound. We're talking about straight edge as a movement. Even the barest of association between the two (and, in reality, it was way more than "minor") justifies the see-also. -- ChrisB 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case is there proof that the two ideologies are linked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.40.66 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The only link I possibly see between Edge and Emo is that they both came from the D.C. Hardcore scene and that they looked up to Ian MacKaye. No way does that constitute a see also. I'm taking it out. It's way to much of a logical leap unless you back it up with some sort of solid connection.Stealthsloth22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)stealthsloth

There was significant crossover between emo and straight edge during the 80s and 90s. This article covers the entire history of emo, not just the modern-day.

In particular, Rites of Spring was spawned from the straight edge scene of the 1980s. Mackaye was a member of Minor Threat, whose song "Straight Edge" spawned the term, before becoming a member of Embrace, one of the first Emo bands.

Furthermore, a significant number of people who participated in the emo scenes of the 80s and 90s also participated in the straight edge scene. That's why the whole "xNamex" stuff became linked with Emo.

The 80s stuff alone is justification for including it here. Both emo and straight edge were spawned in DC by the same people.

By the way, I'm repeating myself. If the discussion has happened without clear resolution, you should continue the discussion before unilaterally acting on your own opinion. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The way it looks to me, Ian played in Embrace and produced for Rites of Spring. Both Emo and straight edge were spawned from the DC hardcore and that's it. The fact that MacKaye produced Rites is totally irrelevant. Are you going to go link Fall Out Boy to Chingy because they both work with Def Jam Records? As for the fact that MacKaye played in Embrace, it lasted around a year, Ian played in a lot of different bands and to call him a founder of emo because he played for a short time in Embrace is a stretch, Ian himself shunned the term emocore, and Guy Picciotto called it "the most retarded term" he had ever heard.

If A member of Slayer were to start a band with a member of Panic at the Disco you wouldn't associate metal with emo so I don't see how Ian going out of Minor Threat and into Embrace makes Edge associated with Emo. It's a member of edge associating with Emo... Ian is the first person to put the name to edge but he's still only one member and I think it's ridiculous to mix the groups because of one member.

A significant number of priests participate in straight edge behavior but they aren't linked to edge. Besides I don't think that there was as much of a mix of the two as you think. Other than a few edger who checked out Ians newer work or the emo people who looked into his past work I think there is about as much edge in emo as in any scene. The whole name thing was stolen from edge and I don't know any edgers who still use that.

If they were spawned by the same people I think that the best place to combine emo and edge would be on those people pages, yeah? It just seems like if a guy writes a song and paints a painting you wouldn't link the song to painting, you'd link them both to the artist.

I think if there's no resolution yet it's best not to make the leap of logic and leave the two articles unassociated until it is resolved rather than associating the two and possibly having it be wrong.64.252.89.58 ([[User talk:64.252.89.58 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)stealthsloth22|talk]]) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Leap of logic"? Where are you getting this stuff? Personal experience? If so, what is your personal experience with 80s and 90s emo at the time? Were you a participant, or are you just pulling this stuff off of the Internet?

Straight edgers booked emo shows in the 90s. Remember - emo was an underground movement for its first fifteen years. The scenes were inextricably linked - particularly during the late 80s and early 90s. Emo bands and straight edge / youth crew / etc bands regularly shared bills and a lot of common values. The Emo kids didn't "steal" the naming thing from straight edgers - the straight edgers in the emo scene used it themselves, and other non-edgers picked it up.

You can't use the modern definition of "emo" in the argument because that's not what we're talking about. Panic and Fall Out Boy are completely irrelevant - that's not the kind of emo being referenced.

What exactly are you defending? Do you think that the straight edgers that gladly participated in the 80s and 90s emo scenes would take offense to the two being linked? -- ChrisB (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a participant in the 90's New England straight edge scene. I know more than enough about the history of edge to debate it.

The fact that both edge and emo played the same shows isn't a strong link. A few moths ago I saw a Hatebreed concert where an underground rap group played. Likewise, saying that the two were "inextricably linked" or that bands from both sides shared "common values" isn't providing any evidence for your case. There's no substance to either of those statement they're both just vague generalizations.

It looks like what you said with regards to the X's is that emo edgers used them and then other non-edge emo listeners picked it up. This is basically stealing it... Edge used it to designate a straight edger, if emo edgers used it it was still being used properly, totally fine. But then non-edge emo listeners started using it incorrectly to describe themselves and so it changed meaning. What exactly about that is different from stealing it?

Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are both referenced in the "Emo" article and so are applicable in a debate about the article.

As for why I'm arguing. As an edger, I have no problem with being associated with Rites or Embrace or other First, or even a good number of second wave emo bands. Lots of those were good. However, the thought of being associated with third wave emo makes every edger I know want to throw up. On this note I think that two possible courses of action are...

A. Link both Emo and Straight Edge to Ian MacKaye's article and remove the edge link on this article.

B. Separate the Emo article into three articles, one for each wave (plausible I think because the waves are extremely different musically as well) and link edge to the First Wave Article.

Also, like I said earlier, will you agree to take down the edge link until the issue is resolved? If someone thinks Bush is a Power Ranger you wouldn't say he was a Power Ranger until the issue was settled. You would not mention it until it was either settled that he was or wasn't. Same principle I think.Stealthsloth22 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it needs to be sourced, otherwise it's just OR.

rock?

emo is NOT a style of rock music who put that in there? 24.110.170.109 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Uhh, see here. TL;DR emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk, which is a subgenre of punk rock, which is a subgenre of rock music. TheLetterM (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

whats wrong with just saying emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk? Sounds more accurate than a style of rock 24.110.170.109 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Does that mean that emo is influenced by pop or R&B, as opposed to rock? Just because a band described as "emo"- say, Rites of Spring doesn't draw resemblances to a band like The Pixies or Devo or hell, even Motley Crue doesn't mean that all of these bands don't draw from certain foundational elements- guitar/bass/drums/vocal instrumentation, a usual (but not always standard) reliance on 4/4 time signatures, etc. etc. etc. The differences lie within talent, skill, aesthetics, and rather importantly, stylistic preferences. In short, as Cheeser put it, "if X is a subgenre of Y, and Y is a subgenre of Z, then X is a subgenre of Z." TheLetterM (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way - why does the article cat say that it is a mammal? It could be more specific and only tell us the genus or species, but that would be far too specific. The fact that it is a mammal is important, even if it is a very broad category. Emo may be somewhere down the genre-tree but the root of it is rock music and that is important, easily identifiable, and understood by the largest audience. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into Old Emo and Modern Emo

These are two separate genres that people often mix up because they have the same name. I think they should have two separate articles like R&B and Contemporary R&B do. This has already been suggested in the 'Straight Edge' section above. Munci (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

They are not seperate genres at all. All sources we have back this up [8][9][10]. However there are no sources to back up your subjective view. --neonwhite user page talk 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• First source
  • It clearly splits emo into 3 distinct waves, as this article does.
  • It says that Fallout Boy are "allegedly emo" implying that they aren't really.
  • 'It’s around this time that emo started collecting multiple definitions' - Clearly says that there are
  • 'Originally associated with dense, caustic music and nontraditional song structure (no verse, chorus, verse), emocore stuck with its original definition while indie emo was defined by a more accessible pop sound as heard from bands such as Weezer, Jimmy Eat World, Promise Ring and The Get Up Kids. With accessibility came radio and MTV airplay. Now Emo belonged to the world.' This says that the original emo stayed underground while the indie emo bands with the altered sound such as Jimmy Eat World were the ones that inspired the modern bands.
• Second source
  • It describes emo nowadays as being used based on fashion not what they actually sound like.
  • It also says of Weezer:Though, the peppy, power-pop they play(ed) was very different in sound than that of the aforementioned bands, Weezer was quickly lumped into the very vague "emo" genre.

This specifically states that a more appropriate genre for Weezer at the time would have power pop and that they sounded very different from what was previously called emo.

• • It also uses the phrase 'are considered to be "emo" by modern standards' which implies that there is a distinction between former and modern standards as to what emo is.
• Third source
  • It uses the phrase 'In its original incarnation' which means that there is a significant difference between earlier forms and later ones.
  • Is this site really verifiable anyway?

Munci (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

All the sources desribe a subject evolving over time, this is not two seperate subjects so there is no justification for any article split. --neonwhite user page talk 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the article should not be split. -- ChrisB (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The LA Weekly article and Time magazine articles do in fact characterize EMO as something almsot completely discinct from the early EMO music scene and thi slatter day subcultre. IT IS a subculture. Time Magazine AND the LA WEEKLY cannot be wrong. They are two major sources.

Sam206.170.104.67 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is synthesis. --neonwhite user page talk 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, it is NOT Synthesis. You would be correct, if you were referring to the Time Magazine and USA Today articles; but I didn't bring up the USA Today article. The LA WEEKLY article covers the story, but did it's own research. Do you know what the LA WEEKLY is? Look up their wiki page.

It is time, not merely to split the articles, but create EMO (Subculture) page, period. The two articles come from to MAJOR sources. We can't ignore the facts anymore.

159.83.4.153 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Sam

Neither article sources anything you are claiming and the majority of sources counter it. This is why the idea is a non-starter. Both sources you mention define a fashion stereotype which is covered in this article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither article sources anything? What kind of statemetn is that? I mean, in one topic you state that this page can only go by what the media say by it.. and then you want be selective about articles, and then quibble about sources. If we do that, then all the early literature about EMO would virtually be disqualified, mainly because early EMO 80's music was so obscure.

But now that the TIME Magazine article has come out, the most major publication to cover contemporary EMO, I want you to produce any articles recently that refute it's misconceptions or errors -- to back up your statement about errors.

Facts are that, EMO today is different from the EMO music style of the 80's. The fashion steretypes are a recent thing. You can't produce me fotos of all these original 80's and 90's EMO bands with two more people in the audience who fit the descrptions. So, old EMO is not really the same as the new EMO. The EMO is mostly a fashion style, it is a subculture. Just read the LA WEEKLY article.

I doubt you will find any. The resean is that people know what EMO is. THE LA WEEKLY is a source.

I think the LA WEEKLY article is a source in itself. Time Magazine article just about blatantly asserts that this is a subculture. IT IS DEFINED THERE in the LA WEEKLY. Get over it. The jig is up. Just on the strength of those two articles, and all those other articles, which the editors on this page have been ignoring, which do not coincide with your agenda, of trying to asssociate the fashion style, but only to a limit, not recognizing the fact that it is the fashion style/subculture which is the whole basis contemporary EMO.

I stress again, read the LA WEEKLY article in its entirety. The paper has been around for 30 years cover indie music, music scenes in general.

Thanks

206.170.104.67 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Sam

It might be different now but that's doesn't mean it is two seperate distinct styles with two seperate devlopments which have no relation to each other. Please post your sources and which passages you are claiming supports your view because i cannot see any. As has been said many times, media sources are not reliable for sociological claims. However the fashion has been associated in reliable source and the media are a reliable source for fashions and trends. There is no evidence whatsoever of a subculture that has been provided here. Only evidence of a probably inaccurate stereotype. As you correctly state the LA WEEKLY is a good source for music but it is not a sociological journal, it reports music fashions well but it doesn't not do sociological studies. At this i would highly recommend reasin WP:SYNTH. Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion --neonwhite user page talk 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The LA Weekly article and Time magazine articles do in fact characterize EMO as something almsot completely discinct from the early EMO music scene and thi slatter day subcultre. IT IS a subculture. Time Magazine AND the LA WEEKLY cannot be wrong. They are two major sources.

