Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

slight edit to fashion section?

I think it needs to be noted that there are older fashion stylings that still exist in the emo scene. This stems from the fact that emo fashion has changed over the last 20years and many older references to emo fashion will have nothing to do with tight pants and hair worn over one eye. All of these trends I would like to add can be cited on fourfa.com. Fourfa is already used as a source for this article and is regarded as one of the foremost authorities on the subject of emo and the trends within the scene. An example of one of these oversights I mentioned would be that the original emo hair cut resembled that of the Romulans from Star Trek. Also the worn out sweater has always been a staple of emo kids, and no mention is made of it or the thread bare button down shirts that were often seen on emo kids untill the last 3-4 years. If everyone concurs, I'd like to add a small amount of wording to address this. (by small i mean 3-4 sentences at most) Tell me what you think. --Slag 10 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to do this, make sure that everything you add is at the fourfa site (or some other site which you cite). I would suggest saying something like "several years ago, emo trends included XYZ."(citation) and then change the current sentence about emo fashion to read "By almost all current definitions, emo clothing is characterized by...." If you do not know how to cite your sources, see WP:CITE, or simply type {{fact}} after your contributions, and someone else will cite the source for you. --Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 04:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I simply added the {{fact}} tag. [1] is the source for the revisions though, so I think its citation 6... --Slag 10 05:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reorganized, corrected, and cited it for you. I think it should be allowed to stay now, but we'll let others come to consensus about that. --Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks for all your help. this has been a fairly edcuational experience for me, as far as etiquete for doing edits like this. --Slag 10 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tight pants is an understatement, most emo guys (well Scene kids more often then not in my town) tend to wear Girl pants, usually the kind that are tight and tend to bring out the attributes of the female body (tight on the legs, low-rise, rounder at the hips, etc.).

I point out that this is the case with scene kids but as for Emo's it could just be tight guy jeans BUT the picture at the top of the article reflects the way the scene kids at my school dress so I figured it was at least worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.142.58 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, but sadly, anecdotes about your town do not constitute encylopedic fact. --Cheeser1 20:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

While this undoubtedly an uncredible source since it's a place where people basically apply there own definitions to current slang words, there are a few definitions that basically wraps up what I've said about scene kids and makes it much more clear, plus it's proof that they obviously exist outside of just my town and the descriptions are very similar. So even if a collection of definitions and personal experience aren't enough for an article, at least people can use this link and get a more solid idea of what a Scene Kid is. definitions 2 and 4 are 2 are the better ones, some of the other ones aren't even definitions but oh well.

heres said link [2]

And sorry, but I didn't use an anecdote, I didn't give you an account of any particular incident, just a brief overview of scenekids in my town in general. I think there's a slight technical difference ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.142.58 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"A brief overview of scenekids in my town in general" is just a bunch of anecdotes rolled together, and it's still completely anecdotal. Please see [the dictionary] for the definition of anecdotal. Furthermore, the urban dictionary is not a reliable source. Please read about reliable sources for more information. To be clear: neither you nor anyone else should contribute things to this article that aren't properly supported, regardless of how ubiquitous it might seem based on the urban dictionary and/or your anecdotal observation. --Cheeser1 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

....um how about something about the origins of the look? I'm 31, which makes me old enough to have had a long set of bangs the first time they were popular in the late 80's skater cut craze... surely someone has traced these origins a little more accurately than me and my memory and intuition... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.193.148 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tickle Me Emo

GooTube has a clip of the MadTV "Tickle Me Emo" skit. Can it be used as a source? Mahalo. --Ali'i 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Are IRC, Myspace, and YouTube reliable Sources?. That should at least start to answer your question, not that people in this article care much about reliable source policy anyway. --Cheeser1 21:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please at least read WP:ATT before making such accusations, Cheeser. Which policy is it you claim has been broken? --Switch ^{t c g} 01:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to cite this? WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. OP-eds and blogs like the ones cited are worthless. Operative word: questionable. And in the future, I'll thank you to leave me alone like I asked. If I'm paranoid and tiresome, do yourself a favor and leave me be. I'm not correcting your mistakes anymore. I'm not even calling you on it when other people try to do the same (I still see no reason to accuse nu-metal of being a fad, but you insist that this is justified by a single non-notable op-ed piece and refuse to consider anything to the contrary). I don't want to have anything to do with you, and I'll thank you to try and keep it that way. (That means stop responding to my posts, this one included, especially since that last one was for the benefit of someone else.) And don't tell me you deleted it, therefore it doesn't count - think before you post, it's not like I wasn't going to see your little quip regardless of you removing it. Actually, don't tell me anything. I've conceded this article, do with it whatever you see fit, what more could you have to say to me? --Cheeser1 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"not that people in this article care much about reliable source policy anyway"

If you're so over it, why don't you just fucking drop it? Seriously.

I don't care whether or not you edit the article. I just feel the need to point out that you are not responsible for the judgement of any and all sources as "questionable." The sources are reviewed by an editor, not mouthpieces for fringe views, and are mostly reporting observations. There is no rule against reporting opinions on Wikipedia. This is what more I could have to say to you: Stop claiming you are only acting in the name of policy when you're so damn duplicitous about it. Stop citing policies without referring to specific passages or explaining how they have been violated - I think CNN is a questionable source, but that's not the damn point. Stop arguing if you want this to end. Just stop. --Switch ^{t c g} 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad I'm not responsible for looking out for questionable sources (funny, I figured that's what wikipedians were supposed to do). Now that that burden has been lifted, I can go about my life again. Thank you so much, and I appreciate your calm, professional, nonvulgar approach to this. But seriously. I don't know how you normally contribute to Wikipedia, I'm sure you're a reasonable person, whatever, but at this moment, you've shown no interest in doing anything but editing as you see fit and reverting any changes to your master version of this article. Go on and justify that with your "sources." Fine. You've inspired me to rewrite this article. At some point, I will, and I'll include only claims and sources that actually meet policy. And when I do that in a week or whatever, you can revert it, and I won't fight it, I won't revert it, whatever. I'm going to stop wasting my energy dealing with you and the negative side of this, which shouldn't have wasted my time on at all. I'll just contribute to Wikipedia positively, and if you want to mindlessly revert everyone's contributions, or just mine, you feel free - I'm not going to try to make you play by the rules, since I really can't. And go ahead and respond to this, I'm done asking you to stop responding (since you clearly won't, despite your mimicking my initial request that you drop the issue). Tell me how paranoid or silly I am or something. Then again, there's no policy against paranoia. --Cheeser1 08:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you think a source is questionable does not make it so.

Go ahead with the rewrite though. I am sincerely very interested.

I'm done now. --Switch ^{t c g} 08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Don't Be Emo"?

Uh, the "Don't Be Emo" picture is POV, and it has the wrong effect anyway, since it's two plain stick figure illustrations and then an emo who stands out. I don't think it's really necessary. --_xcryoftheafflicted_x 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The image makes perfect sense in its "criticism" context, and the caption explains it. --Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I read the caption. The image is still redundant as the exact same emo figure is at the beginning of the article, and it could also be considered POV as it was created by a Wikipedia user. --_xcryoftheafflicted_x 08:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Xcryoftheafflictedx, user-created content is not inherently POV. If you feel one of the images is redundant, I suggest you remove the lead image and replace it with the other free image of emo fashion. I think the image is fine; then again, I'm the creator so I'm not completely impartial I guess.

PS - You might want to uncheck the "raw signature" box in your personal preferences, unless you intentionally didn't want to link to your userpage. --Switch (✉✍☺) 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like this image either, I'm not too comfortable with users uploading images which make statements as this one does. I don't see how the image illustrates criticism of emo culture. As such, I've commented it out whilst this is discussed further. --Adambro 15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I was involved in part of this argument before, I'll chime in - it's completely OR (original research) and non-NPOV. The user created it to justify, support, and illustrate statements that he added to the article. It has no place in this article. --Cheeser1 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a free alternative to this image, here, because free images are always better than fair use. --Switch (✉✍☺) 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change anything about what I said. You didn't fabricate the image to illustrate some technical point, but rather, to justify particular statements you've made social a phenomenon that this image apparently demonstrates. It is OR and it is non-NPOV, and I'm sorry if you can't find a more suitable free image (nor any suitable free written sources) to justify the statements you added, but that's not my problem, it's yours. Let's put it this way: I can't say George Bush's policy is biased against blacks and then justify it with a photophopped picture of him punching a black guy, no matter how true I think it is - at least, that's how I read Wikipedia's policy. --Cheeser1 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read Wikipedia policies again, especially WP:ATT#What is original research?. You sure can't do that, but you absolutely definitely can say some people think Bush is a racist idiot and then create and upload an image like this or this or this. You can also, for example, say that some people hate gays and that these people use slogans or anti-gay images like this. The article doesn't make any assertions, as you insist on claiming. It reports as opinions what has already been published and uses an image to dmeonstrate it. Check out anti-communism and anti-capitalism. --Switch (✉✍☺) 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're ignoring the fact that these allegedly widespread and allegedly sociologically significant phenomena are asserted by this article based on opinion pieces and supported by your image, and why is that OR and non-NPOV? Because you're the one who made the claims and who made the image. You fabricated the entire thing. Don't show me pictures of protests and say "look these demonstrate public opinion" and then fabricate images and say "look, these do too." I'm done arguing with you, I was hoping you wouldn't exacerbate this, but apparently we're still not going to have a productive discussion, so have fun running things 'round here. --Cheeser1 04:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Claims with Citations are not original research. That is kind of the definition of not original research. I'm still not convinced you're basing this on policy at all.

