Talk:Emo (slang)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emo (slang) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents 1 Protection Banner 2 better picture 3 Citicism 4 A new approach? 5 Response to first comment 6 Two separate sections? 7 Emo song. 8 Why is this page protected? 9 Merge this page with main Emo article 10 References 11 Comment 12 "Emo" = Undefinable 13 The Typical Emo College Student? 14 Article completely rewritten. 15 slight edit to fashion section? 16 Emo is a steriotype 17 emo is emo 18 RCB 19 Emos and Self-Harming 20 Emo poetry 21 YouTube video 22 Self-harm and emo 23 Emo Female? 24 Merge from Emo poetry 25 Subject change 26 Do we really need the "Emo Cult" Daily Mail News link? 27 How to be: Emo 28 See Also 29 Automatic bias 30 Spelling Error 31 Emo vs Goth 32 Tickle Me Emo 33 "Don't Be Emo"? 34 emo - what does it mean?

[edit] 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.

[edit] better picture

that picture of the "typical emo hair" is totally, totally, off base. i'm emo, i would know. it's more like the hair covers one eye and the other eye is left uncovered. i have a better picture, should i upload it?

Go ahead and upload it. If it is agreed to be accurate, and it is of good quality, nobody will delete it. Don't delete the other photo, because I disagree with you about it being inaccurate, and nobody has expressed that they believe it is inaccurate before. Just add yours as photo #4, or photo #2 if you prefer it to be next to the other. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if possible, could we get a long shot of you, clothes and all? We need pictures of emo fashion in general, not just the hair. That would be great. ~Switch ^t 08:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citicism

We need a citicism section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.195.190 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A new approach?

I think it's been clearly established that emo is one of the most ambiguous labels we've come up with in the world. Our current attempts to get a good definition of it aren't going real well. I suggest we take what we have done in the article, and merge relevant information into other articles (such as editing the Goth article to include any relevant emo information). I believe this label is currently beyond the scope of an encyclopedia in its current state, and we should wait unil our culture can create a more unifying idea of what emo truly us. Thoughts? Nodnarb232001 19:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about what happens to the article at the moment (when I get the chance, I'll go through it and post my thoughts afterwards). What I really want to talk about is the talk page. Before I archived it, it was almost 80 kilobytes long and the only reason it was that big is because people keep posting all of this useless crap that doesn't do anything for the article or Wikipedia itself. If it weren't for that, the talk page would probably be half as long and we wouldn't have to archived it (although when editing the page, it would have said something about how long it is and tell you to archive it). So unless you have something to say that could benefit the article, like what Nodnarb232001 wrote, please don't post anything at all. // Sasuke-kun27 20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As a "user", I was after info to help understand what my teenage son was on about. Currently the article does not quite match what I've been hearing here (in New Zealand). Could that be because, as a youth culture label, the term 'emo' is constantly changing or evolving? I'm not suggesting the current article is wrong, just not complete or up to date, or there are regional differences. I've also been told that the evolution of Emo has some connection to MySpace (As a means of sharing the look?). Any thoughts of these ideas? --Alisterb 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Simply because our world culture has yet to specifically define the term doesn't mean it is invalid and should be merged. For example, the United States population is having a major conflict just defining the "war in Iraq". The term is definitely legitimate slang for a cultural subgroup (at least in my part of the United States). It may be used differently in different areas but in my location I could easily define "emo". It may not be uniformly used across the world but certainly in certain regions it has a clearer definition. In any case, I don't think the term should be removed/merged. 67.21.19.23 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article sucks. No, emo has nothing to do with goth. Part of the problem is you're trying define "emo" the word, not the "emo" scene/subculture/whatever. Cedars 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