Sam206.170.104.67 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is synthesis. --neonwhite user page talk 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, it is NOT Synthesis. You would be correct, if you were referring to the Time Magazine and USA Today articles; but I didn't bring up the USA Today article. The LA WEEKLY article covers the story, but did it's own research. Do you know what the LA WEEKLY is? Look up their wiki page.

It is time, not merely to split the articles, but create EMO (Subculture) page, period. The two articles come from to MAJOR sources. We can't ignore the facts anymore.

159.83.4.153 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Sam

Neither article sources anything you are claiming and the majority of sources counter it. This is why the idea is a non-starter. Both sources you mention define a fashion stereotype which is covered in this article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither article sources anything? What kind of statemetn is that? I mean, in one topic you state that this page can only go by what the media say by it.. and then you want be selective about articles, and then quibble about sources. If we do that, then all the early literature about EMO would virtually be disqualified, mainly because early EMO 80's music was so obscure.

But now that the TIME Magazine article has come out, the most major publication to cover contemporary EMO, I want you to produce any articles recently that refute it's misconceptions or errors -- to back up your statement about errors.

Facts are that, EMO today is different from the EMO music style of the 80's. The fashion steretypes are a recent thing. You can't produce me fotos of all these original 80's and 90's EMO bands with two more people in the audience who fit the descrptions. So, old EMO is not really the same as the new EMO. The EMO is mostly a fashion style, it is a subculture. Just read the LA WEEKLY article.

I doubt you will find any. The resean is that people know what EMO is. THE LA WEEKLY is a source.

I think the LA WEEKLY article is a source in itself. Time Magazine article just about blatantly asserts that this is a subculture. IT IS DEFINED THERE in the LA WEEKLY. Get over it. The jig is up. Just on the strength of those two articles, and all those other articles, which the editors on this page have been ignoring, which do not coincide with your agenda, of trying to asssociate the fashion style, but only to a limit, not recognizing the fact that it is the fashion style/subculture which is the whole basis contemporary EMO.

I stress again, read the LA WEEKLY article in its entirety. The paper has been around for 30 years cover indie music, music scenes in general.

Thanks

206.170.104.67 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Sam

It might be different now but that's doesn't mean it is two seperate distinct styles with two seperate devlopments which have no relation to each other. Please post your sources and which passages you are claiming supports your view because i cannot see any. As has been said many times, media sources are not reliable for sociological claims. However the fashion has been associated in reliable source and the media are a reliable source for fashions and trends. There is no evidence whatsoever of a subculture that has been provided here. Only evidence of a probably inaccurate stereotype. As you correctly state the LA WEEKLY is a good source for music but it is not a sociological journal, it reports music fashions well but it doesn't not do sociological studies. At this i would highly recommend reasin WP:SYNTH. Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion --neonwhite user page talk 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia's page on "Subculture," Punk is mentioned as one. The term subculture also is synonymous with the term "urban tribe"... LA WEEKLY, in its articles identifies, the Punks and Goths as Urban Tribes, with inferences towards EMO as a recent Urban Tribe.

But I suppose, I shouldn't really labour the point about EMO being a subculture. The point is that EMO today is different from EMO from before. That would merit a split page in itself. But I think we should shoot for a different page all together.

In the Time Magazine article Emo is identified, as the merely a popularization of the Punk and Goths of EARLIER years; in the LA WEEKLY article, Emos are criticized by the Punks, and Goths as poseurs. In the LA WEEKLY article, the explicit criticisms of EMO is that "they are copying our style." This is exactly in line with what Time magazine says, but not identical. This is reference to Fashion. Time Magazine, I agree has "errors" of a technical matter in its article; but the substance of the article runs fairly line with LA WEEKLY. The conclusion is that EMO is basically a fashion/music genre that only became popular within the last 3 to 4 years. The earlier incarnation of EMO did not have the fashion aspect. The fashion aspect comes out of Punk and Post-Punk Goth.

EMO of 80's D.C. was a regional music thing, that was at best tenuous. New EMO is something defined by other criteria, fashion, having a presence on different continents. If you think that EMO today does not merit a split or a different page by these vastly different conceptions, then I have no idea how anyone could justify even creating an EMO page at all, splitting itself away from Hardcore Punk or American Hardcore. It's a flagrant double standard.

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not evidence that there are too different subjects. I think common sense distates this is a single subject. Personal POVs arent going to change this. The most reliable sources in the article back this up [11][12] To quote [13] Emo morphed into anything mopey and marketable.. It changed but it isn't a different subject. --neonwhite user page talk 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, I have a specific question... in both articles there IS CRITICISM made by Punks and Goths, testimoney collected and published by TIME Magazine and LA WEEKLY. The LA WEEKLY you have already conceeded is a reliable source for music. Why hasn't this criticism, i.e. that EMO's are seen as fashion posuers, stealing fashion styles from PUNKS and Goths not in the article? I think this critism is more germaine to the subject than the accusation of Emo as being sexist...

But you don't put that there. This is amazing. You cite the mob attacks in Mexico, but you do not go into WHY this happened. This is amazing. Time Magazine covers the story, but none of the reasons WHY is even included on Wikipedias article. At this point in time, I think your credibility or judgement is lacking. I ask anyone else here whether this omission is not a glaring one.

I bring up this point, because I see you are stone-walling with regard to this brand of criticism. The reason why is, because it directly contradicts the very other articles you cite, Deragotis, et al. Which, in no way goes against my point. In fact, it can only bolster my point that what EMO is about, is something so radically different in context, that it merits its own page, stressing the fashion aspect. Because, it truly does become a different subject on that point.

Also, I believe even the very section on "fashion" on this EMO page in itself is craftily obscured with regard to explicitly contrasting the early fashions with later developments and the chronology on these changes. The reason why is, it would show that there was a monumental shift within only the last 3 to 4 years... And considering the world-wide dimensions of this fashion fad, it departs so considerably from Deragotis' articles that they no longer can be seen as relevant on this subject, because it just about is a different thing all together.

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This last posting was made almost a week ago; notice that Neonwhite always avoids the question as to why this EMO article does not include the criticism of EMO that was published in TIME Magazine and the LA WEEKLY.

The critism, as well as one of the reasons for the Mexico mob attacks, is that EMOS are viewed as posers, accused of copying the fashion styles of Punk and Goth subcultures.

But strange enough, this sort of criticism is totally ignored. Neonewhite,is this not being blatantly selective?

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes and Genre

Does the stereotypes section really belong in here it is about the music genre not subculture I think emo(subculture) needs its own article...does anyone else agree please be polite and if this is considered lets not have it based on the emo song... —Preceding unsigned comment added by XXxChriscorexXx (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, if you can find me a source that calls them a subculture.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, one coming up. [14]13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Per reasons above. Oh and sign your posts.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough this source also describes "waves" of emo so that term can now be used me thinks.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this. It's not going to happen. Joe Journalist can call emo a type of trout, that doesn't mean we shouldn't whack him with a real trout and tell him to leave sociology to the sociologists and fishing to the fishermen. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Basically there isnt enough sourcing for anything other than a stereotype assosiated with the music. As this is an encyclopedia we cannot rely on sources that clearly misuse the term like the msn source does. --neonwhite user page talk 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Im sorry im new at this sorta. Also you could find many other articls about emo across the internet, not only MSN but be careful what you look at much of it is baised, and as stated it still dosent belong in the music genre area and therfore instead of being deleted it should more along the lines have its own article.(Hope im doing this right) XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly a music genre, are you suggesting it isnt? --neonwhite user page talk 00:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"We've been over this. It's not going to happen. Joe Journalist can call emo a type of trout, that doesn't mean we shouldn't whack him with a real trout and tell him to leave sociology to the sociologists and fishing to the fishermen." Whoa, that's not needed as this, "Basically there isnt enough sourcing for anything other than a stereotype assosiated with the music. As this is an encyclopedia we cannot rely on sources that clearly misuse the term like the msn source does." would have done. I'll start searching for sociology sources to fit the needs of all parties involved for a split to occur. Help would be great.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you take the time to look at the previous discussions instead? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I've already done that. What's your point? My understanding was that you guys decided that the sources givin weren't good enough, so I won't use those sourses, I'll find sources that are good enough. BTW, why do you seem to oppose a split even if we find good sources? Oh, double BTW, NeonWhite, the msn sources was one that you previded I think.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I commend your willingness to do the work but the discussion has come up previously, little could be found then and i would be incredibly suprised if any major works have been written on the subject since then that have any credibility. I'm no sociologist but even i can tell a trend/stereotype from a subculture so a credible sociologist will certainly be able to. --neonwhite user page talk 00:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am suggesting it isn't only a music genre. Such as goth, they are a subculture that listens to GOTH. Basically, yes I am saying it is a music genre, but it is also a subculture. Or would it be more appropriate for me to call it scene? XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scene" is not a well-defined term. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither. All sources suggest it is primarily a music genre with an assosiated clothing fashion which may well be nothing more than a stereotype rather than a real fashion. There is nothing to suggest anything further. The gothic subculture, however, has been widely written about and long established as a subculture. --neonwhite user page talk 02:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK... you guys are right so far. I'm SOL. Can't find a good source and some other matters have come up that I must attend too. Sorry XXxChriscorexXx, I'm gonna have to leave you hanging without a good source...13Tawaazun14 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Its ok.. not the best source but sure is reliable, as it is the news and it is "published" [15] the news says its true so it must be a subculture and it also has the aspects of a subculture, Fashion, Ideology, and Music. I say that is a subculture lets also not forget this is also about there being a stereotype section in the Music Genre article... XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The news also says "emo kids worship death." Want to add that in there? Human interest pieces about the latest teen fashion are often overblown and highly dubious - amateur night at your local FOX affiliate, if you will. Hardly reliable, lacking authority, dubious claims, not Wiki-worthy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Fox news is not a reliable source for sociology concepts. Sources need to have a reputation for accuracy in the correct field. Fox news has a poor repuatation for popular news let alone anything more. --neonwhite user page talk 17:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You could go ahead and add that but they dont worship death that was used as a metaphor by the news channel. Such as it isnt worship but more of pity for the death, etc. Do you understand what I mean. The emos I believe have developed pretty well into todays society and they have grown amazingly popular in the youth crowed. They have been assaulted on the internet but haven't died down. They have the aspects of a subculture, they have the fashion, music, ideology as I have stated. Just get me in there and a few others and we can make a very unbiased article on emo and provide citation. The fact that emo is known by the news should be enough to prove it is a subculture you dont see other subcultures in the news. Emo is a special case, and all I ask is give us a subculture and we could provide information that will help the viewers on the internet understand them more. And it will be through wikipedia that it will be done in. Please let us have an article and I will get underway on it as soon as possible! I could find more citation if you want as well aside from the news channels!XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion that isn't backed up by any source. The fashion is ill defined and largely a stereotype only, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any common ideology, social behavour, religion, politics, roots or ethnic orgins. As has been pointed out many times, common clothing fashions and popular music tastes can be part of a subculture but alone they do not equal a subculture. This is a popular mistake and misuse of the term. The only thing that you could argue was in common is economic behaviour but in that respect this alleged group do not differ from the prevailing culture making it less of a subculture and more an aspect of popular culture. Certain scholars have even suggested that the idea of 'subculture' is impossible and obslete in the post-modern world. In his book "The Death and Life of Punk, The Last Subculture", Dylan Clark writes Deviation from the norm seems, well, normal. It is allegedly common for a young person to choose a prefab subculture off the rack, wear it for a few years, then rejoin with the ‘mainstream’ 3 culture that they never really left at all. and that subculture has become a useful part of the status quo, and less useful for harboring discontent. For these reasons we can melodramatically pronounce that subculture is dead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a blog, it is based on sources not your personal views or wishes and it is not a soapbox for your opinion. If you have something to say write a paper on it and get it published in a respected socialogy journal then it may be acceptable. --neonwhite user page talk 18:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And personal opinion not being backed up by source, then may I ask where the news got there opinion nothing is ever 100% correct. If Scene/Emo isnt a subculture then what is it that is in our youth today! if you say the fashion is ill stereotyped you might as well call other subcultures stereotyped fashion as well. I will provide many sources/links with emo communitys, common fashion, and just to let you know there are books that are published on emo, check books-a-million or should I point you at the books here is a few links...