By the way, how is that rewrite coming along? --Switch (✉✍☺) 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

←Yeah, okay, I've explained this repeatedly. I won't explain it again. Your sources are unreliable opinion pieces that factually illustrate very little (e.g. the "cheer up emo kid" article) and often one must precariously extrapolate from them to support the claims you've added to this article (e.g. that unfounded side-comment about nu-metal). Furthermore, you fabricate images to "illustrate" and "demonstrate" some sort of persecution you perceive. Unless you are a leading figure in the persecution of emo people or perhaps the study thereof, this is unqualified OR and is totally inappropriate. I've already made that clear, and won't repeat it again. And the pace of my work on this article, should I chose to provide any, is none of your business. I have a busy life, and often have better things to do, but that has nothing to do with this and does not preclude me from citing policy as to why your additions to this article are not only highly problematic but also essentially OR and non-NPOV. --Cheeser1 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Let's go over this again.

• Your sources are unreliable...

You say so, but WP:ATT doesn't. Do you understand that your opinion of a publication is not more important than official policy? The soucres do not espouse radical fringe views, or publish without editorial oversight. They are not advertisements.

• ... opinion pieces that factually illustrate very little...

So are the majority of sources here. So are the vast majority of soures in any "Criticism" section or article. Opinion pieces are generally where criticism comes from.

• ... often one must precariously extrapolate from them to support the claims you've added to this article (e.g. that unfounded side-comment about nu-metal).

You have given one example that is far from precarious. That is not "often" and that phrase has been removed and reinserted a few times, inluding in both cases actions by people other than ourselves.

• Furthermore, you fabricate images to "illustrate" and "demonstrate" some sort of persecution you perceive.

I created an image (unless you somehow think the other is POV too) because the other images of similar content were copyrighted and not preferable for use. We could remove my image and replace it with this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, etc. - but that wouldn't be legal when there is a free alternative. We could sure use Mitch Clem's two "Emo Sucks" strips.

• Unless you are a leading figure in the persecution of emo people or perhaps the study thereof, this is unqualified OR and is totally inappropriate.

Cited information is not OR. Even when the citations aren't valid, it's not OR. It's inappropriate citation and/or undue weight. Images that do not promote ideas otherwise unpublished and unsupported by the text are not OR.

• And the pace of my work on this article, should I chose to provide any, is none of your business. I have a busy life, and often have better things to do, but that has nothing to do with this and does not preclude me from citing policy as to why your additions to this article are not only highly problematic but also essentially OR and non-NPOV.

Easy now. I was interested in how it's coming along. It was an aside. I think it might be time to take a few deep breaths when you take offense to that. --Switch (✉✍☺) 12:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Would anybody objet if I filed a request for comment? --Switch (✉✍☺) 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Now, I'm not in the subculture, and as far as I can see this term is used mostly as a disparaging term, and not generally adopted by the "subculture" it descibes (I think this is just emerging, not generally accepted), I'd like to edit the page for grammar, which is what I mostly do here on Wikipedia. I don't think the article is in any need of locking, if there is really an Emo subculture, as the article implies. Stupid edits are noticed by the ones who track this article, I only like to better it by grammar and understandability. There are us here who like to do these things for the benefit of all who peruse Wikipedia. If indeed the term is only a disparaging one, the article should reflect it (as in naming it one and treating it as such); however, as there seems to be a definition for it, it should be incorporated in the article. I'm calling for a NPV again, and again... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.233.202 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should read subculture if they haven't. It's not a great article, as indicated right at the top, but it's sufficient. A few courses in sociology might help. It is not a generally pejorative term. The fact that some may not understand the term or don't lend credence to sociology doesn't mean Wikipedia has to abandon any sociological perspective, especially when this topic is clearly sociological. We're talking about a social group. That's what sociology studies. It's highly appropriate. And the locking is due to vandalism - this page is vandalized constantly, and would be even moreso if it weren't locked. --Cheeser1 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neologism

The term emo originated in the 1980s to describe a genre of music stemming from the hardcore punk music scene in Washington, D.C. Early bands labeled emo (or sometimes emocore) in this scene included Rites of Spring, Embrace, and Fugazi.[2][3][4]

The citations listed do not in any way date near the 80's and thus do not indicate the time period of origin. They merely address these bands as being part of the DC scene. They do not prove that 'emo' originated in the 1980's. Without supporting citations for this I am more inclined to change it to the late 90's. --Jachin 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth. Multiple sources state it started in the 80s. The sources themselves do not need to be from the 80s... --Onorem 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection Banner

This page is protected, but has no protection banner. That's confusing and not OK. Clearly protection is necessary to avoid unending revert wars from an unending parade of oppinionated teenagers, but c'mon, let's put the banner back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.193.148 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a lock image in the top-right corner. --Switch (✉✍☺) 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

Since there is a page on stereotypical Emo kids, I think someone should create a page for "Metal Heads"

Things to include:

Ripped denim jeans Leather or denim jacket covered in skulls and patches of their favorite bands (Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, Ozzy etc...) Long Hair or Skin head Many many tattoo's consisting of skulls, the reaper or barbed wire etc.... hates "new" music e.g Trivium Usually in over 20 years old so remembers "the good old days" of music when Zeppelin and Iron Maiden rained supreme Usually is in a band

How cool would that page be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay316 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Heavy metal fashion. --Cheeser1 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Metalhead. --Doppelganger 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

News coverage etc.

These articles are on (or part of) the stupid media furore over two "emo" girls who committed suicide: Stuff, Daily Telegraph, American Chronicle, Today Tonight. Someone has written a book about emo titled Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture. --Switch (✉✍☺) 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Picture.

This shows nothing of even my own hair style. you want to show the emo subculture, then show how emo people really do their hair you can use my default picture from my myspace, to show what 'emo' hair is like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demonhunter10 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Emo vs Goth

I think it might be worth explaining the differences between goth and emo; although it may seem obvious to a lot of people, it is pretty hard express or to put down in print. I have searched the internet and I cannot find any decent explainations that are agreed upon mutually. Newcomers to the phrase would benefit from this much more than you or I- well, that is the point of looking stuff up on wikipedia, 'cos you don't know much about it. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.188.210 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 March 2007(UTC)

They can read this page, and the more correct Emo (music), and then read goth. We don't need to explain it any further, I'd say. --Cheeser1 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that emos were emotional while goths hardly showed emotions. --Firesun 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Two separate sections?

Maybe the page should be split or re-written as two pages: Emo(slang) and Emo(sterotype). I'd be willing to do it (with some help of course) any thoughts? --Kirbyrocks 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This Page needs to be deleted, emos do not exist according to themselves, they just want to go die so why should they have a page? it makes no sense. --Papageorgio 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though there will probably still be people posting comments about one on the other's talk page. To Papageogio: you're right that the frequent comments about emos not existing are absurd. It seems to operate on a logic similar to 'There is no way to define "big" precisely; therefore, big things don't exist and there is no point describing them." But I think the second part cannot be entirely true; for the emos who post on this page don't seem dead. If there are any dead emos who contribute to this article, leave a message on my talk page. Ernest Hemingway expressed a fondness for self-inflicted shotgun wounds, yet he has a page of his own. Rintrah 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While I am still on this talk page, I want to make another comment: can people posting on this page stop treating it like MySpace and msn? This is about an encyclopedia article, not a place for random speculations and dimly thought out opinions. --Rintrah 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is odd. If "they" have enough of an identity in Papageorgio's mind for him to communicate a couple of stereotypes as an adduced reason for him to be against the existence of this article, then clearly the concept is well-defined enough to merit a wikipedia article - for example, I imagine there is a wiki article on nihilism despite the fact that it's a philosophy of the ultimate meaninglessness of existence - why should the fact that a philosophy or a concept is about depression, or percieved negativity mean that Wikipedia shouldn't cover it?. me - I came here because it's a word I've heard a couple of times and I didn't know exactly what it means. After reading the article, I'm still not clear about it - it seems like the vagueness of the concept, and it's being applied to a few essentially different things over the course of the last decades makes it difficult to define. The main thing I've got so far is that it's about trying to look a bit like Jarvis Cocker... --PaulHammond 13:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split. The page is good the way it is. Along with the page Emo (music), which is more factual, the two concepts you propose are already covered. --Aidanr444 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not related to gothic rock or punk rock

This is a factual inaccuracy which has been perpetuated because somebody decided to add this to the article earlier in the year, the subculture is not related to either of these two movements from the 70s (punk) and England 80s (goth). It is related to United States hardcore punk and skater culture.

Johnny Cash wore black before goth, as did Elvis Presley.... that doesn't somehow make them related. Andi Sexgang and Johnny Slut have had 0 effect on the emo subculture and are unknowns to them, so how on earth would they go about taking fashion tips from them? --The Daddy 15:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could try using sources and not basing the article on your opinion. --Switch (✉✍☺) 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which source is it that says that emo fashion has its roots in punk and gothic fashion? I don't see that comment made in any of the 6 references from the Fashion section. --OnoremDil 13:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Or we could discuss the facts in comparison to all the other articles on Wikipedia so this one doesn't contradict the encyclopedia... the only reason there are sources that say otherwise is because of misinformation originally printed on Wikipedia which they have used as a source. The older heading is standard from earlier in the year and far more representative of the truth. If you'd like to try and explain how gothic rock influenced this then try, there are also no sources where emo kids are stating "we dress like this because of Daniel Ash and Andrew Eldritch", skater clothing has nothing to do with gothic rock. The misinformation doesn't belong, and having it on the Wikipedia only spreads the misinformation wider. --The Daddy 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Which other articles does this article contradict? The older heading was discarded earlier in the year when Steevven rewrote the article with sources. I don't believe the article says anywhere that gothic rock influenced emo, only the goth subculture. Please provide your own evidence that emo is based solely in US skater fashions. --Switch (✉✍☺) 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I was talking more about the contested links to punk and goth subculture, both of which are in several of the references provided (the gURL article for one mentions both). As far as explicitly linking fashion goes I don't think any of them make the link except the dodgy Daily Mail article. I thought I had already said this earlier, but apparently I didn't save. --Switch (✉✍☺) 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It contradicts articles relating to gothic rock and punk rock; it is impossible to "mix goth with punk", because goth and its subculture came out of punk in the first place, and thus is by nature part punk. The slang term emo (not the DC movement from the 1980s) is largely associated with bands who feature on the Vans Warped Tour, which is sponsored by a skateboaring shoe company and even features events related to skateboarding..... emos in this sense of the term also wear elements of skateboarding clothing likes skater shoes, skater belts, etc

None of this is related to gothic rock or its subculture and I'm yet to see any evidence that is is. Where are the emo kids stating that their dress is influenced by Steve Severin, or in terms of punk rock Joe Strummer? They're not, wearing black isn't somehow trademarked to goths, metalheads wear black too. An argument could be made for relation to skate punks associated culture due to the Warped connection though.

Lets compare Google.com search results for the term "emo" and the biggest skate event, then the biggest gothic subculture one.

• "warped tour" "emo" - 272,000
• "whitby gothic weekend" "emo" - 540 (most of which link to a parody clip of goths beating up emo kids)

My point is proven. --The Daddy 15:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically saying you don't have any sources at all, yes? See WP:ATT.--Switch (✉✍☺) 15:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So basically you can't disprove any of the points I've made at all, so you don't even bother trying? I understand. As far as I'm aware I am not Google.com that is indipendent. The higher key articles, which this one contradicts are also heavily sourced. --The Daddy 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made any points. Wikipedia is not an open space for you to publish your original research. Without citing sources, you don't have anything.

That aside, the arguments you offer are logical fallacies:

• it is impossible to "mix goth with punk", because goth and its subculture came out of punk in the first place

You should try telling that to Cancerslug or Samhain. I guess it's also impossible to mix funk and rock as funk came out of rock music? Or is it impossible to mix blues with rock because rock came out of blues?

• The slang term emo (not the DC movement from the 1980s) is largely associated with bands who feature on the Vans Warped Tour, which is sponsored by a skateboaring shoe company and even features events related to skateboarding..... emos in this sense of the term also wear elements of skateboarding clothing likes skater shoes, skater belts, etc

Says you. This is just more OR.

• An argument could be made for relation to skate punks associated culture due to the Warped connection though.

Could be. But has not been. Sure, they share links by way of hardcore punk. But that's unrelated to its connections to goth.

• Lets compare Google.com search results for the term "emo" and the biggest skate event, then the biggest gothic subculture one.
  • "warped tour" "emo" - 272,000
  • "whitby gothic weekend" "emo" - 540 (most of which link to a parody clip of goths beating up emo kids)

Don't know where to go with this. Other than that it is only you who asserts Warped is a skate tour - it's a "punk" tour incorporating pop punk, ska punk, skate punk, emo, metalcore and various other genres - the main problem with this argument is that it assumes correlation on a web search actually means anything. I can prove that ninja are better than pirates using that method. You don't tend to see gangsta rappers at soul music festivals either, but that doesn't mean hip hop is unrelated to soul.

The thing is, there are plenty of sources relating emo to goth - which is a pretty easy connection considering that (just for example) Fall Out Boy covered Joy Division. There are no contrary sources insisting that emo and goth are entirely unrelated. --Switch (✉✍☺) 18:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• "You haven't made any points. Wikipedia is not an open space for you to publish your original research. Without citing sources, you don't have anything."

You seem to be quite slow here, I haven't made any points?? LOL Try reading the whole section above where I point out that no emo kid has ever cited gothic rock musicians as insperation for their fashion and numerous other points which you didn't have the gall to attept to refute.

Also the other Wikipedia articles which this one contracticts are sourced. I cited results on Google.com (I don't own that website)... so it isn't "original research".

• "Don't know where to go with this. Other than that it is only you who asserts Warped is a skate tour"

You don't know where to go with it because you have been proven wrong. Also only you are I are discussing this so saying "only you seem to think, blah blah blah" in a two person debate is irrelevent.

Try visiting the Vans Warped Tour article; "The Warped Tour was created in 1993 by Kevin Lyman, who got the idea while working on skateboarding shows—such as the Vision Skate Escape and Holiday Havoc—which included music with skateboarding contests."..... "As well as music, this tour brings many attractions including a half pipe for skaters and bikers.".... noooo skateboaring half pipes have nothing to do with skating at all do they? Vans shoes aren't skateboaring footwear either are they? Nooo.

• "The thing is, there are plenty of sources relating emo to goth - which is a pretty easy connection considering that (just for example) Fall Out Boy covered Joy Division. There are no contrary sources insisting that emo and goth are entirely unrelated."

Joy Division are not, nor have they ever been a goth band (read their article for christ sakes). Also, MCR covered Queen, so by your logic emo is a product of arena rock. If you're going to edit articles pertaining to music and its subcultures its best to know what you're talking about. -

• "You should try telling that to Cancerslug or Samhain. I guess it's also impossible to mix funk and rock as funk came out of rock music?"

Again you show lack of musical familiarity here; first of all Samhain played hardcore punk with darker themes, not gothic rock. They never cited gothic rock bands as an influence on them are were not a part of the genre, they were just horror themed hardcore. Second, gothic rock came out of standard punk, not hardcore so your point doesn't make sense. Just because a band has darker themes does not make them goth. Comprehend this concept. Deicide and Slayer have dark themes but them or their fans are not "goths". Let me remind you that this is an encyclopedia.

Also funk primarily came out of soul music. If you're going to reply please try not to get music wrong, just as a pre-emtive clarification, black metal didn't come out of disco, and the fact that they wear black and make-up doesn't make Marduk "goths" either. --The Daddy 19:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything I don't bother "refuting" is just a waste of time. For example, you claim that "there are no emo kids saying that goth influenced them" [paraphrased]. One, you cannot prove this unless you interview every single emo person in the world. Two, it's irrelevant if the connection is made by a reliable source. Your personal experiences are original research. Published articles are reliable sources.

No other articles contradict this one; if they did, you'd say which ones. Google is not a reliable source, mostly because it doesn't actually say anything, and does not support your claims (to assume search results even can would be a logical fallacy). Unless you use Google to find some articles which assert some of the things you claim it won't help you. You're right in that it isn't original research. It's not any kind of research.

I don't know where to go with it because it doesn't show anything other than that people on the internet associate emo more with Warped Tour than the Whitby Gothic Weekend. It's so nonsensical I have no way of pointing out how it's wrong. That doesn't prove any lack of relation between emo and goth. Moreover, it doesn't prove any relation between skate and emo unless you also think that emo was influenced by ferris wheels - the Big Day Out hosted both My Chemical Romance and amusement rides in the same festival - or basketball - kids wear Chuck Taylor All-Stars.

Maybe you should try reading more on Joy Division - The Goth Bible notes them as one of four musical groups to have founded the goth sound, and in music study in general they are recognised as the key group in founding gothic rock. The Queen example lacks heavily in that Queen were far more than just arena rock, incorporating glam, hard rock, pop and opera into a sound that influenced various music genres - even including punk.

Samhain and Cancerslug - as well as 45 Grave, Christian Death and Dinah Cancer - played deathrock, a rock genre generally defined to combine elements of punk and goth. I never said Samhain were a gothic rock band.

As for funk, you'll want to pay close attention to the large influence Hendrix had on George Clinton. Funk is based in soul, but with large influence from both rock and jazz.

Again, please read (actually read, don't just look at the headings) Wikipedia's policies on attribution, reliable sources and original research. --Switch (✉✍☺) 15:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

←There is no policy which states Google.com is not a reliable source. In the case of emo (slang), Warped Tour (a festival we have now shown is largely associated with skater culture) has featured the following bands; Alexisonfire, AFI, My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, From First To Last, Coheed and Cambria, Taking Back Sunday, The Used, etc, etc... all of which are specifically named on Emo_music#The_third_wave_.282000-present.29

How many of those bands mentioned in "third wave emo" have played the biggest and most notable goth festivals in the world such as Whitby Gothic Weekend or Wave-Gotik-Treffen? None, zero, zilch. Why is this so?... the same reason nu-emo acts and their fans aren't present at country music festivals, because emo has nothing at all to do with goth or gothic culture.

Now for the rest of the banter, Joy Division are a post punk act, they were infuential on gothic rock, but not gothic rock themselves. Again, understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

Deathrock is not "part goth part punk", that is just ignorance and historically inacurate. Try reading the infobox of the deathrock article (hint the "origins" doesn't mention gothic rock), it is from the same time as gothic rock and runs along side it.. not influenced by or a product of it (read any interview with Rozz Williams, Dinah Cancer, Gitane Demone, etc)... both deathrock and gothic rock, came out of punk playing a style of their own (which are linked), the deathrockers you mentioned weren't somehow taking the ideas from "goths", as the earliest bands were happening at around the same time in an entirely different location; besides the "goth subculture" didn't even exist when Christian Death formed in 1979. So you're again incorrect.