[16] Here is a community of emos if you suggest they dont exist prove it..

[17] not the most stereotypical free book but it is published and does describe the culture.(Also if you want privew it and go to chapter 1-3 and it will describe many things for you even the "Ideology")

there is two that debunks the published book and communitys, now as for the rest

Most of the things you listed here are not what make a subculture, religion is for individuals not a subculture, as are political roots, but then again most emos are Anarcist as they are a form of goth and punk, ethnic origins on the otherhand has absolutely nothing to do with ANY subculture, I have a feeling you are just spitting out random words to make your case lean tword your side. And social behavior is a part of a subculture but then again a social behavior verys on the person and cannot be defined as the whole group. They do however have common ideology, and this has been stated many time. I have a feeling you are not going to budge on this matter and nothing in my discussion is baised. As for you I have a feeling you have a certain bais that will not allow me to create such an article and as far as I am concerned, you cant prove it isnt a subculture as there is to much proof for it not to be a subculture. Now as stated Wikipedia isnt a blog... may I ask what I said to make you say that what I suggest is an article on the Subculture not a social networking discussion. Amazing how you dont even understand what you are saying. Now that I have provided a few sources and debunked just about everything as you seem to not understand individuality from a subculture, I suggest you allow it as you cannot prove me otherwise.. XXxChriscorexXx (talk)

I would highly suggest you read up on what a subculture is and what the term means. You have made ludicrous points there that suggest a major misunderstanding. Ethnicity, religion and politics are the most fundamental 'value setters' in any culture and are usually the defining attributes of a subculture. --neonwhite user page talk 05:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to prove you otherwise - you're the one making an assertion/claim. You've provided us with "emobucket" (a webforum!) and a primary-source book with no sociological authority (at least, not as far as I can tell). Here's an excerpt from the book (which I will assert, for legal reasons, is being used here for critical commentary):

Core Emo Values

Depression: More dramatic than simply being sad, depression is the foundation of the entire emo ethos. Depression serves as a bonding mechanism for those with a similar outlook on life and love. Like magnets, depressed people attract one another because moping alone is, well, pathetic. But throwing yourself a pity party? That's emo.

Effort(lessness): Being emo is all about trying really hard to look like you don't really care. Being indifferent isn't as easy as it looks. It requires effort. Why spend two hours slathering your hair with pomade, taking a straightening iron to the bangs and the back, then shaking the whole mess out and matting it to your forehead to look like you just took a nap, haphazardly slept on your 'do, suddenly rolled out of bed, and bolted out the door? Because merely sleeping on your coif would be too easy and wouldn't look natural enough. When you're emo, you're constantly looking to invent unnecessary obstacles so that you can overcome them.

Sounds like satire to me. Those are not the actual values of any actual culture. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then again the same could be said about all subcultures and that said none of them belong. And of cource it is and remember not everything a book says is true and that was used as a published source there are many other books out there. And Emobucket was to get a point across not a source... There is no written law of any subculture and values, therefor no subculture is perfect, however they state the "common"(cept for depression not really emo) not nessicarily values more along the lines of attitude, of emo, no subculture is always the same I could meet the most Agnry, Depressed, Happy, smartest emo ever and they would still be considered emo. Its not an opinion it is a fact.

Edit: Also if [18] this link I provided gets an article I am suprised it has absolutely nothing to do with subculture and is missing twice as much as the emo subculture is. XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"most emos are Anarcist" - XXxChriscorexXx Where did you get that from? Serious doubt is my approach to this statement. I'm not too sure what the words surrounding this are saying though. Munci (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Youmay not get it but he already stated why, they are an evolution of Punk/Goth.. 71.180.33.170 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Not only is it not an established fact that emo is an evolved form of goth and punk but, even if that were established, it would not mean that most emos are anarchist. This is because, even if the ancestor of x has y, x may not have y. Anyway, goth subculture is not associated with anarchism at all but nihilism and many punks follow political ideologies other than anarchism. Munci (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Eitherway this is going to throw us off topic... so lets stay on... 71.180.33.170 (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please avoid changing identity. [19] Munci (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Emo, only music to preps

Many people think they know exactly what emo is just cause they can read the first paragraph of the wiki. So everyone has to scream in my face that emo is just a music...therefore subculture/fashion/stereotypes should either be a whole new section or higher up on the section. Apperantly were all illiterate so we dont go as far as section 10 or so it might be. and as divorce rates go up and people have worsened lives we should better fix that before we get crap about be humans being music groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.175.244 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I am working on getting an article publishable on wikipedia. Note my discussion above yours i'm working for a non-biased article about us! But you are right people stereotype by the first lines of wikipedia. XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not responsible for things that happen in real life based on what is (and is not) contained in the first paragraph of any particular article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that the fashion stereotype is hard to source it only commands a small section not really that important enough to warrant a mention in an article summary. --neonwhite user page talk 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some sources for this statement?

"In the mid-1980s, the term emo described a subgenre of hardcore punk which originated in the Washington, D.C. music scene." I find it very difficult to believe that ANY musical movement could've originated in Washington D.C. Austin maybe, but certainly not Washington D.C.

The allmusic page should hopefully be enough. [20] Munci (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First, your personal issues with DC are irrelevant - read up on Rites of Spring, Minor Threat, etc. to get an idea of how emo and hardcore punk fell into DC at the time. Not to mention hardcore punk itself has a section on the DC-hardcore period. Allmusic is notoriously unreliable, and in this case is flat out wrong. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you say specifically what's wrong with it? Munci (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The information it presents is false, it has poor editorial oversight, and is hardly known for its fact-checking process (if anything, it's known for having a very poor fact-checking process). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not specific enough to describe why 'in this case is flat out wrong' though. Munci (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Alot of allmusic is potentially self published. It has a large number of contributors and there has never been any guarantee of it's accuracy. This particular article doesnt even have a named writer and it reads (poorly) like a puff piece written by a fan. --neonwhite user page talk 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Read WP:RS please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What does 'Yes it is' refer to? You're both being quite vague. Which exact things stated in the allmusic article on emo are inaccurate? Munci (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic is not a reliable source, for the reasons mentioned. Read WP:RS please. You yourself are the one who pointed out the fact that it does not agree with the facts of the matter, although you are under the impression that it is correct (when it is, in fact, wrong). --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my questions. I'm not arguing either way as to whether allmusic is reliable or not. I'm trying to understand which exact statements on the allmusic article on emo are considered incorrect by yourself. Munci (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting they were incorrect but merely an opinion without much credibility or verifiability. --neonwhite user page talk 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You yourself are pointing to the fact that the allmusic page does not state that emo originated in DC, whereas we have reliable sources to verify that it did in fact originate there. Allmusic is wrong about that, and has a track record of being wrong about things because it is not reliable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

But it does. it says "Emo emerged in Washington, D.C". Line 10. --neonwhite user page talk 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then I have no idea what the original complaint was: "I don't believe it came from DC, and here is an unreliable source that doesn't support my position"?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm confused too. --neonwhite user page talk 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I get the problem now. Some unsigned IP wrote the first two lines of this section and I gave allmusic as a (however unreliable) source that did say it came from DC. Munci (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Emo Look-Alike

75.71.37.221 (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I have always loved the emo style, but I don't agree with some of the stuff emo's do/wear/etc.

I don't think wikipedia is the right place for this... go to [21] to have this question answered.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually a Subculture?