Anyway we're starting to get off the point. You've yet to show a single example of emo kids actually stating gothic rock musicians as an influence on their look and fashion... also taking into consideration that the mainstream news media's idea of "goth" is Marilyn Manson and NIN (which doesn't fit in with an actual encyclopedic definition of either of their articles). --The Daddy 23:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

the 'emo debate'

Hasn't really been mentioned here. There are a massive amount of people who are strongly opposed to the description of people as 'emo', yet this has not been mentioned atall. I would like to add it, but I don't know of any 'reliable sources' for this. Although it is definately present. --Davidtakesthesquare 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean-Up: Neutrality Issues, Sources, and Slang

I was first alarmed when I saw that Urban Dictionary was a source cited on the page. After looking at a few others I greatly question their legitimacy and neutrality. IE: Poretta, JP (March 03, 2007). Cheer up Emo Kid, It's a Brand New Day. The Fairfield Mirror. It's a college newspaper where the author is clearly bashing the emo sub-culture. http://wanzafran.com/2006/i-am-an-emo-mutant-part-1/ is also biased and making parody of emo (not to mention it is a blog and not a legit source). Here is a statement in the previously mentioned blog: "Emo people possess deficient chromosomes. In short, they’re mutants." Another issue with the sources is that they are largely opinion articles that have no factual data. At best you can do a content analysis to see how emo subculture is portrayed and stigmatized in the mainstream, but that does not tell you how emo people define themselves, or provide insight on their historical/cultural development. Instead the article simply uses pop culture ideology to define emo which stigmatizes and misconstrues the sub-culture. An example is the emphasis that emo kids self-injur and self-harm to be cool. Only 3-4% of the US population self-injur. Not many of them are emo and many have been practicing it since before the mo trend.

Also the references in pop culture is portrayed to make fun of emo in a negative manner. It is also not necessary to have a references in pop culture section as emo is already part of pop culture. A reference in pop culture would require the subject to not already be an aspect of pop culture. Instead the references to pop culture section aims to provide examples that further subjugate emo sub-culture.

Largely, with the sources used and the choice of portrayal, I find that the article has been primarily used as a tool to represent the mainstream opinion stigmatizing emo sub-culture. Instead of providing a neutral definition of the sub-culture it perpetuates the mainstream opinion and conceptualization of what emo is.

But largely I find all of this comes back to the point of the article. If the article is meant to be slang, as the title suggests, it should only need to include the origin of the word, and use over time clearly defining the pejorative and authentic usages. However the article aims to define a sub-culture and the development, ideologies, and trends associated with it, but in doing so it stereotypes and construes emo from the popular perspective that aims to stigmatize it. --Reesebw 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already voiced concern about the reliability of these sources. I would second the notion that most of the sources in this article are not reliable and should not be used in these articles (and definitely shouldn't be informing our understanding of emo or anything else). I won't say anything about the bias, because that's a discussion I'd prefer not to get into. --[User:Cheeser1|Cheeser1]] 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo Culture?

Emo may be considered a slang term, but this article is not about the term it is about the culture. I recommend that the name is changed to "Emo (culture)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.237.121 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Preferably, emo subculture, which is already a redirect. See the AFD and compare punk subculture. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In need of professional attention

This article is in serious need of a professional's view, objectivity and study. Has anyone thought of turning to the marketing and psychology journals for this? It seems like a pretty basic step, and the information is out there in the internet and at the library. If these emo kids really are living comfortable lives, then it stands to reason they represent a fairly large consumer base. I found one article that actually had a serious attempt at objective research. You can find it at [3] The sources at the end would probably be worth investigating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.217.156 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Self-harm and emo

Is the need for such a slandering of emo needed under this title? If it's sourced somewhere, shouldn't it be quoted? Seems a bit harsh, that's all. Thanks! --68.110.182.47 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

just because you are emo doesnt mean that you are going to cut yourself!!! its peoplw who are jelaous and just want to make fun of people that make the emo seem like something bad. i think emo is a style, not that you are going to hurt yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.220.77 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like most metal scenes the more contorversial themes such as self harm and depression are picked up on by the general public even if those who empathise with the scene don't see these themes as the most predominent, defining part of the subculture. --Waffle247 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The self harm and emo section is utterly ridiculous, and will only serve to scare parents who know nothing about the subculture. Emo as a culture sprang up around relatively innocuous pop music. The farther away from its hardcore origins it gets, the more similar it is to ordinary pop: an obsession with romantic love, overwrought, heartfelt belting, etc etc. Certainly, a subcategory of emo kids cut themselves. But a subcategory of ALL kids cut themselves. Linking a symptom of mental illness to a pop subgenre is patently absurd. The idea that emo causes cutting, or is even directly linked to cutting, is like saying Marilyn Manson caused Columbine. It's alarmist, unverifiable, and smacks of mainstream suspicion of all types of difference. --Mhickcoxhoward 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Grammatical usage of "Emo"

Becuase Emo, as my friends and I use it, can also be a verb, as in, "oh man, he is totally emoing right now." Or, "ugh, she emoed for an HOUR last night", or my personal favorite, "Why don't you emo about it?" Defintion: to whine, complain, mope and/or be melodramic without generally sufficient cause or reason; to emotionally over react; to be unnecessarily "depressed" and hence kind of annoying. --66.165.31.200 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The way you and your friends use the word does not define what kind of word it is. I could get my friends to start saying that things are "so grass," or that we're "totally grassing" but that doesn't make the word grass an adjective or verb to anyone but us. The source used to quote all these supposed uses of "emo" only indicates emo is an adjective. Thus, I will continue to delete all other uses of the word emo besides as an adjective until someone can come up with a better source. --Jdcaust 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I just corrected myself. I did my own research and noun does seem to be a proper use of the word. However, I continue to fail to see any possible adverb or verb associations. --Jdcaust 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding noun. Emo is listed (only) as a noun in Oxford English Dictionary (subscription only, sorry). But, for example, you can say "he is an emo". --h2g2bob (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Beat me to it, Jdcaust :) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles - "Emotionally Hardcore" -- errr, WTF????

The current article has this paragraph:

The origins of the word “emo” began in the seventies and was used to describe a genre of music that was then known as “Emotionally Hardcore”. This name was usually attached to such bands as The Beatles and more recently, bands on a more wide spectrum of sound. The label of “Emotionally Hardcore” was shortend to “Emocore”, which soon came to be attached as a stigma to respected bands such as the original A.F.I. (a Fire Inside), Green Day, and the original Fall Out Boy, all bands that have been around for over a decade.

Um, is there even a shred of factual evidence ANYWHERE in that paragraph?

I mean, if you're going to just make stuff up, can't you make it a little funnier or something?

On a more serious note -- surely there's some more, um, learned student of pop culture history who can rewrite this truly dreadful article? --StrangeAttractor 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need the "Emo Cult" Daily Mail News link?

I personally find that article highly offensive, as it's not only completely biased, but even could make people think that emos are dangerous. Sure, just because it's biased doesn't mean it shouldn't be here as it has some information dealing with the subject, but if someone clicked it and believed it and it just so happened they were the parent of an emo who did no harm to anyone (including him/herself) it could very well cause problems. I've done quite a bit of research on this type of subject and it looks to me it can be harmful. It could end up causing things such as people being scared of simple types of expressing oneself. It hopefully wouldn't cause any problems like this, but may even end up causing depression in a few people because their friends/family turn on them for being emo. Many people trust Wikipedia (not that it's a bad thing, of course. I trust most of its content, myself) and this could really cause trouble. Even if its only a few people that get hurt from this, it is trouble. I would remove the link myself, but I'm not so sure it would be considered a good action at least without voicing my reasons. --BrianRecchia 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While the article is stupid and poorly- (or possibly just plain not-) researched, it provides an insight into popular opinion. It's an opinion piece. Not our place to make judgements on resources like that. --Switch ^{t c g} 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with SwitChar for all of his reasons. --Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many of you read the Daily Mail but I have done a bit in the past - I warn you now that the Daily Mail is about as accurate as The Sun newspaper is.... and for those non-UK people out there in the world, that's about as accurate as Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relations with Monica. If the opinions in the article are an accurate description of popular feeling then perhaps this should be both better reflected in the article and a less offensive source can be found? If this is the only source that contains this opinion then I refer to what I started off this comment with. Waffle247 --90.152.12.130 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the article serves well as an example of the stigma, criticism and stereotypes, and the link is fine for that - however, I have to agree that this cannot be taken as a reliable source when it comes to more factual statements such as whether it has a root in goth subculture. --Mdwh 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

While I follow your logic, given the inflamatory nature of the publication in question, I would hesitate to use the term "source" as this gives the suggestion of a degree of integrity and honesty that most would be suprised to hear of in the same sentence as The Daily Mail. This is a publication that in it's past was known for it's "My Husband Stole My Lovers UFO" type headlines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waffle247 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with you, I've looked at the article and its a harsh opinion that has no actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1lostinlife (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We all seem to agree that the daily news is not reliable. even if it does give light on the criticism, it's unreliable. also, the second and third refs don't link to anything. I don't know how to take those out. --J-stan 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Culture Rivalry?

I live in England, and me and my friends have frequently been called "emo" as an insult from "chavs". I'm not going to deny that me and my friends are emo, but it is a common situation that the young people in society labelled "chavs" create insults to the young poeple labelled "emo". I feel this should be mentioned in the page? --Alienpmk 07:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Only if there is a reputable source that describes this as a pattern should it be included. Wikipedia is a place for accurate information. It is not a place for personal narrative. --Reesebw 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor Article

Badly sourced and written, confusing to read. Should be locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand the purpose of protecting an article. We protect articles to prevent vandalism, not because it's poorly written. If it needs to be cleaned up, then you edit it. Also, I don't know what you mean by "badly sourced." Maybe you could be a bit more specific on what could be done to improve the article? // DecaimientoPoético 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I must say!