I've seen at least a couple arguments over whether or not "emo" is a discernible modern genre or subculture, of if it's merely a pejorative term, a sort of made-up scapegoat genre and subculture. Of course none of this come from credible sources. Do we have any? Has anyone else heard anything similar? 128.186.230.124 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't completely understand what you just said or asked, but yes we have sources that call it a subculture. Just not the "right" sources appairintly (sorry I spelled that wrong).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Emo is a genre of music. Some sources lacking authority and/or reliability call it a "subculture" - but many of them also make some interesting claims (e.g. "Emos worship death" - certainly, such religious beliefs may help set them apart as a subculture, but this is of course totally untrue and nonsense). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only seen one source that has said they worship death, and that source was complete crap anyway. Second, some of the sources are certainly reliable they just lack authority which is what we need but also what we don't have so nothing can be done(boo bad sources). Oh, and Emo is a Subgenre of music (LOL, yeah, I know, I'm being needlesly picky about what Emo is and what Emo is not but still it is a Subgenre of music). IMO, Emo is a Subculture but my oppinion is completely worthless as far as wikipedia is concerned. I'm not a good source, none of us are (LOL).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If they are known to misuse the word then that would make them unreliable. "Emos worship death" is just one of a number of contentious claims that leads unlearned sources to the false idea that it is any more than a genre of music. --neonwhite user page talk 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Course it would, but I would like to know how all of them misuse "Subculture." Yes I do reliase your alluding to the MSN source (at least that's how I see it) but I'd still like to know. Also, any source that says we worship death would probably be BS, no? So far that is the only contentious statement that I'm seeing. BTW, it is more than a form of music, we just don't have the sources that say it, so those of us who want it to be more on wikipedia can't do anything, oh well.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that it represents anything other than a genre of music that is why 'subculture' is misused. We can't have an article about a subculture that no-one has defined regardless of whether a media sources uses the term. It would be a one sentence article. --neonwhite user page talk 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that Neon white.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you we do need a more solid source perhaps we could browse well founded sites, we know they are in the media, and we know they exist we just need some sources. I will look for some soon... XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Its all been done before. --neonwhite user page talk 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it has, but that's not an excuse not to try. New information is always popping up, however it does tend to pop up rather slowly... still worth a shot...13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Decided "I want sources to support claim X" and then seeking sources to support your claim, when you know it is disputed, is not how Wikipedia is built. Research and inquiry, in this wonderful enlightened modern age, does not involve decided what you want to conclude ahead of time and then cobbling together what little evidence you might be able to find. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct, Unfortunately that's often how it's usually done and we should remember that consensus can change and to assume good faith although some users are pushing it with their apparant determination to push their personal view of this subject. It would be interesting to hear what resaerch has been done that has lead them to these conclusions. --neonwhite user page talk 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's an important distinction. I'm not saying anyone is pushing their pre-determined opinions on the article, only that these pre-determined opinions are what they are considering adding before checking to see if it's verifiable/encyclopedic. It should be that one searches for such information without consideration for one's pre-determined opinions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I was kinda referring more to previous discussions in the archives rather than the current one, there did seem to be some 'POV pushing' going on at certain times to the point of synthesising and willful misinterpretation of sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A recent article along these lines is here [22] ("Subculture clash among Mexico youth" in USA Today). JJL (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering if you all want me to find some cources that provide information on the emo subculture what would you like me to find? Like perhaps a criteria that explains the ideology, I have done my own research on the internet and really should have written down my resources... But what is it I need to help strengthen the proof that the subculture exist? I am very persistent as you can tell and I know they exist, however whe this article appears I suggest it be closely watched trust me. XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As pointed out above deciding "I want sources to support claim X" and then seeking sources to support your claim is not a good way to go about writing an article. The fact that you seem to believe something, yet have no evidence to back it up suggests to me that you need to reacess that. --neonwhite user page talk 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In order to change consensus you would need a few sources written by some people with some authority in the feild of Sociology (Author must have a degree in it and whatnot). They must be published, accepted by the academic community, and also not from an undergrad like what someone tried to use the last time a split was proposed. So far the only sources I've seen are media sources, not acceptable for this, and primary sources, also not acceptable. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)72.81.226.247 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ideally someone would have to have performed a wide ranging research using test subjects from a large variety of locations worldwide, interviewing them and making conclusions based on this. In my opinion this is highly unlikely to ever happen and even more unlikely to proof any subculture exists when the very idea of subculture is largely thought to be obsolete and very few people indentify with a single 'culture'. Everything so far suggests the opposite. That it is a music genre and a stereotype only. --neonwhite user page talk 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[23] - heres an article describing an unbaised view of emo [24] - The study of emo has already begun at many universitys and has been already recognized by sociologist [25] - A film about the music and supposably the subculture is coming out soon so its pretty safe to assume that it exist no? Yes I am very stuborn XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The student newspaper is interesting, although I believe that for an article as contested as this one, it probably won't do. However, we do have this:

• Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures. www.allacademic.com/meta/p106514_index.html

It is a title and an abstract, making it clear that the authors think this word is unproblematic to use about emo. One of the authors is a professor of sociology. It has not been published, but was peer-reviewed and ostensibly good enough for the American Association of Sociology annual meeting.

It is not independently published, which is not a problem since the policy on this requirement also clearly states that a source is still "...acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".

I have not seen anyone dispute these points, nor tell me how they fail to make the source acceptable. Lundse (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Again all those sources blatently misuse the term. They are quite obviously talking about popular culture and [26] quite clearly reports the misuse of the term The media has suggested that emo is a popular subculture that includes being emotional, shy and full of angst, but this isn't the case with all those who associate themselves with the emo culture. and says that it is only a stereotype as is the consensus here. --neonwhite user page talk 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's wrong Neon. The source says "this is the stereotype often attributed to the emo subculture by the media" not "emo is only a stereotype." Might want to read the whole source. Sociologists are in agreement that emo is a subculture and have refered to it as such, however they are still studying it so there won't be a good source that defines it for sometime. As such consensus stays the same. As far as wikipedia is concerened, it's just a stereotype for now. Wait til the study is finished and published, then try to change consensus. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that is rubbish, it's your personal opinion that is not backed up by any sources whatsoever. That article is clearly stating that it's a stereotype and not a subculture. --neonwhite user page talk 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Neon: "all those sources"? What does that mean? I was referring to one specific source (the title and abstract). How is that source misusing the terms "subculture" and "emo" (other than claiming something you do not agree with)?

Are you saying now that we discount the source because of your gut feeling that it "misuses terms" or your decision that it is only "talking about pop-culture"? Please be more concise about why you believe this specific source is not good enough. Lundse (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We never discount sources but look for better authoratative sources when its quite obvious that they are making the a common mistake and misusing a term. We canit have an article which clearly describes an element of popular culture, that so far is only a fashion and sterotype, masquerading as a subculture. Whilst the popular media might like to misrepresent a popular stereotype as a subculture without basis an encyclopedia cannot. Emo fashion can be compared to Grunge_music#Presentation_and_fashion in nature, neither can be called a subculture. I think the obvious misunderstanding here is that whilst fashion and appearance can be an indicator of a subculture it isn't the defining factor of one. It's clear, if you read the important works on the subject, that there needs to be alot more than that. --neonwhite user page talk 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that because you disagree with the source, we cannot use it? And why are you taking about popular media all of a sudden, please adress the source I mentioned and don't try to make this about the media. You are claiming the source is not good enough. Why? It "makes a common mistake"? I could say that about any source I want, does that mean I get to decide which sources we can include in wikipedia. Now, if you had a source that was as good or better than this one, saying that usage of the term "subculture" with regard to emo is a common misconceptino even within academia, _then_ your criticism of this source would be worth something. Right now it is just you claiming it is wrong... Lundse (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not rubbish at all but what you said certainly is. Again you need to read the source. The source clearly states that emo is a subculture and as well as what the media's stereotype of the emo subculture is. Here is an idea. Read the whole thing, not just what suits you, both pages. And yes here in the USA there are sociology studies going on in different universaties by hmm, sociologists on the emo subculture. of course I can't previde a source for this. Hence why I havn't used it to try and change consensus. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in)71.179.8.102 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

the article clearly describes why it isnt a subculture and merely a media stereotype. --neonwhite user page talk 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It refers to it as a subculture or culture several times but if your not going to read it, whatever, it's not a good enough source anyway so it doesn't matter.71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's highly speculative and reflects pre-publication academic work that may never be accepted in its field. Such claims require acceptance in the field, not existence (especially in such a prenatal sort of condition). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the above, I'm completly aware of that and that's why I'm not using it to try and change consensus. It can't be used. They exist, although I can't varify that, but that's not acceptence. If (and I say if because they may never be) they are published and accepted then I will use them. Until then, I won't because I can't. Didn't I state that already? Could've have sworn I did.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lundse, you still don't get the fact that a fresh-out-of-grad-school PhD and one of his grad-student friends can make a presentation at a conference and still have it not be publication-level work. They are not established experts and their claims are dubious and nowhere-repeated or cited. The fact that you can't find any published verification for your claim should be a HUGE RED FLAG. Scraping the bottom of the academic-sources-barrel for conference talk abstracts (which are explicitly excluded by WP:RS subpages/guidelines) is kind of sad. We've been over this before. Many times. This source is not enough. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop assuming things about what I get and do not. Please stop the personal attacks. Please stop misrepresenting me.

First, he is an associate professor of sociology. He is an established, independently published expert in the field. Did you not follow the link I gave you to his CV and publications, have you selectively forgotten it or are you simply lying?

You have two constructive criticisms, which I have adressed before but which you seem to have forgotten about.

You say that this source is "nowhere-repeated" etc. This is regrettable, true, but it does not do the argumentative work for you which you imagine. If we had a number of sociologists talking about the emo phenomenon and none of them used the term subculture, then your criticism would be apt and I would gladly concede your point that sociologists do not talk about emo in these terms. However, we have very few sociological sources on emo - we have a student, a professor (whose paper we unfortunately do not have) and a Phd. teachers blog. (Please let me know if you are aware of other sources). All of these use the term subculture about emo. The fact that there are not a lot of sources do not tip the scales in any direction. However, it is important that there be at least one source which is 'good enough'.

In your second point, you adress this, which is refreshing. You claim that it fails WP:RS, which is not. I have already pointed out that the relevant section of RS is a subsection under "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" - to which sociology does not belong. You are applying the policy to the wrong subject!

However, I have already given you that the source is not of perfect quality, while you claim it is useless because it fails to live up to a standard it is not supposed to live up to. I have submitted it as a "self-published" source (which is fitting in that the abstract and title is presumaby not censored by any editorial control, nor necessarily accepted by those who published it). I have shown you the relevant policy which says such sources are acceptable when the author is published in the relevant field.

Now, I ask you to stop claiming that this abstract falls within "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" and/or stop using that subjects policies for it. And to stop claiming it was written by anybody else than a published associate professor of sociology[[27]]. The facts are these: the abstract was written by an expert in the field, we have policy that says that statements by such experts are acceptable (even when they are not independently published). How is the source not acceptable? Lundse (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Let's read all of the sentence you're quoting: However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. That's pretty plain and clear. You've got a non-published, non-accepted theory that may have been written by someone who is now an associate professor, but when this conference talk was given, he was fresh out of grad school. That's not an expert. Get over it. Why are you arguing this, still, months and months after everybody else let it go? Don't forget that we generally require multiple reliable independent sources. You can't couple this unpublished paper's abstract with the other junk you've scraped up (a "thesis" by a bachelor's candidate about Weezer? honestly?) to substantiate this claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re. the caveat about using such sources: Yes, it is plain and clear. It states that we prefer other sources and that if they are not there, we should be careful. Does this mean we can never use such a source? The policy is actually quite lucid on this point: the expert is trusted, but we prefer his published material. And "if it is worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" - but in this case we have almost no reporting from the relevant field (sociology)! So we do not have a case were we can rely on "someone else". So lets rely on what we have - expert opinion (an associate professors, a PhD. and a BA student).

Then you claim that the guy is not an expert. When the talk was given (2003, Aug), he had held a PhD. in sociology for 3 damn years! I think he had the credentials for being an associate professor at that point, if he did not already hold that position. What would you require of someone in order for him to be an expert? Doctorate? Nobel prize? (I would also love to hear what you believe would be a subculture, BTW).

And last, a plea to common sense: We have sources of varying quality and various origin (laymen, press, within sociology) using the word subculture about the emo phenomenon. We have no sources saying it is not a subculture, or anything inconsistent with being one. But go ahead, tell me again how the professor is not an expert or how the RS policy really means to say that we can never use unpublished sources... Lundse (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and here is another assistant professor using the term in passing. [[28]] And a masters thesis [[29]]. Maybe the reason there is no doctorate thesis explicitly making the case that "emo" is a "subculture" is because it is simply too obvious to mention to these guys? Lundse (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again with this "why don't you prove it's not a subculture" nonsense. Fine. I claim emo is a type of fruit. Until you find a source explicitly stating "emo is not a type of fruit" I will complain about it. lol. Now, an expert is what we say it is - a well-respected, established researcher in a field. Someone with a fresh PhD making a claim that is nowhere else verifiable hardly qualifies. And please don't ever kid yourself into thinking an undergraduate paper is a reliable source. That's just ludicrous, and reflects the desperation with which you pursue this issue. You have already decided your conclusion, and scrape up every last source you can find to push it - that is not how one does research. Please move past that 12th century paradigm. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't go there again. And we never did, that was never my argument. Please reread my post(s) until you understand them. Please stop strawmanning me.

My argument was that we have very few sources overall. And that this discounts your argument that we cannot use the part of the policy which says we can use sources like this one (self-published, but from an expert). Not because you have to prove you negative statement (I am surprised how you can read that in there, is it the same way you try to apply the "Physical sciences" policy to sociology?)

I also see that to you, three years is a "fresh" PhD. Interesting. I also notice that you have not answered me clearly on what constitutes an expert (except to say 'certainly not this one'). Will you, or should I, go through all of wikipedia and remove all text based on sources from people who hold a lesser degree or has not had a PhD. longer than this?

Last, you mention something about research paradigms. I don't know which theoretical stance you are tying to embrace here, but it seems like you are advocating a positivistic stance, whereas mine is clear fallibilistic (that would be ca. 16. century science and 20. century, respectively. I don't which 12th century paradigm you are refering to, but it sounds fascinating. And for the record, I am not doing research, I am trying to find sources! Those are two different things. Accusing me of being a bad scientists for trying to find a source which supports my view is hardly constructive. I would love it for you to try to find a source! And I won't call you names for it, promise.

But never mind. Lets get back to the critique of the source we do have. Were you saying an associate professor who had held a PhD. for three years and is published in the field, is not a sufficiently 'expert' source on sociology when he is writing abstracts? Or do you want to go back to misrepresenting policies again? Lundse (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it's quite as simple as "everybody else let it go" and I do feel a re-examination is quite reasonable. JJL (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to push personal views on a subject that have no real basis in fact. It's a collection of knowledge, it's not a place to push a personal agenda. It's been said before, you don't make conclusions and then try to scrape together enough bits of sources to try and get it included. This is a poor way to edit and is indicatative of POV pushing. It's all been dealt with before. Puff pieces and school newspaper article are not reliable sources. The problem here is still the gross misuse of the term and lack of understanding. The fact is it is still proving difficult to find sources for a common fashion. It's far too divergent to ever be called a subculture all we can source are media stereotype. --neonwhite user page talk 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lundse the sources you have provided are NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You've got a book that refers to it in passing but does not describe it. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! You've got papers that are not published or accepted, SAME THERE!!! If you can't previde a propper source for your claim get off it. And Neon white, while I agree with the consensus that emo is just a stereotype, "lack of understanding" and "It's far too divergent to ever be called a subculture," are only your opinions. *If* a well known expert in Sociology comes out and releases a study saying it's a subculture and the study is published and accepted by the accademic community then emo is a subculture as far as wikipedia is concerned. Of course this is only a hypothetical and it's completly possible that this will never happen.71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's incredibly unlikely, unless of course future developments occur but going on the past that's not likely. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We will never get a study with the conclusion "emo is a subculture". That would be ludicrous, a subject only fitted for grade school (it would amount to applying a dictionary definition, something which certain people around here believe is heretical within wikipedia server space, although we have policies saying otherwise and this would mean we could never write stuff like "11 is a number"). So we have to look at how sociologists use the word within their articles, interviews and (best of all) papers which touch on the subject. The book is just fine for this, it gives us a look at how sociologists use the word and that is what we need. Actually, I would be fine with the mass of press material, as I do not buy the whole "subculture is _only_ a very specific scientific term"-theory (which noone has argued for, but never mind).

I have explained above why the abstract is a source in itself. Just like a blog post or similar self-published source by an expert in the field can be used (when there are no other sources mentioning the matter either way), we can also use an abstract from a paper (in fact, I would argue that it is probably more precisely worded and thought through than a blog post). Please read Cheesers comments and my answers before engaging in this argument, so we do not have to go over the same ground at 10th time Lundse (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"we do not have to go over the same ground at 10th time" - take your own advice. Your claim of "dictionary definition" are ludicrous, and your "11 is a number example" is still completely wrong, not to mention irrelevant. That fact is expounded in numerous foundations-of-math texts and other mathematical publications, whereas "emo is a subculture" is a substantial, unproven sociological claim. Get a grip. We've been over this ground, and you have not met the burden of WP:RS. Once again, you harken to publications in journalism that are extremely dubious ("emos worship death"? really? that's a source you trust?) and unpublished papers, abstracts, and other nonreliable sources, mostly by people with no credentials. Only a single PhD whose work was not published. Why do you insist on such tendentious agenda-pushing? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually subculture is a scientific term it was coined by sociologists (possibly David Riesman), and is widely misused by the popular media to refer to things that do not fit the criteria defined in the major studies. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see you still do not understand my number analogy. If you want, I can explain it again, but only if you are willing to throw out you present conception of it. I have tried it before, and you kept misinterpreting me.

Then, for some odd reason, you begin to talk of the "emos worship death"-source - but that is not the source I am arguing for! Please reread that sentence. And please stop misrepresenting me, strawmanning me, etc. etc.

The only agenda I am trying to push is that one should not be able to bully around people by citing irrelevant policies, neglect to argue their case and how said policies apply. And that you and noeonwhite stop misrepresenting this matter as out-debated, in order for it to be so, you will need to enter the debate properly. For example arguing against 'my points' and not just your preferable reading of them. That you stop misrepresenting what I am saying. And that you address my points directly. Such as telling me whether you actually believe that some who has held a PhD. in a field for three years is not to be trusted in using the basic vocabulary of it properly. Start telling me about the position you actually hold, elucidating it, going into detail. Instead of just attacking me. Lundse (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citing WP:TEND is off-base and inflammatory. No one is editing the article page at this point--people are discussing it on Talk. That is entirely appropriate. There is clearly disagreement about this but there are several people with opinions on both sides. You may not care to discuss this, but please don't attempt to bully others into not doing so. JJL (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It applies to talk pages as well. Talk:Waterboarding which was place on probation by the arbitration commitee for a similar thing. There is a point where it becomes Refusal to get the point It is clear here that conclusions have been drawn before the sources exist and evidence is being synthesised to further a personal POV. --neonwhite user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So you've got a published and accepted (I think) book. FINE. The Book calls emo a subculture in passing. FAIR ENOUGH. But then it hits us with it doesn't define the emo subculture. NO, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! So far here is what Emo subculture would look like (at least in my head)...

Emo (Subculture) Emo is a subculture.[[30]]

Please stop shouting. I do not really get your point, I am afraid. I am not arguing for splitting the article, but merely for including and accepting the fact that emo is a subculture. Whether that merits an entirely new article, a section or whatever is another matter (which I will not go into). It seems your critique of the book as a source is based on the fact that it does not define emo subculture, and hence cannot be used to establish that emo is a subculture. This is just wrong - the book functions just fine as an example of sociologists using "subculture" about "emo". Lundse (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not generally accepted or accepted by any authorative source, there is no evidence that it is. It doesnt fit the general criteria and all the sources available so far point to a stereotype that may have little basis in reality. The book is a poor source, in fact it's utterly useless for this debate. Firstly the piece is not about emo at all, it has one mention in passing of a subject that he initially associated with an alternative music subculture. It's not clear what he's is referring to. It's just far too ambiguous to be of any use. The interesting thing about this source from the point of view of this discussion is that it emphasises the difference between 'Straight Edge', a clear and non disputed subculture and emo which has none of the subcultural elements apparent in 'Straight Edge'. --neonwhite user page talk 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem right to me. I'm all for a split if we have the sources for it though. So far we don't.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is incredibly clear what he is referring to and how he is classifying emo - as one of a number of subculture; "part of an alternative music subculture. And just to make it completely open and shut he mentions emo alongside other known subcultures. That the piece is not about emos directly is irrelevant and this has been pointed out before. The book is just fine, and about as good a source we can get in this area, as I have also mentioned before. Your claims that "the book is ... utterly useless" need to be substantiated - I am afraid you do not get to decide right or wrong without arguing your points. Lundse (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And another thing noticed as well is that Neonwhite has been claiming personal views get in our way repidedly as far as I am concerned this is not true we have provided sources and validations n' whatnot, I am tired of hearing it, I personally believe neonwhite as you claim we have personal views blocking us it is you that has personal views unallowing us to make a split article. Now that my rant is over, I agree for a split thread and with what you just said Lundse XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear to anyone reading this talk page that you have already made a decision about what you would like wikipedia to say before any sources have been found that substantiate your conclusions. I have expressed no personal views whatsoever in this discussion. You have simply failed to provided sources of any use that back up what are obviously personal views on the subject. This has been going on for a long time and is becoming increasing desperate and scraping the bottom of the barrel with regard to sources maybe it's time to concede that the sources do not exist at the current time and revive the discussion if they should be published in the future. --neonwhite user page talk 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear at all, its a fragment of a sentence that just happens to contain both terms, what exactly he is referring to as a subculture, if anything, is ambiguous. Simply mentioning it when discussing subcultures is not a source. To make assumptions that the author is intending the refer to emo as a subculture constitutes synthesis. It is completely relevant that the subject of the piece is not about emo. See Significant coverage in notability guidelines for further info. It doesnt have to be the exclusive topic of a piece but an unclear half sentence is useless. If you believe that this is the best source you can find then it's probably time to quit this POV quest. I have made no claims that anything is 'right or wrong', i have merely commented that that particular source has little or no worth in this debate and cannot be used to substantiate what you are claiming. --neonwhite user page talk 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and stop calling this a "POV quest" or similar. I am trying to discuss whether we can use certain sources (the book and the abstract) - you can believe whatever you want about my motives, but please do not try to avoid arguing your points (in the same argument) by namecalling and trying to paint me as somehow 'already wrong'.

You mention "significant coverage", it is about notability - we are discussing whether to use certain sources to make a certain claim. If you want to discuss whether emo music, the subculture or the "social group"/stereotype/whatever-word-you-use-to-avoid-"subculture" should be in wikipedia at all, please start a thread specifically for that.

And you are repeating that the books sentence mentioning emo is not clear, and you try to paint it as merely "mentioning it when discussing subcultures". The full quote is:

"I immediately pegged her as part of an _alternative music subculture_ - probably _emo/indie rock_, maybe punk and possibly hardcore."

If the sentence had been:

"I immediately pegged it as a _type of car_ - probably a _sedan_, maybe stationcar and possibly sportscar."

Does it then become clearer that the sentence implies that a _sedan_ is a _type of car_? I cannot see how you can read that sentence in any other way. Please let me know how the sentence makes sense if the speaker (an Assistant Professor of Sociology) does not believe emo/indie rock to be a subculture. How can he write that sentence and not believe it? Can you construct a sentence along the lines of my car example, where the examples are not part of the type _he is explicitly exemplifying_? The sentence would become nonsense...

Regarding splitting the article, I have not considered it. Currently, I believe we should start out with a mention of the subculture as a phenomenon in itself, maybe expand that to a section and if it keeps growing, make the split. Lundse (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith only applies until there is evidence to the contrary. In this case there is. The attempt to push this POV has been going on for some time and many seperate tactics have been used. It's obvious that certain editors are trying to get their personal views included in wikipedia at all costs. If you are proposing an article for something that hasn't been proven to exist then notability is the policy that would result in it being deleted. Note the word probably, there is nothing definitive there whatsoever. It's speculative not assertive. The book covers little, if anything to do with the emo subculture. If a paper was published that came to the conclusion that emo might be a subculutre might be a subculture then that wouldnt be enough for an article either. We have nothing at all to add to the article yet you are still arguing for it. --neonwhite user page talk 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the outdent, but this was getting out of hand :-) - this is a response to Neonwhite's post which as of this writing is directly above this post.