I must say that the article is quite biased,and shows-i'll contempt towards emo's with insults such as the picture whih says. 'i wish my lawn was emo'..this article needs serious clean up! --[User:Wongdai|Wondai] 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has changed significantly in the past week or so. I will be looking to reverting all of the inappropriate changes. Check older versions, around May 21, for more reasonable content. --Cheeser1 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

big clean up

I was offline for a bit, and I came back to find this article pretty beat up. Not to detract from the well-intentioned efforts of all the editors, but it seemed to have just lost all sensibility. I've reverted alot of problematic and unsourced claims, and hopefully it'll stay more reasonable. What we had, despite my questioning the reliability of particular sources, something that was making an effort to be as accurate and transparent as it could be, as opposed to "Emo is a slang term used to describe a counterculture" and "it is suggested that it's a derivative of the punk scene." The former statement asserts, without any support, that emo is a counterculture. The latter statement is weasley and ignores the language and sources used in previous versions of the article to describe the known link between emo of today and emo of the 80s. I can't imagine why one would replace what we had with this (sorry to whoever made those edits, I'm just being frank). If I reverted any good changes, my apologies, it was a bit difficult to track all the changes (hundreds, in the course of a few days). --Cheeser1 09:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I removed a number of revisions that were entirely unnecessary, vague when they should have been specific, specific when they should have been vague, unsourced, improperly sourced, biased, or unencyclopedic. If someone wants to add that content back, it should be done so properly. That means not mass-reverting my clean up of the article or adding in that content piecemeal without fixing its problems. --Cheeser1 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's check the sources

I noticed that on multiple occasions, some refs had no link attached to them. Could we please check these? I don't know how to remove them, so maybe someone could tell me? --J-stan 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this

I didn't read the whole discussion, so this might have already been mentioned, but there's an error here. The "Suicide pact" in Australia was more of a murder pact. The two girls murdered one of their friends. I'm pretty sure it happened in Mandurah. Anyway, just thought you should check it out. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.246.32 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was a different story. If you check the references, this was clearly a suicide pact. --OnoremDil 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a different, more recent story. It got much less media coverage too. --202.81.18.30 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Reversion of clean-up

This is a request for comment on a clean-up I made of this article which has been wholly reverted by User:Daddy Kindsoul, who has violated the WP:three revert rule in doing so. The clean up of the article included the tidying of several recent developments in the article that are poorly or inappropriately sourced, off-topic, innacurate, or unencyclopedic. The user in question has not explained or justified his revisions, nor has he done them one-by-one, instead simply insisting that one random irrelevant point about goth justifies the reversion of all the work I did in cleaning this article back up. --Cheeser1 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why don't you try working together to fix this - clean up the paragraphs that you know aren't contested, then discuss the other ones here. --Haemo 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the editor in question to discuss his changes on this talk page, and to only contribute well sourced information that he's checked the references of, instead of wholesale reverting large chunks of my clean-up of the article. A well integrated introduction, for example, was re-introduced after getting messed up, and this user has reverted my clean-up so that it now includes phrases like "which are said to have come from" and asserts that emo is a "counterculture" based on a completely unqualified and unreliable source (gURL.com - which does not describe it as a counterculture anyway). I see no reason to compromise - the introduction I reintroduced and other material was the result of months of editing, compromising, and (proper) sourcing. --Cheeser1 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I was simply suggesting that you add in the uncontentious parts of your clean-up, and to discuss the rest with the user. If he does not wish to respond, escalate this to another board - I'll be happy to help sponsor, in that case. --Haemo 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making changes one-by-one, citing exactly why each dubious piece should be changed and putting in better versions, while taking care not to introduce innacurate or dubious sourcing or content, especially anything that contradicts more properly sourced content in the article and in Emo (music). Hopefully no one will continue to revert the clean-up I've done without proper justification. Thanks for stepping in and offering to help. --Cheeser1 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I'll stick around, in case there are more problems. --Haemo 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

eye liner and sex boundarys

some times emos wear eye liner Im emo and i wear eyeliner . Its a way of going against the sex boundarys whitch emos see as pointless whitch is why many emos are femanine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dammed dammed dammed (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can properly source this, feel free to include it in the article. If not, however, please refrain from doing so. --Cheeser1 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The eye liner should be added and researched. It's a large trend now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.84.218 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it, already!

I say we either move this page to Emo subculture, or create a different emo subculture page. preferably the latter, because then we could have a real emo page, and a posery emo page like this one. --J-stan 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to first establish that it constitutes a subculture. Most of the foundation for that sort of a claim lies in Emo (music), not this article, wherein we discuss an ambiguous slang term. --Cheeser1 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was an established decision to move the page. Are you the main editor on this article? Not for anything, you just seem like you have the article under your supervision. --J-stan 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a such thing as "the main editor" - at least not in an official way, and certainly not for such a large and highly-edited article. I'm just one of many people who contributes to this article. I'm just pointing out that if we call something a subculture, it needs to actually be one, there have to be reliable sources to that effect - and there is certainly some body of work to that effect, but moreso towards what's in Emo (music), not what's here (which speaks to a more broad cultural phenomenon relating to an appropriation or incorporation of certain things into a larger cultural landscape - what one might flippantly call a "fad," but worth encyclopedic consideration nonetheless). --Cheeser1 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Language Use

Noun: That person is such an emo.

I have never heard the term used as a noun. Perhaps that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.192.218 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What you have or have not heard is not what qualifies things for use in Wikipedia. It is a slang word whose use varies widely, and it is known to be used as both an adjective and noun. The fact that you haven't heard that latter doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Please sign your posts with ~~~~, and I'd suggest registering a username. --Cheeser1 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way, this is not something to be included in this article as wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Acidskater 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I kinda forgot this article is on the slang use, so a grammatical section is in order. --Acidskater 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's odd. I've heard (and have used) the term as a noun all the time. --4.248.243.203 23:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Or at least, find a reference somewhere that actually uses "emo" as a noun. The current reference doesn't seem to use it that way anywhere. --Truncat 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

took me three seconds on google. --Cheeser1 05:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Borderline PD and Emo?

I think that a mention of a possible connection between borderline personality disorder and emo should somewhere on the page. Look at the diagnostic criteria of borderline PD (self-injury, feelings of emptiness, uncontrollable emotions, suicidal thoughts, etc.) and tell me there's no connection. --140.247.153.174 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Emo is a loosely defined, perhaps almost perfunctory category. It is a slang description given to a broad range of characteristics, often pejoratively or superficially. BPD is an actual medical diagnosis, and despite what might be a growing trend of over-diagnosis of things like BPD, ADD, etc, we still shouldn't try to establish a link between a medical disorder and a social trend based on some cursory similarity. --Cheeser1 00:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder is a serious mental illness. Emo is a fashion conscious music subculture. Little links them together. By suggesting a connection, you either create the impression that BPD is not a serious mental illness, rather a teenage phase like emo, or that emo is an evil scourge of youth. Neither is true. --Mhickcoxhoward 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually find it quite insulting how emos often act as if they have BPD. I have seen people with this kind of condition be labelled emo simply because of the stigma the emo culture has created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.200 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar note

As editing is fucked disabled, I put this here - the second "adjective" in the grammar bit is an ADVERB. This needa be changed - anyone authorised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.43.77.76 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is an adjective. Compare:

• I am happy.
• I feel happy.
• I am stupid.
• I feel stupid.
• I am emo.
• I feel emo.

Those are all adjectives. To be an adverb, it they would have to be "I feel happily" or "I feel emoly" (not a word). Also, please note that editing is locked to prevent vandalism, it is not "fucked." --Cheeser1 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On the note of grammar, I believe it's also accepted as a verb (I emoed over to the corner). --Scrapingoutbrains 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Source it properly and you can add it... but it wouldn't matter. That's not standard usage: it's clearly verbification. Doesn't seem worth mentioning - you could verbify more or less any noun that isn't itself derived from a verb, especially one that is slang already. --Cheeser1 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A Guide to Emo Culture

I suggest that this ref be removed. It is very non-NPOV. I also suggest that we remove the line, "Themes such as life is pain are common". How would anyone know that? --J-stan 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It IS a common theme. Perhaps stating it that way isn't encyclopaedic though --The Elfoid 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced. The term "common" is not unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I just felt that the source seemed a bit too sarcastic and one-sided to be a justifiable source. --J-stan 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a concern already noted by the references tag - the claim (as I see it) is not highly controversial or offensive, so it can stand until we find a better source for it. At least, that's my take. --Cheeser1 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it was just a suggestion. It seemed a bit blog-ish, so I just felt it was an inappropriate source. Whatever. --J-stan 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the personality section

I would like to know how the editors feel about creating a subsection in the Personality section about poetry. --J-stan 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Quizzical "Subculture" Label

Due to the contenious debate over the roots of emo subculture, I think that there should be a distiction made between "emo" as a subculture and "emo" as a fashion trend.

Since emo culture has been accepted and blended into mainstream society, it cannot be considered counter-cultural. So, for most folks, the label "subculture" seems valid. However, for those who claim that the dark, effeminate clothes and whiny, i-hate-my-life songs aren't true features of the original emos, the "subculture" label is completely erroneous.

I suggest that research be performed on the roots of the emo culture, and how--if it is--any different from today's emo fashion trend. --Krj3550 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

good point. that would help distinguish between posers and real emos. any other support? --J-stan 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That confusion is due to some dubious recent revisions, which I am going to take a look at momentarily (the source cited therein, for example, seems to be entirely irrelevant). --Cheeser1 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a problem with any sub-culture. There will always be issue over what is authentic and what is not in terms of belonging to a sub-culture. It's not our job to determine what is authentic on wikipedia. It is our job, however, not to use the pejorative definition of emo to be the main definition. --Reesebw 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is our job to document distinctions between a particular fashion trend and a subculture, should there be adequate sources to support such a statement. The "pejorative definition of emo" notwithstanding (as I said, this is due to some very bad edits in the last week or so, which I will correct as soon as I have more time), documenting a fashion trend, should it be properly documented elsewhere, is well within the guidelines of what we ought to be doing here. --Cheeser1 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate to cut in, but I'd like to know what features make emo into a subculture in the first place. As far as I can tell, plus the lack of any real proof of there actually being a subculture i.e. an info page, ect., Emo never got a chance to become anything more than a fashion, slang term, and music genre. Can anyone prove otherwise? Also: isn't the emo fashion rather incorrectly displayed on here? When I think Emo I think sweater vests. I suppose I'm just confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.19.253 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would too. The use of that word is unsourced; however, some people consider it offensive or pejorative to not use the word, and thus it stays in due to conflict that would arise otherwise. There are, of course, arguments that editors make, claiming that emo fits the criteria for a subculture, but drawing such conclusions (no matter how much evidence) constitutes original research. --Cheeser1 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Emo or Scene?

Isnt emo being lifestyle and actions and scence the look? just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.139.176 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the accepted difference is that emo has a lifestyle and a look, and scene is basically a fashion trend that looks similar to the emo look. --J-stan 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its:Emo - Music Genre, Scene - The Fashion thats associated with it. As quoted here, "First, lets get to understand emo, if only a bit. Emo is the convergence of melody and hardcore punk. First recognized in tha bands (Now Pay attention): Dag Nasty, Sleeptime Trio, Moss Icon, Indian Summer, and Rites of Spring. Emo is a music genre and nothing more. It's short for Emotively Charged Hardcore. Emo is not a fashion, the fashion is called scene." Source: [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.161 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

Hey if this article is semi protected, how come anon. IP addresses keep editing this article? --J-stan 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it just had the protection banner - even though it wasn't protected. I'm not sure who we appeal to to get that fixed. --Cheeser1 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See here. --Cheeser1 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we request page protection? --J-stan ^Talk 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Emosexuality

I am pretty surprised that nothing has been said about Emo's Pansexual attidude towards life. Should it be added?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj da man (talk • contribs) 06:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality really depends on the person. Even if you could source it, it could almost be offensive. --J-stan ^Talk 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A person's sex depends on the person not what group they are in and I think that would be hard to source. --Oysterguitarist 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't really source it, unless you got every emo in the world together (impossible in itself, some emos (note:"some emos" is the same backwards as it is forward) don't self identify as emo) and got them to agree they were pansexual. --J-stan ^Talk 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter 'Emosexuality' should be left out. --Oysterguitarist 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's break for coffee and donuts. --J-stan ^Talk 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are absolutely no reliable sources, as of yet, explaining or discerning any sort of sexuality related to or correlated to emo fashion. Furthermore, sex, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed categories that do, in fact depend on the social groups in which one finds oneself. The role that emo music, fashion, etc. might play in one's sexuality is highly dubious, and varied. Further, the idea of sexual category (especially when associating a particular social group with a sexual category) is extraordinarily dubious, because both such categories are poorly defined, locally defined, and dynamic.

This is me speaking from the perspective of someone who has studied human sexuality and social interaction in a great deal of depth (anonymous internet credentials aside, I think my point is still clear). And J-Stan, nice palindrome observation, I saw it too. How bizarre! I guess that makes the case that some emos go both ways. Bad puns all around! --Cheeser1 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a big day for me once I found it. Beers all around, gentlemen, on me! --J-stan ^Talk 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on

this article looks like a seventh grader put it together in two days. I mean realy theres barely any history or discription and plus it intirly bland i mean realy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.175.186 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you can contribute well and properly sourced content that is both notable and spelled correctly, feel free to do it yourself. What content do you allege is missing? Did you check Emo (music) as the music section recommends? Or do you want something flashy and exciting? (An encyclopedia is often bland, you know.) --Cheeser1 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'd like my source taken out, please. I am Bradley Glasco. My article was in the Entertainment section of a college newspaper. I was only poking fun at my own image. I don't honestly do those things. I enjoy shows, I don't stare gloomily with my arms crossed. I buy records, but not to collect them. I buy them to listen. Check your sources better and look at what context they placed are in, please. --Its5 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Is your source? --J-stan 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glasco, Bradley (March 06, 2007). No one understands just what it is like being a emo kid in the South [sic]. Retrieved on 2007-03-08. It's reference #14 at the moment. I'll point out that I raised this point about several of our sources months ago, and I was dismissed, because apparently random college paper op-eds and various self-published sources meet WP:RS. Looks like even the authors of the op-eds disagree. I say remove the source, it's only used for one statement and that statement has three other sources anyway. --Cheeser1 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. --J-stan 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey cheeser, who put the source back in? I specifically remember removing it. Either way, It's gone. --J-stan 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an accident - a reversion for some other reason to a version that had the source. No worries. --Cheeser1 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's cool. --J-stan 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys, really. Because, through the editorial process at my paper that article became a mistake. Haha. I would've gone for a much less serious headline for the article, really. :] --Its5 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Sources

I found some sources you might wanna toss in there:

• How To To Be Emo (wikiHow)
• How To Get Emo Hair (wikiHow)
• www.emohairstyles.info

--emc ^{(t a l k)} 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The second one seems unsuitable to the article, as it contains ads and things, but the others seem fine. --J-stan ^Talk 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. wikiHow is not a reliable source, nor is some self-published website cataloging hairstyles. Sure, they might be as good as some of the worse sources we have now, but those sources aren't good either and ought to eventually be removed. --Cheeser1 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Not defending the sub-par refs we have here, but we have plenty of self published sites as refs that have been on for a while. --J-stan ^Talk 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the second one should be used if we use those at all. --Oysterguitarist 03:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I know. Hence the unreferenced tag. Because those need to be replaced. --Cheeser1 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I really recommend this article be submitted for deletion. According to You Don't Know Emo, fashions pertaining to everything stated in this article (which is about a SLANG, not an actual word) is called Mallcore, or Mall Emo. There is NO SUCH THING as an "emo kid". Emo music and the bands belonging to the genre are all underground and have nothing to do with any clothing style, depressed attitude, or act of self mutilation. Tight pants and makeup are characteristics of an interest in becoming a transvestite, or just curiosity. I recommend the title of this article be changed either to Mall Emo, Mall Core, or Scene(clothing). Otherwise, this article should be deleted for simply spreading untrue myths about a gross misunderstanding for an underground genre of music. --76.2.116.135 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: here is the link to this information: [5] --76.2.116.135 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We're not deleting the article based on some random website that doesn't even have it's own hosting -- present some reliable sources which back up your assertion, and maybe you'll have something to go on here. --Haemo 02:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It already was nominated as an AfD. The decision was keep. Besides, I'm not so sure you would be taken seriously as an anon user. --J-stan ^Talk 03:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an unreliable source and why would you want to have another afd when there was already a deate and the result was keep. --Oysterguitarist 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I agree that what was presented is no reason at all for an AfD, I will say that it is often best to renominate articles for an AfD. Just because it passed once doesn't mean it will again, and we can't keep everything around, only what's good for Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

But we can improve this article. It doesn't have to be deleted. I, for one, feel that there is to much work put into this article to just give up on it. --J-stan ^Talk 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to give up on this artical but it defintley needs to cleaned up and needs more sources which is a big problem cause there are few reliable sources on this subject. --Oysterguitarist 03:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --J-stan ^Talk 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are also alot of things in this article that are really not factually verifiable. Saying that a staple of emo fashion involves horn rim glasses and other things. The only source stated is that "most current definitions" state, and i think thats highly assumed, because, while there is a large amount of people who use the bastardized meaning of this word, alot of people know that the fashion itself is not a staple, nor is entirely related to what emo is. The beginning of this article is fine, but the section on fashion seems, to me, somewhat like a one sided view. Then as to the music portion, it seems contradictory to place My Chemical Romance as an "emo" band because of their emotional lyrics, yet any metal or hard rock band who talks about self mutilation is somehow immune from it. Also, My Chemical Romance have stated (on their DVD Life on the Murder Scene, and at the end of the video for "Teenagers") that their main thesis is to save lives, and not promote self mutilation or violence. I think this article should put some of these facts out there, especially relating to metal bands talking about cutting (look at lyrics for Everything Ends by Slipknot and Bed Of Razors by Children of Bodom). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.19.250 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Did a three year old put this article together?

Is anyone even going to attempt to make this article look decent? Perhaps someone should be serach down so as to properly write this article without sounding completley illeterate and feverntly bland. Oh and when did emo become short for emotional? Oh yea 2005 when emo was re-invented. --Zakhebeone 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha. In 2000's they should have thought of a new name for the genre that is now known as 'Emo'. Would have saved a whole lot of arguing and confusion. --Cloggy M 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, you shouldn't be so insulting without checking your own grammar and such. Emo has been synonamous with Goth and that lifestyle LONG before 2005. --146.63.253.183 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

gallery??