Regarding good faith, then I just do not see the evidence. I am arguing about sources and inclusion of facts. You can disagree, counter my points, bring your own sources - but you cannot dismiss me, my arguments or the sources I bring by reference to your assumptions of bad faith!

You also seem to be labouring under the further assumption that I want to split the article and create an "Emo subculture" page in itself. I have twice stated that this is not my errand, I am at a loss as to why you continue to believe this. For the record, I believe you are 100% right that this book is in no way enough to merit an article on emo subculture, as you succintly said: it would contain nothing but that claim.

What I am arguing is this (please take note): the book is a source for the _fact_ that emo is a subculture. Whether we need an article on it is another matter, and one which should be taken up when we see whether we have a sentence, a paragraph or a section with relevant material (I do believe we could flesh it out a ways from other sources, once we have established that emo is a subculture - but that is still to be seen).

My interest here is simply a stubborn refusal to have my arguments misrepresented. I have argued that emo is a subculture and I believe we have sources for it and that it should go in the article. Regarding names: as long as we have one article on emo-related phenomena, lets just call it emo. If we get enough material to warrant a split, I would imagine it would be along the lines of "music genre" and "subculture", but that is speculation about the future of the article.

Now, are there any arguments left against the two sources (book and abstract) which claim that emo is a subculture, which have not been addressed? Lundse (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, why aren't you responding to the Time Magazine "discusssion" below? Isn't the article and the LA Weekly articles not only enhance but alter what currently in the criticism section?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.67 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fact"? The only "Fact" I note is that it may be /called/ a subculture. Of course, one could /call/ Science a cult–that doesn't make it /fact/. Popular Journalism is a poor source at best–we need a sociologic study demonstrating that there is a subculture, specifically different in lifestyle, beliefs, and with something resembling uniformity, which is called "Emo". I have never seen this in my years either in a paper or in person. Provide factual, scientific evidence, or the discussion will remain at loggerheads. Perhaps you could provide the defining characteristics of this subculture? If you cannot and cannot provide your source, there is no further discussion needed. 24.168.94.97 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)KaT Adams, 15:14, 2 May 2008 (-5 GMT)

This is pretty much my opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As true as this is, the fact is that it is a book PUBLISHED as far as I know saying that it is a subculture it has as much attention as punk, goth, etc. You may not agree but as far as I am concernec we have provided all the sources we need and you comeup with non relevent claims to try and back you up or you change the subject all the way instead of trying to disprove the source, why because you cant, you dont except the paper on emo cause he was a young sociologist, as far as I am concerned a sociologist no matter how old has experience if they have a phd etc(If I recall correctly you didnt reply to this as per above cant remember). We have provided solid sources and you say they are not solid, they all have support, etc. So they are valid and will work.(I will add more to this later) XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The paper wasn't published so it's as useless as anybody's self published personal opinion. As i have said no adequate sources have been provided yet that would allow any comment in any article. --neonwhite user page talk 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. facts: So a sociologist calling a it a subculture is not enough? We need a specific study, the specific goal of which is to prove that emo is a subculture?

If we give your argument any weight, then no source will ever be good enough. No source will ever be able to claim P, because someone can always come along and say the source on claims that "one can say P". Please provide a counterexample to this, if you believe me wrong - one example of a source which your critique would not defeat, no matter how good. Lundse (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this POV pushing it is becoming disuptive. No sources have been provided that supported this position yet you are still arguing the same points based on nothing but a personal view. --neonwhite user page talk 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not try to evade arguments by dismissing it as "a personal view" - anyone could say that about anyone, the proof is in the sources, policies and arguments. Please stop the personal attacks.

I have argued extensively for the abstract and shortly for the book source. No problems have been mentioned with the abstract source, which I have not addressed and rebuked. Please let me know what problems you think remain with that source, or if you have any new criticisms. That way, we can have a discussion and we will not have to just call each other "POV-pushers". Lundse (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not POV-pushing. Your claims of such are just a tactic. Please stop bullying those trying to discuss sources, as happened last time when the page was merged away during an alleged detente. There are enough sources that say "Emo is a subculture" or "the emo subculture" in just so many words to make the matter arguable, and there are enough people on either side to make it clear it isn't just one person's POV (despite your efforts to portray it as such). Why not ask for (informal) mediation or the like? JJL (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It clearly is a personal view and one look at the archives for this page and the previous page shows that you have held these strong views long before any attempts to source it were made. This is in no way a personal attack. Simply put it isnt anywhere near a good enough source for what you claim. It's an arbitrary remark only. --neonwhite user page talk 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is POV pushing in the most obvious sense by a number of editors (one of which does little else on wikipedia other than push this view to the point of bordering on being a SPA) with personal views that have no basis in reality as can be seen by the lack of sources. We can easily find it going on for some time (since at least september 2007 [31]). It was rejected on exactly the same grounds as it is being rejected now, that it cannot be reliably sourced that such a subculture exists. There is simply nothing available to construct an article with, there isnt even enough to source a small line in this article. The general rule is that if your views were at all relevant someone would have written about them, as it is they haven't. There are no adequate sources been provided that even come close to sourcing the views you claim. The matter may once have been arguable but now it is refusing to 'get the point'. If more sources become available in the future then the debate can continue but currently it is exactly the same poor arguements about the same unreliable sources that were being made 6 months ago. --neonwhite user page talk 13:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion is the same (except for the book source, but never mind that for now). And that it has come to the same standstill. Back then, it also ended with you not wanting to address my criticisms and points - same as what you are doing now. I have a really hard time seeing any argumentation in what you write, you only seem to repeat your beliefs - may I recommend doing that in a text file on your own computer, we know what it is you believe and find the repetitions boring, let's hear some arguments. The only thing resembling one, which I could find, is:

"It's an arbitrary remark only." - what does this mean?

"There is simply nothing available to construct an article with..." - which I fail to see the relevance of, since we are discussing whether a source is sufficient for a claim. I told you this to or three times rather specifically...

And than you call my arguments "poor". I would love to hear you (or anyone) tell me what is wrong with them. I am really not interested in you personal attacks and claims that I am POV pushing, nor in hearing your restate your beliefs. Just tell me this: why are my arguments "poor"? Lundse (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is what I am trying to push here as I agree with you Lundse he(she?) has been disregarding your statments and hasn't proven otherwise that emo isn't a subculture as said we have provided sources yet he disregards them. I would provide some sources but I believe we have provided enough.XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean arbitrary as in subject to individual will or judgment rather than a judicial decision, meaning it's an unspecific opinion. It's not really scientific. I find the arguments poor, firstly because they have failed to gain any kind of consensus since they were started and secondly they don't seem to be based on any sources which is why you'll find people considering it to be a personal POV which pre-dates your attempts to source it. "There is simply nothing available to construct an article with...". It is certainly relevant that there is not enough info to create an article. Correct me if i am wrong but you are proposing creating an article for a supposed 'emo subculture' that we can neither source the existance of to any acceptable degree nor describe the attributes of in any way. I just fail to see how that article would be any more than a single line at this stage? Perhaps creating the page in user space would help develop it. Wikipedia requires that we prove positives not negatives. --neonwhite user page talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the the Hippie subculture article for instance you can immediately see that this article can source a common ethos such as politics, attitude towards drug use, gender, sex etc. We cannot source any such commonality for this. --neonwhite user page talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, if you guy's have good/better sources just put them up.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: arbitrary. So you are saying that the line from the book which we are suggesting to use as a source is "unscientific". I already told you that you do not get to make that call and just write off whatever source's claim you disagree with. Find a source saying it is unscientific, otherwise, we go with the PhD in sociology to make tat call.

Re: poor arguments. That they have not convinced anyone is not a measure of their worth - whether anyone has been able to counterargue, point out problems, and generally take up a discussion and disagree from there is the real test. Noone seems to want to do this... You, for instance, when asked specifically whether the argument regarding the inclusion of a given source, say they "don't seem to be based on any sources". They are _about_ a source, for crying out loud. This claim simply makes no sense!

And then you argue about "not enough to make an article". ow many times do I have to tell you that this is another issue? Should I write it 100 times on your talk page? I have told you time and again that I am arguing for the use of a source to make a specific claim - how the article evolves from there is another matter.

And thanks for the support here, Criscore. Although Neonwhite does not have to "prove" or provide sources that emo is not a subculture to keep that statement out of the article, he will have to provide a compelling argument against the sources we have if he does not want them accepted. I am not holding my breath... Lundse (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

All editors look at sources and decide whether they are relaible enough for an encyclopedia. The source is poor. full stop. No-one is going to call that a good source. It isnt an authorative statement. it's merely speculative. The fact that you have no sources at all after 9 months of pushing this view suggests quite clearly that an article is pointless as it will be blank. Anything that goes in wikipedia needs to be verfiable, this is policy and it is up to the person adding the material to find the sources, that is the only obligation, if they can't do it then it probably means that the views are either, their view only, or simply too fringe for anybody to have written about them other than in school newspapers. In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.--neonwhite user page talk 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your claims about the source (poor, speculative) are not enough to discredit it. You have to argue from policy. Please try to do so. I ask again: what (policy-guided) lines of critique remain against this source?

What will it take for you to understand that I am not arguing that we should split the article? Please let me know as I am getting tired of repeating it.

Re. fringe theory, etc. - this looks like an attempt at an argument, so I will address it as such. It is, quite simply, not a fringe theory. It is the _only_ "theory" on the matter we have heard from the sociologists. A fringe theory goes against the commonly held view in a given scientific field - the only indications we have from this field are (from good and "bad" sources)... that emo is a subculture. Lundse (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What about these internal links on youth subculture and a list of them that encludes emo? Would it ease tension in the group to let the article be disambiguated as a youth subculture rather than a generic subculture? The latin root sub- in "subculture" denotes "below" or "under", but there is no implied notion of the degree to which it signifies "below" or "under". Where the "sub" divides a term is arbitrary. As such, this discussion is about "culture" rather than the word "subculture." With that in mind, the definition of culture is wide enough to include the effect that a genre of music naturally has on the individuals who listen to it and embody what they listen to. Kroeber and Cluckhoen once compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture as referenced here. The question of references for possible content is different from the question of references for why this article should be disambiguated. I have given references as to why this should not be a controversial disambiguation. As for possible content references, a quick search came up with results of varying quality: you might notice this book on Amazon, this article on JSTOR regarding previous (although questionable) academic work done on an association between Country music and suicide, or this article from ABC 4 news. The possible sources for content I've found with a quick search need to be enumerated upon, improved in quality and quantity, but the question here definitely should not be about any one person's subjective, connotative definition of "subculture" since the denotation of the word "subculture" already allows for "emo" to be considered as such. Moreover, the length of this discussion should imply that there is also a connotative definition of "emo" as a "subculture." The question we are looking at is the availability and quality of sources to provide content on the subject. I hope folks continue seeking out sources as more is written on this emerging subculture.--Sviebrock (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

With that in mind, the definition of culture is wide enough to include the effect that a genre of music naturally has on the individuals who listen to it - Simply put, this is wrong, it isn't. Common taste in music does not equal a subculture. A book on amazon that is clearly satirical is not a relaible source, in fact it contradicts itself in it's own description by saying emo is actually 'pop culture'. Emo has not been defined as a subculture and there is no evidence of any commonalities at all by any source good enough for an encyclopia which is why it will likely remain as a stereotype only for the foreseeable future. --neonwhite user page talk 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scene

the part about culture and style or watever should be changed to scene being as Scene is what the style is called and emo is the type of music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.101.245 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

it's not really an encyclopedic term. --neonwhite user page talk 09:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah but whether it is or isn't an encyclopedic term it's technically incorrect, although emo has been used as a stereotype for people similar to scene kids but with darker cloths, hair, etc. scene is more common than emo, scene is often stereotyped as emo. they are two different things. Emo has a different meaning in music than it does to personality, style, etc.