Why was the gallery removed? There was no justification, and this history page is (of course) impossible to pick through due to the constant vandalism and people making long chains of micro-edits. Anyway, I've added it back - if there was some reason for removing it, let me know, but I don't think there was and have no idea why it's been missing for so long. --Cheeser1 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that all of the image captions use the word "typical". Do we have ANYTHING that isn't a drawing or single element of emo fashion (i.e. the shoes)? How about a picture of a real individual? Other articles on subcultures have pictures of people (see here, here, here, or here). --emc ^{(t a l k)} 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the gallery. Oysterguitarist 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with these pictures, though. If you find better pictures (that are eligible for use on Wikipedia), put them up here. Otherwise, what do you expect? And if you don't like the wording, contest the wording. Badly captioned pictures need fixed captions, not deletion. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The captions are accurate actually. Therein is my problem with the pictures. The drawings and the image of the shoes in that gallery add little if anything visually informational to the article, and they necessitate the use of the word "typical". The term "emo" may be ambiguous, but "emo fashion" is not all that ambiguous, so I see little need for drawings, and again, all of these drawings and caricatures do nothing to help support the article. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is about things that are typical. That's how you describe a fashion or group of people. Your argument in that respect is absurd, and a caricature is just as helpful as a "real" picture unless that caricature is inaccurate. Since we all agree that it is typical of emo fashion, I think you've provided a better argument for keeping it than you have for removing it. --Cheeser1 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the section about emo fashion does it use the word "typical" other than in the image captions. That section points out very precise and accurate examples. Fashion of the emo subculture is distinct. Additionally, I don't know where you get off asserting that this is an acceptable visual representation. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We spend a few paragraphs describing emo fashion. Rather than repeat it in the caption, we say "typical." Typical is a word. Just a word. It means "more or less like we just described in that paragraph" or "average" or "something identifiable with this fashion." If you have an issue with one picture in particular, feel free to bring it up. However, I consider that picture to be accurate. I remember emo before it was MCR and droves of 7th graders, and the fashion was different then, and I'd like to see you find reliable sources that say otherwise. You can't just decide one day that you think the word "typical" is a no-no, and tell me it was wrong to put the gallery back in. It was removed for no reason, you don't have a good reason now, and if you have problems with some of the content, you address those issues one-by-one. That picture is fine, but if you think otherwise, cite some sources and work for consensus. You don't get to make your own consensus, and until one is reached, you have no place cutting it out of the article. --Cheeser1 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. The possibility of a conflict is getting too close for comfort. --J-stan ^Talk 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those images, are of unacceptable quality (no offense to the images' creators). I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can argue your case ad nauseum in the same discourteous, flamewar attitude that you've been using to defend this frivolous gallery (ex. "That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles.") for all I care, and you can pull out whatever bureaucratic red tape image guidelines just so you get your way, but my point and opinion still stands, and I'd in the least like you to consider it so we can hopefully come to a compromise on this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'll continue to wait for a reason, based on policy, to remove the gallery. You, like Oysterguitarist, have both now made it quite clear that you don't like the gallery. You think it's bad. It displeases you. I made it clear below, and I will make it clear now: I don't care what your opinion is, and neither does Wikipedia. Unless you're giving us an interpretation of policy that explains why we should remove the gallery, it stays. Accuse me of "flamewarring" - all I've done is make it clear that you should be citing policy, not how you feel about the matter, or how much you dislike the gallery. That's how Wikipedia works, thank you very much, and I'll let your opinion stand indeed, since your opinion should not be involved in this discussion. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All I asked was for an interpretation of policy, so that we can work towards consensus. Instead, I get accused of flaming people and suborning the use of "bad" images what people don't like? I'll take my deep breath and come back to this article if anyone besdies me ever decides to cite policy or work for consensus. Until then, the gallery stays. You can't remove a part of an article like that without a firm reason rooted in policy. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

←I didn't accuse you of flamewarring. I said you have flamewarring attitude, as in you're behavior is coming off as belligerent. If you're so stuck up on policies, then read this. It is a decision of the editors of an article whether images are suitable or not. And your claim that Wikipedia doesn't care about my or any other editors' opinions is entirely incorrect. Articles are meant to be factual, while talk pages are meant to discuss improving or making changes to an article whereas opinions, concerns, and queries can be expressed, respected, and resolved. Again, I'm willing to compromise on this issue, and since I've clearly proven that my opinion and the opinions of other editors matter and determine whether the gallery should stay, be removed, or simply changed, I suggest you open yourself up for compromise on this issue as well and stop being rude and impolite on this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 05:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the gallery after one other editor expressed a similar opinion: "I don't really like the gallery." That is an opinion. An interpretation of policy is the only kind of opinion that matters. Talk pages are for discussing policy in order to form a consensus which is what I've asked you to do from the start. Up until now, you've just sat there insisting that your opinions are correct. Until you cite policy, the gallery stays. Stop assuming bad faith - I've continued, over and over and over, to try to get you to cite policy. That's all I've told you to do, because your "opinion," unless it's an interpretation of some specific policy, is irrelevant. You finally did cite policy, sort of. That policy says which we prefer. It doesn't say "never use sketches, caricatures, or pictures that aren't of entire people and their clothes." It certainly does not say "never ever use the word typical or you'll have to delete the whole gallery." As I read that policy, there's no reason to delete it. Unless other users work towards a consensus (and no, you and OysterGuitarist's "I don't like it" do not make up a consensus), then there is no consensus, and in that case, the gallery stays. --Cheeser1 05:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I changed the image captions to make less use of the word "typical" while keeping the basic meaning of the caption. I feel this satisfies both sides of the argument (Oyster, not quite sure how to satisfy your argument while keeping the consensus). Now can we all be adults? --J-stan ^Talk 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still not understanding this policy. Please reread it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out this one as well, which clearly states "Images of poor quality, perhaps uploaded only to support the work of editors on an article, should not be included in a mainspace gallery.", and the former noting "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement. Some editors maintain that photographs are preferable to paintings and sketches." I am one of those editors. Those images are of unacceptable quality. I feel like I'm repeating myself. You're not a consensus either, but thus far, in this discussion, more have favored removal or changing of the gallery (2-1). --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I like the page better with just the shoes. Maybe we should put the hair thing back in. --J-stan ^Talk 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the page when it obeys policy. Policy is clear. You CANNOT remove chunks of articles unless there is consensus based on policy to do so. It doesn't matter how much people like or don't like the pictures, captions, etc. I've been waiting and waiting for policy and/or consensus to settle this matter, but until it does, the gallery has to stay put. --Cheeser1 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editors maintain that those images are just fine. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a 1 vote margin is not a consensus. ESPECIALLY when the other vote is "I don't like the gallery." --Cheeser1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Galleries#Mainspace_galleries is about articles that are only galleries, such as Gallery of the Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom. And yet I am accused of misinterpreting policy? --Cheeser1 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear - if the article can be improved by adding photographs, I would love to see it. If policy and consensus can agree that the gallery must be removed wholesale, fine. But at this point, I see no replacement photos flooding in. There is no consensus about removing the gallery. And there is no policy dictating that images that might be considered substandard (but not considered so by consensus) must be removed. Consensus (and often policy) are required to cut otherwise contributive content from an article. Until we have those things, I will not allow this content to be removed. Am I being a stickler for policy? Maybe. Am I being stubborn? Perhaps. But I'm making myself as clear as I can be, and I've explained myself time and time again, hoping that a solution could be reached if someone would come up with new pictures, find a policy that explicitly prescribes the removal of the gallery, or form a (real) consensus either way. But until that is the case, I will keep the article the way it is. Because that's how Wikipedia works. --Cheeser1 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section." --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? I've noted two policies thus far to back up my argument, and you've provided none. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, you said Wikipedia isn't a democracy, yet you're running around screaming about a consensus, which is, as Wikipedia states here: "...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. --J-stan ^Talk 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can't come to a consensus about this I think a request for comment will be needed. --Oysterguitarist 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you "don't like" the gallery, would you mind making a statement based on policy? --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The second policy does not apply. Read rule 8 of that section. It clearly states that it's talking only about things listed in this category, which are all gallery only articles. The first policy you cited states what is preferable to some users. If you come up with good photos to replace the illustrations, feel free to add them. If they replicate or supersede the content of the other images, I will agree that consensus isn't required to swap them out. Otherwise, the old images present content that, even if not in the most preferred form, is the only form we have for that content. As for the issue of consensus, see WP:CON and WP:DEMOCRACY. If you make a bold change like removing the entire gallery or portions of it, and someone reverts it, you are supposed to leave it and discuss until consensus is reached. You are not supposed to continue to remove the gallery, asserting without justification that you are right or that consensus is reached because a 2-1 vote is in your favor. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#The_BRD_process. That should clear this matter up, as a part of the consensus process, which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, in my second policy, that it is not referring to articles which are entirely galleries, as the second sentence in rule one states: "A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section.". Rule 8, as you pointed out, does only refer to articles which are entirely galleries, and this article clearly isn't. In that sense, this rule does not apply in any way to this article. However, as the excerpt from rule 1 suggests (see above), those policies are not standard to just full gallery pages. As you continue to use the word "consensus", I'd like to know how exactly you expect me, or anyone else, to gain a consensus on this issue as there are, thus far, only four of us discussing this matter, with you being outweighed. Furthermore, you're not even open for discussion. You just want policy after policy after policy, and most of the policies you've brought up (such as the the BRD process) state that we are to discuss this matter. You are not following rule 3 of the BRD process which you, again, brought up yourself, which states: "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change." You boldly said, not too long ago, that you nor Wikipedia care about my opinions (synonymous with "views"). I think it goes without saying that you are contradicting yourself. So, I'm going to say it for the last time: the two images (aside from the sneakers) in the gallery are of unacceptable quality. This is the issue we are to discuss, so let's oblige by rule 3 of the BRD process and do so without contradicting ourselves, shall we? --emc ^{(t a l k)} 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