71.106.187.71 (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC

Time, LA Weekly Criticisms should be included

I was wondering why the 'criticisms' within the Time Magazine article were not included within the wiki criticism section for EMO?

LA Weekly summarizes the criticisms itself, here: http://www.laweekly.com/music/music/emo-bashing-mexicos-latest-urban-youth-craze/18684/

It makes the statement that this trend is mostly an Internet generated phenomena; and that it is something that which only has become known at all within the last 3 or 4 years; and that EMO as we know it today, especially in foreign countries is mostly a fashion fad.

It also has criticism of pre-existing "subcultures", i.e. punk, goths, and their dislike for EMO for reasons mentioned above; and there's also the criticism, referencing a professor, that most of the EMOS, in Mexico in particular, come from the upper middle-class, etc.

I linked to the LA Weekly article. So I would like the editors of the Wiki Emo page to take a look at it. I would summarize it myself, but no one is allowed to edit the Emo page anymore, it seems.

LA Weekly has always been a hub for Indie music news, information; a very credible publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days now and I'm wondering when there's going to be a response to the questions I posed above.

The wiki criticism section on this EMO page is really, really short. It even cites a very obscure, esoteric reference to EMO being "sexist..." Shouldn't the criticisms within two major publications, one being Time Magazine itself and the other LA Weekly get actual mention with regard to EMO?

Thanks

Dude, those are good sources. Get a username (it costs nothing btw) and add them. And also sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will sign up later on when I have more time behind a computer. I just want to point out that the "editors" of the Emo page are responding to other topics on this discussion page while ignoring this particular thread. And I notice that other posters here are continually butting heads with them over precisely the points confirmed in the sources I scite above. I said, Time Magazine is undoubtedly the most important publication to do on article on Emo, and the article actually contains valid criticisms; the same applies to the LA Weekly article.

206.170.104.56 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Sam

There has been speculation about mexico's serious class divide but we have to careful not to go off topic. --neonwhite user page talk 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo has no roots

so i saw that alot of people say that emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk!!?? Ok maybe some people know this better then me but still i find this claim insulting to everything punk stands for!!! Punk is an anti-astablishment form of music that talks about the problems of the people (not like martin luther king but still...) on the other hand emo is more personal and talks about teenage issues of soe kid who is thinking about killing himselfe!!! il be honest with you i dont respect emo people or their music. now before you stic me on a cross listen to my thoughts. i feel like they are chooseing the easyer way out of their teenage problems! they have problems and they solve them by cutting their veins and not talking or when they talk they say things lik:"i hate this life" or "i wish i was dead"!!! OMG!!!!! people wake up and smell the joy of life and youth!!! And now to return to the topic at hand. emo is an insult to all music genres and when you compare it to punk u just make a fool out of your selfe!!! i hope that people dont get toooo ofended by this little tekst and if they do dont send f..k u messeges and dont expect an apology because im not apologizeing for saying what i think soo.... oh an btw sry about the spelling and grammar im not a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.128.61 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There are roots for the subgenre and it is proven to exist you are commiting POV in the most obvious manner. It is a subgenre that dosen't mean it has to be like Punk or it would be PUNK. And before you insult emo do some research as your claims are not accurate to any extent. And also the fact you stereotype the kids obviously shows you have never met one and you are going with the establishment called "The Media". If you cant except someone for there diffrences you wont get far in life.XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that I have anything to do with anything, nor is this the right place to bring this up, but I know a lot of emo kids that actually do cut themselves. Evaunit♥666♥ 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No you're wrong dude, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all--Sheish 6 Sheish 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Emo is NOT connected to Punk

I repeat, Emo is NOT connected to punk. Emo is a virus that claims deep songs from the punk era as Emo. Emo is about as Punk as an Orange is Lettuce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkumaTrypp (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes it is. So says all sources and anyone with a knak for the obvious. Don't claim this because you don't like Emo.71.179.227.101 (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki's Rivethead page as precedant towards a separate EMO Kid page for Subculture.

Even though I am campaigning for Wiki to open a separate page for EMO (Subculture or Lifestyle or Fashion)there is a precedant and the sources to back up such a disambiguation.

Does anyone here know what a Rivethead is? Do you know that Wikipedia has an article in which the term is used to describe a fan base of a musical genre that is far less known than EMO? And yet, we cannot have a separate article (according to Neonewhite) for the EMO subculture (or fan base, known as EMO'S). This is rather bizzare considering the sources for the latter would far outweigh the former by an untold sum; in fact, they are profiled in TIME MAGAZINE of all things!

But I should remark here that the EMO page needs an disambiguation; the example of the Time Magazine article and LA WEEKLY not having its criticisms of EMO included show a blatant bias and agenda to prevent this natural conclusion. I also cite the fact that Neonwhite has refused to even answer my question regarding the handling of this article where the criticsm is ommited.

And the reason is because in those articles EMO is identified as urban tribe or fashion subculture.

I do not wish to control this new EMO page. I will merely provide suggestions The New EMO page will just about write itself (and should be transparent), with more talented hands than mine.

The time is long overdue.

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and there are currently no sources whatsoever to back up claims of anything other than a music genre and a stereotype that this article covers. Wikipedia is not the place for original research (which is exactly what this view is currently) and personal essays. I can see no relevance with the Industrial (music) page. Criticism is often removed from articles to maintain a balanced article in accordance with policy (WP:NPOV), this isn't an article about the criticism of the emo genre. May i take this opportunity to remind you of the rules regarding assuming good faith. Accusing editors of having an agenda is considered uncivil. The article is question are not sufficient for the claims being made. As has been explained the classic misuse of the word 'subculture' is just not enough if all that is described and therefore all that can be sourced is about music and a fashion stereotype and not about a subculture. Scientific claims require scientific sources not gossip in the media. --neonwhite user page talk 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a page for Rivetheads on WIKIPEDIA, Neonwhite?

I repeat the question: Why is there a page for Rivetheads, who are fans of Industrial/EBM music and yet there is no page for EMOS...

EMOS have more sources, more notoriety then do Rivetheads. According to your logic, there should be no page for Rivetheads at all, BUT THERE IS ON WIKIPEDIA.

Can you square that one for me, please?

You do have an agenda, and so do I. Your agenda is to monopolize the term EMO. My agenda is simply to point to the documented evidence that contemporary EMO has a separate influence or development apart from old EMO. I have pointed out two immediate, large print media sources: the LA WEEKLY and TIME Magazine.

I am simply asking why these sources are not being used.

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This was something I was going to bring up in the last discussion but didn't, and I believe if we do make the article it should be refered to as Emo Kid cause thats what the fans are and emos just dosent sound right. Anywho I believe it is due to the fact that it is so new that our sources arn't "reliable" even though we have offered a book, news coverage, and a srticle by a proffessor. im not eniterly sure but i'd like to enter this conversation lets see how this turns. XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably time to (re-)create the Emo (subculture) article--the page is there as a redirect now--and let someone take it to AfD if they feel that's what's needed. JJL (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Chriscore, the term EMO Kid is a GREAT suggestion for the title of the page. There is abundant print and internet sources which refer to the this subculture as such. Btw, in Mexico, Emo Kids are simply referred to as Emos, that's because the letter E in the spanish equivelant 'emocional' is a soft vowel.

As far as what JJ refers to, I certainly am not technically competent to re-create or create the page; others can do that. I personally will have no part in the construction part of it, only the constructive element ;)

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is irrelevant. We have a section on fashion. It isn't long enough to justify a fork that would likely be POV/content fork. Is you have anything to add to that section, no-one is stopping you and in the unlikely event that it gets too long then a spilt can be discussed but currently there is no justification for any spilt. Be aware that personal attacks and accusing other editors of having an agenda is not considered civil behaviour. I repeat there is no evidence of a subculture whatsoever. The only sources so far are about a fashion stereotype. Synthesising material to advance a position is not acceptable and neither are neologisms. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a high school magazine. What is contained in article has to be accurate and not just media speculation. What studies did they do, what research? We can't base any article on misused terms. If you want to write an article about your personal views on the subject then a blog is the place but wikipedia is not the place for original research. --neonwhite user page talk 22:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this one on you neonwhite now that I look at this articles fashion area it looks really terrible, and Maybe I will round up a few sources and clean it up. 71.180.33.165 (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)(Chriscore Signed out)

Neonwhite, I have no idea how the facts can stare you in the face and yet you can deny them repeatedly.

And I also consider it rather hypocritical that everyone is locked out from editing the page for months on end, and yet here you say that we are free to edit the fashon section. How about we open the entire page open to editing? I have been trying to get someone's attention as to the criticisms had in the LA WEEKLY article but to no avail.

But that's not really my point this time around; your answer that the Rivethead page is irrelevant to the discussion is a rather poor one inded. In fact, it flies right in the face of your logic, doesn't it? I thought Wikis rules applied universally; that is to say: they are one way for every page.

But that's fine. I will go to the Wikipage for Rivethead in the next few days and asked them on what their take is and perahps get a second opinion.

Chriscore, the Time Magazine and LA WEEKLY articles are sources enough to open a page on EMO KIDS.

But I won't labour the point for the time being since my time is limited here. Just be sure that Neonwhite is way wrong here. Does anyone else find this bizarre, that Rivet-heads have a page on Wikipedia but EMO Kids don't?

Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No-one is 'locked out', the page is semi protected because of IP vandalism. Anyone with an account can still edit. The Rivethead article is a poor one, it lacks proper citations and is about a fashion who's notability is debatable. It is not a good example of an article and may get deleted/rewritten in the future. I repeat there is currently a section on fashions and stereotypes that needs improving, it is of no great length and there is little evidence that this fashion has any kind of notability on it's own to justify a split. Articles are created when they are needed not for the sake of creating one or because you desire a subject to have one. I have read the Time articles and they simply do not back up what you are claiming, they are opinion pieces that make no real assertions other than a few brief generalizations. We can find literally hundreds of media sources saying 'emo kids are this' or 'emos do that' but they are simply not good enough sources for anything other than proving a media stereotype. The challenge is to find academic sources with a reputation for sociological study that have researched this and made more of a conclusion than the 'emo faithful' 'are only happy when they're sad'. I highly recommend getting to know a little more about how wikipedia works including notability policy and original research before continuing this pointless discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 18:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, I don't care about EMO kids being mopey, or sad. My own POV is that they're simply trendy kids. Plain and simple; they are a pardoy of a parody in a sense.

But I think you're right that the Rivethead page is really badly written. But here's a newsflash: the EMO (Music) page is badly written itself. Don't get me wrong, it's not as badly written as Rivethead, but I have a challenge for you: why don't you go into the discussion page of the Rivethead page and clear up the mess -- since it is so obviously topsy turvy?

But I have anotehr newsflash: the guy who runs Rivethead is similar to yourself, and can control the debate and frustrate any criticism whether founded or unfounded. Why? Because he controls the page.

As to what you say about the fashion of EMO. Read the LA WEEKLY article. The byline clearly states in Bold Black letters how EMO is a fashion decision!

How do you square that for me?

But there will come a day when someone finally pulls the rug out from under you, and everyone else well say: "Ah, yeah... EMO, that was the dominant fashion trend of the middle 2000's." And it will be endorsed by an article on Wikipedia, the way you endorse the Deragotis history of the music style that everyone acknowledges died before the 2000's hit. Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-hardcore merger

I think that the whole term of post-hardcore was built by emo bands trying to evade the term and I therefore propose a merge with post-hardcore. MOTE Speak to me 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Post-Hardcore is a legitimately extant term outside of emo. Bands like Fugazi, Drive Like Jehu, Jawbox etc., while possibly having some degree of influence on today's emo bands, otherwise don't have a whole lot to do with emo. TheLetterM (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• OPPOSE per above.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is badly sourced, whether it can be sourced will probably decide it's fate, though i think deletion is more likely as this article doesn't mention the term. I think it is correct to say it lacks a defintion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I have heard the original statement above before. It is likely the bands you are thinking of are only bands which became famous in the past 5 years. These bands have been called both by media. What they call themselves I don't know. Older bands who get called both genres are not usually called the other though. As examples, Helmet is not emo and Sunny Day Real Estate is not post hardcore. Munci (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe I should take this to AfD. This article has no clear definition. 82.45.7.211 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it just needs a cleanup and sources. It's difficult to make a decision on a merger with so much of the article unsourced. --neonwhite user page talk 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I agree it dosent have enough sourceing and I believe it is just a name fiddled around with to be called .. not emo... However if we can find more sources I will change my decicion XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is the fact that All Music Guide recognizes Post-Hardcore as a genre not enough to even take it to a stub? If anything, this revision was the essentially the last one before an editor took it upon himself to revamp the article. While I agree with the spirit of those edits, the editor did not add any sources that necessarily back them up. Thus, if Post-Hardcore goes to AFD, I will oppose deletion, but I would rather see the article rolled back to a lower-class article that nevertheless has sufficient sources for the amount of content, than to see it deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Post-hardcore should merge to Screamo. Because it is the same thing, just listen to post-hardcore songs. 189.26.90.118 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There was already a merger attempt between those two articles which failed, in no small part due to the fact that the genres in question are aesthetically different from each other, and both articles cover very different information. You'll have to do better than "just listen to post-hardcore songs" in order to prove your point. TheLetterM (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question, which article is badly sourced? Emo or Post-Hardcore?71.179.227.101 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

oopps I posted on that on the wrong topic my bad 71.180.33.165 (talk)(xXxChriscorexXx Signed out) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with TheLetterM --SilverOrion (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment If Post-hardcore was a term created by Emo bands to escape the term Emo, then why should we merge Emo into Post-hardcore? Shouldn't that be the other way around (if what you say is true)?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I only agree because post hardcore dosent have enough sources and one good source dosent make an article it takes multiple. And that is because it dosent exist that is why they are the same thing. Sorry for the late resonser 71.180.33.165 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)(xXxChriscorexXx Signed out)

• Oppose I agree with 13Tawaazun14, it's an absurd claim made with no reasons whatsoever. Even so, it should be the other way around as Emo started being as Post-hardcore and then it began to be called "Emo" (for the introspective lyrics) by the music press. There are various interviews out there with people like Guy Picciotto and Ian MacKaye (yes there is a video of Ian MacKaye with Embrace on YouTube calling Emo pure press BS), where they reject the term.

Even so, Emo and Post-hardcore are not the same thing unless proved wrong (Allmusic guide even has Post-hardcore and Emo pages by theirselves in a separate way). The-15th (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Post-hardcore would be a more general term like post-punk, it is essentially a term for a number of genres including emo, screamo etc in the same way that post-punk includes new wave, goth rock etc.

hai emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.65.192 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well you've got it incredibly wrong, there are two uses of the term Post-Punk. The First one being the one you're talking about, the periodical time in music (everything that came after punk) and the actual genre which is even more clearly defined in the 21st century. Post-hardcore and Post-punk are both genres on their own, both being transitional stages for genres like industrial, alternative and "emocore" but it doesn't mean that Post-hardcore refers to everything that came after Hardcore, it IS a genre on it's own and it is also as diverse as Post-Punk (for example, Big Black compared to let's say Fugazi). The-15th (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose' Emo is a term far more used, especially in the U.S., and while the two are indeed related, Post-hardcore and emo are not the same thing. Each deserves its own article. In addition, my understanding of Post-Hardcore is that it includes several categories of music, one of which is Emo, but is not exclusive to Emo. Therefore, since the two articles are related, but not exactly the same, I say we keep the current format, assuming that Post-Hardcore is mentioned in the See Also section. Matt White (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose' Many people get the misconception that post-hardcore is Emo. If you look carefully, many "Post-Hardcore" bands scream, but that doesnt make them necessarily emo. Emo in this perspective is characterized by indeed screaming in music, but they also contain lyrics that would describe suicide, producing pain to one's self (such as self mutilation), or getting overly emotional in the song. In addition, though some so-called Emo bands like Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights, or Panic at the disco would contain a vocalist that would possess a high voice, the lyrics would commonly describe a girl in the song. Some people would percieve this as a sign of depression because, the song would contain a sense of want for a personal relationship with this girl described. In today's pop culture, if these bands were Emo, youths would then show signs of this "emo" epidemic. Though there are many causes, music is one of the factors that affect the lives of many teenagers everyday. It would impact their personality, character, behavior, and psychology. Coming under direct influence of these bands, Emo would not be the correct term for these bands. Post-Hardcore would have a twist of Hardcore Punk and Pop punk. Speaking in terms of these two genres, characteristics from both of them would be a very heavy factor in molding Post-Hardcore. Hardcore Punk would offer the element of screaming and a thicker, heavier, faster rythm. Pop Punk would usually have a general rythm that would be appealing among most punk fans. According to Hardcore Punk it would say that the songs would focus mainly on the issues in today's world. When this element is combined with Pop Punk,Post-Hardcore would be misconcieved as Emo. This is where the general public would use the screaming in this genre as an excuse to classify the Post-Hardcore band Emo. However, screaming is a key element that consolidates many musical genres today, especially Metal. Children of Bodom, Slipknot, and Disturbed would have a more angry mood to their songs making them "Metal." However, because Post-Hardcore possesses the Pop Punk characteristic, Emo is first concieved. In addition, the majority of Post-Hardcore bands do not have and members that are depressed or have thoughts of self inflicting pain, or suicide. Also, the way they dress also has very little to do with who's Emo or not. Behavior and Psychology are usually the parts that are not put into enough perspective. Therefore, there shouldn't be a combined article for Emo and Post-Hardcore are different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim2Sung (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New Section: Sounds like

I was just thinking perhaps we could give a section about what the music sounds like. I found a good source. [[32]] It gives a pretty good idea of what it sounds like and would maybe help anyone that would lets say form an emocore band, etc. Would write more gtg XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a self published source, not verifiable unfortunately. --neon white talk 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you find this stuff out.. oh well I tried, im just saying it would have been useful sourced or not. 71.180.33.165 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)(xXxChriscorexxx signed out)

NME comment

The comment at the bottom of the article about the NME needs to be rephrased as it implies that the NME had accused 'emo' of promoting self harm, which is far from the truth, as the magazine has done nothing but support the subculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.143.228 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hannah Bond inquest

we cant say the inquest 'stated' because it didn't the witnessed did, so we need to say the inquest 'heard'. however because it was stated in a court and therefore under oath, i think it is fair to say that is verifiable and can be stated as fact. The source is [33] and also [34] which isnt used in the article. --neon white talk 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense, I agree that "heard" is better to make it clear it's what the witness said, not the inquest. Just to be sure though - do we have a source that tells us that the word "cult" came from a witness statement? (The claim of "self-harming emo cult" has been thrown around the media, but I haven't seen an article which directly attributes this to a statement given at the inquest - given the sensationalism and dubious claims being thrown around by the media, I think we need to be careful here.) Mdwh (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter if the word was used in court or not, as long as it comes from second party sources, it should be fine. The Telgraph source writes "A popular and fun-loving schoolgirl killed herself after becoming involved in a self-harming youth cult which glamorises death, an inquest has heard." whereas The Sun writes "A girl of 13 hanged herself after leading a secret double life on the internet as a member of a self-harming "emo" cult." suggesting that it was testimony. --neon white talk 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a big difference between saying that an inquest has heard this, and a newspaper has branded something a cult. Whether something is a cult or not is obviously a highly POV issue. Attributation is important, and I don't think the fact that more than one newspaper uses the word "cult" is evidence (newspapers often pass similarly worded articles around, and branding something a "cult" is an obvious thing to do, whether or not the claim was heard at the inquest). Even if the claim was made at the inquest, it is still useful to know who made this claim. Otherwise we just participate in spreading the claim of some "Internet Emo Cult" without knowing where this claim started from. Mdwh (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as we have a reliable source saying that the inquest heard she was part of a cult, which is the case here. We can write that fact. The claim comes from The Sun and The Telegraph both verifiable sources. --neon white talk 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This particular section of the article also labels My Chemical Romance as an emo band, which isn't exactly true. Could someone fix that? 69.92.43.59 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

America-centric?

Firstly, I'd dispute the idea that the genre comes from exclusively American roots, and that instead, there is a British element. Secondly, the idea that it is "hardcore" flies in the face of hardcore. It is somewhat like saying that Beck is a heavy metal artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.206 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you back up your assertion with sources? There are definitely reputable sources that say the first few waves of Emo evolved from Hardcore Punk (read: not "is Hardcore Punk"), but I don't know any saying that it had formative roots in the UK. From my understanding, Emo started out as a purely American phenomenon. TheLetterM (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam at bottom of article

There's some spam at the very bottom of the article. Could someone remove it? 81.226.252.221 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"defended accusations"

I'm not quite sure how to properly add things to the talk page, if there's any sort of formal structure as to how to do this. I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. This article is locked, so I'm unable to make a minor edit. At the end of the "criticism" section, it states that fans defended accusations that it promotes self-harm. This should be "defend against accusations", unless they were trying to confirm that emo does indeed encourage self-harm and suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.171.113 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I've made the change. Mdwh (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)