←I'm not interested in cooperating with you any more. You assume absolutely no good faith in my actions, you attack me because I ask that you present interpretations of policy rather than off-the-cuff opinions, and you refuse (apparently) to consider the idea of consensus as anything but what you want. I've told you that I will compromise when anything but the outright removal of perfectly good content is an option. J-Stan and Oysterguitarist have contributed nothing (really) to the discussion of relevant policy, only off-the-cuff opinions. You ask me how to build consensus with only two (four) people, but BRD explains how that's supposed to work - you just don't follow those guidelines and then I apparently look like the bad guy. "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit" is directed at you in this process. Instead, you attack me for daring to come after your "opinion," and you revert the revert. That is not how these things work. It is your behavior that is out of line, not mine. And you twist my words, because when I try to explain the difference between off-the-cuff opinions and opinions that are interpretations of policy, you accuse me of ignoring your opinions and acting like a big mean jerk. I'm done with this "discussion." You feel free to continue to ignore policy and screw this article up all you want. I'm not interested in dealing with this crap anymore. Oh no, why is Cheeser so mean? Well, I guess I am, but to quote the BRD, "If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies." Your inability to adhere to this most basic tenet of Wikipedia, your senseless and innane attacks on me as if I'm doing you wrong and not just quoting and obeying Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, and your inability to assume good faith have made me quite a bit frustrated. You want to violate the rules? The two random bystanders at the moment aren't doing anything to stop you? Fine. Steamroll right past me and policy. Delete whatever the hell you want from this article. Go ahead. There's your consensus. --Cheeser1 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the discussion at this time...(need some more time to review everything)...but I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia:Images is not a policy page and Wikipedia:Galleries is historical. --OnoremDil 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say Congratulations to EMC and Cheeser1. In light of all the flaming that's been going on between the both of you, I am leaving this page temporarily. As long as there is this argument about something so insignificant, something that can go either way, I have no reason to argue with both of you. I tried to calm everyone down, but your arguing has got out of hand. I think a request for comment should be opened immediately. When the edit war has died down, I shall return to work on this page once again. --J-stan ^Talk 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also leaving this page. --Oysterguitarist 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oyster, you are a master of inexplicable brevity. :) --J-stan ^Talk 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser1, I attacked you? Please, humor me and find one instance of where I "attacked" you. If you felt that I attacked you, I apologize for doing so, but I just don't see any instance where I did such a thing. I did however, point out that I felt your comment to Oysterguitarist was quite rude, and you've yet to apologize. I agree this has gone on long enough for something so trivial, but clearly our interpretations of policy are somewhat different, such as where yours are contradictory. Sorry to have driven you away; you just never stated you'd compromise on this issue up until now. But, seeing as you're done with this "discussion", I suppose I'll make the change(s) I desire whereas silence will equal consent, unless you change your mind and are still interested in discussing this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery doesn't contribute anything to the article. Poor illustrative and biased nature of the images really predisposes towards them not being included -- none of the captions are attributed to Reliable Source (who says bangs or beat up all stars are typical emo? is a self created emo caricture that really illustrative?) unless you can really come up with a reason for keeping these images, they should go. --ZayZayEM 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean by "poor illustrative and biased nature"? Nothing says every caption must have a reference. Would you also refer me to where it says that these images must "go," unless I can come up with "a reason" beyond the fact that they illustrate part of the text of the article? That's what images are supposed to do. --Cheeser1 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Totally incorrect!

Even though the definition of the word, emo, is not yet completely specified, the word doesn't mean what this article states it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvmesodou (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you please enlighten us as to what you believe it means? And please sign your posts by typing four of these ~ Thanks. --Cheeser1 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

Going by the usage online, especially in urban dictionary, I was under the impression that emo was generally used not to refer to the culture, but anybody with chronically depressed, extremely sensitive and/or emotional, possibly to the point of recurrent suicidal tendencies. This seems to connect pretty straightforwardly to the bipolar spectrum, which I have several experiences of. It's hard for me to grasp how the last case in particular can be considered non-mental illness related, chemically balanced behaviour. Have I misunderstood? --Dave 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Urban dictionary and "usage online" do not make for encyclopedia content. Please refer to WP:RS. --Cheeser1 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But the phrasing right above almost word by word connects to certain types of bipolar disorder, and the second sentence doesn't have any reference. Shouldn't a simple link to a related area, without any measure of comment/additional speculation be warranted? It seems like a whole lot of people with brain disorders are hurt by being considered just to be, to paraphrase, "self-pitying, spoiled whiners, with an attitude problem". --Dave 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make any such a connection. Melancholy lyrics do not imply a specific medical disorder. Unless you're a psychologist, and you have written a reliable published study that links melancholy emo lyrics with bipolar disorder, you cannot simply make this connection and assume that it "connects to" anything. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Find a reliable psychology article/study/whatever that links emo lyrics to bipolar disorder (hint: I don't think you'll find one), and we can talk about re-integrating your changes to the article. Otherwise, what you're suggsting is Original Research, per WP:OR. And it's not our job to cater to people with "brain disorders" who might get "hurt" by taking things personally. Wikipedia is not censored, and content shouldn't be removed, changed, or added if the only concern is about people getting unjustifiably upset by otherwise encyclopedic content. --Cheeser1 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics? I was referring to the usage of the word to refer to personality, not the music section. Suicidal chronic depression is very frequently connected to the bipolar spectra. As for the quotation marks around brain disorders, these are a very existent medical/scientific 'fact' for many bipolar people, hardly a matter of ideology. --Dave 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Slang use of the term "emo" is, perhaps, about people who are depressed, not people who are Depressed. There is a big difference. You can't hear some kid say "OMG jimmie is sooo emo" and wham, he's been diagmosed. "Emo" is not a medical opinion, it does not have symptoms, it is not a diagmosis. As for the quotation marks, I used them because I was quoting you. Hence quotation marks. Your use of the term "brain disorder" though shows us that you don't understand much about psychological disorders (this is what they are called). Nowhere did I say that they do not exist, or that your edits are ideologically motivated. You don't get it. Being sad about girls and too much math homework (aka emo) is not clinical depression. Until you find a reliable psychological source, making this link is based on what you see and what you think and that is original research. There's already been a disucssion about this, here on the talkpage, and consensus was completely against including such medical claims without citing a medical authority. This is no different. --Cheeser1 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok. Never mind then. Sorry about that. But it is frequently referred to as a brain disorder due to faulty chemical transmitter metabolism. I suppose it may depend on whether it's a medical researcher or a psychologist talking about it? --Dave 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in order for you to make claims like this, you must have a reliable source like a psychologist or other medical authority. --Cheeser1 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Move to Emo subculture

c.f. Punk subculture, Goth subculture.

This really isn't a slang term. Slang generally refers to colloquial and/or informal language. Emo is pretty universal English and has a real definition, as opposed to something like white trash, bogan or chav. --ZayZayEM 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All of what you just said is completely OR (none of the things you just stated, as if fact, have been established). I would contend otherwise on every count. The use of the term is highly colloquial and informal, it is not a well-defiend term, and it does not have use in universal English (nor does it have a universal definition). It has not been established as a subculture in the same ways the others have. Find me a sociology paper in, say, The Journal of American Culture, or a book that depicts emo subculture, or a reliable/informed source that can really establish that emo (as it exists in common use today) is some sort of subculture (and not a slang category/term/label like "freak" "poseur" "popular kid" or "dork"). Now, if you're talking about hardcore punk from the 80s, that already falls into punk subculture anyway, and whatever 80s-emo-related content we have can/should go there anyway. And don't forget that we also have emo (music) as well. --Cheeser1 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain how asserying Emo is a slang term is not equally OR. I linked to the slang page for a reason. The use of emo does not fit in with slang. --ZayZayEM 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you that words that are used almost entirely by young people (and only in particular ways by particular groups) generally qualify as slang. That fits right into the definition of slang, which I read when you linked it. Let's assume a little good faith, and not jump to the conclusion that I didn't take the time to read what you said. I'll point you to where it says: usage of slang expressions can spread outside their original arenas to become commonly understood, such as "cool" and "jive". While some words eventually lose their status as slang, others continue to be considered as such by most speakers. In spite of this, the process tends to lead the original users to replace the words with other, less well-recognised terms to maintain group identity. Emo originated as a term used to describe particular musical and cultural objects, but has expanded in use and usage drastically in recent years. That expanse notwithstanding, it can easily be considered slang at one time, and given the fact that "cool" is still often considered slang, emo certainly is far newer and less ubiquitous. The term "slang" is quite appropriate for this article. --Cheeser1 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about a word or slang term. That would be here wikt:emo. This article is about a clear subculture. Article titles should best represent their content. It also does away with brackets in a title, which are always best to be avoided. --ZayZayEM 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't seriously think avoiding parentheses will justify introducing OR into an article, can you?? There is no foundation for the use of the term "subculture" as it is, and while I'm not actively cutting the word from the article, due to lack of consensus for such a bold move, I am opposed to changes that further ingrain this dubious, unsourced language into the article. It's about "emo" as it exists as an entity defined by the slang usage of the word. Hence, Emo (slang). I've laid that out for you, using the very definition of slang you threw in my face to start this discussion. If you want to use a different word, you'd better have some reliable sources, be it a sociology journal or whatever, to establish that is is a subculture. The fact that you consider it to be "clear" based on what "[you]'ve seen" is totally original research. Stop drawing out this issue. Until you have a source (a reliable one, at that), you should not push for these changes. I'm sorry if you think it's clear, but until it meets WP:V, it will be original research and as far as I'm concerned, that means it's not clear at all. --Cheeser1 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a proposed move for it, let us make a consensus. --Marlith ^T/C 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)