^Exactly, emo has nothing at all to do with goth, gothic subculture, music or anything. - Deathrocker 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I always thouygh emo kids cutt them selves "Emo" simply has too many accepted/disputed uses and definitions. (e.g., Where I come from, "emo" is only a noun when talking about a genre--not a person. "Emos vs. goths" would be grammatically incorrect.) I used to be emo about four years ago, and what I was told set me apart as emo was the fact that I didn't acknowledge being emo. It wasn't about self-pity but about being a romantic as well as finding others superior to myself. I was horrified when magazines began telling people "how to be emo" and Dashboard Confessional became the poster children for what was accepted as "emo." Emo was not about popular images or popular music, and that is what it has become--a popular image with connotations of unpopularity. However, for people like me, that view of "emo" is incorrect in our minds. We should recognize how many views of this term exist and accept them all as true in different contexts. AngelProjekt 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"emo" is a neologism that isn't set in stone for any part of speech. The word is not academic, nor foreign-derived, so it doesn't make any sense to speak definitively about its correct usage. For all your clear personal experiences, you are just entering into speculation. The article has been for a long time searching vainly for credible sources, while posters mostly have been concerned about what they think, without any uncertainty, is the correct definition. We are not getting anywhere. Rintrah 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have heard it used "emo" is a noun; a person who is unreasonable depressed and gives no further reason as to why he/she is depressed than "their's so much pain and suffering in the world." The small clique that I have become friendly with views "emo" as a cancer, people who hang-out with other emos eventually become emo themselves'. I have, actually, observed these particular kids, who are labeled as "emo", seeming somewhat gloom and rather sad. Slang words and subculture or rock culture words aren't the easiest to define; they really can only be descriptive definitions. User:Randy6767 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the article seems to say being an Emo means mainly having hair on one eye? on ANY forum when talking about emos, its clear that emo is synonymous to "suicidal youth who believes him/herself to be misunderstood by society", their haircut, dressing and even music is of secondary importance(thats only in public mind, but, considering Emo is only general public term, public image is true image). btw you got some vandalism here - see references.

[edit] Response to first comment

Dont Merge in with Goth, Goth is NOT emo

71.98.16.172 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How so? The similarities between Goth and Emo are numerous and uncanny. Nodnarb232001 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Goth and emo have almost nothing to do with each other. The only vague connections I can pull up are that both are derived from punk and both have an image in the mainstream of being depressed, self-harming and/or suicidal. Even then, goths (tend to) play down that aspect, whereas emos will play it up. A brief mention that some trends previously assoicated with "goth" are now associated with "emo" is fine, but nothing more. -Switch ^t 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They play it down? I always thought wearing black leather, fishnet stockings, Marilyn Manson T-shirts, piercings, corpse make-up, and excessive mascara made it more obvious. Emos are moderately dressed in comparison. Rintrah 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know any goths who own Marilyn Manson shirts. Maybe it was a typo and you meant to type Bauhaus or The Sisters of Mercy? ;) In any case, I shall clarify: Emo kids play to the media image of them as depressed, suicidal, self-harming. They act the part, complain about how hard their white male middle-class suburban life is, even pretend to be depressed when they aren't. Goths don't actually assoicate themselves with that kind of thing, it is a stereotype applied to them by mainstream media; in fact, in my experience, goths tend to resent that stereotype, and they try to distance themselves from it. -15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I admit my knowledge of gothdom is poor, but I am sure I have seen many in Manson T-shirts; however, I have seen very few Bauhaus or The Sisters of Mercy ones. Have you ever been to Flinders Street Station in Melbourne? Goths are conspicuous there, and their dissociation from everyone else is presented starkly. It seems a poor strategy to stand out with a peculiar dress sense indicating alienation and depression, yet resent the negative media attribution. There might be a whole underworld of a gothic subculture unknown to me, but to my knowledge, in my city, Melbourne, the goths at Flinders street typify the subculture. All the goths I have known, which I admit are few, have expressed the desire to make their differences known. But I agree with you, goths seem less like crybabies than emos. Rintrah 15:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a terminology thing; I know a few "real" goths and my mother knew quite a few first-generation goths, so and I would consider the the kids you're talking about (I have seen them - I catch the train to Uni at RMIT every day) part of a generic "we're so different and rebellious" subculture that exists all over. You might, for example, notice a lot of baseball caps, hoodies and baggy pants (gangsta culture) or similar parts of heavy metal fashion as well as the goth fashion, and most of them will listen to metal more than gothic rock. I don't think Manson has anything to do with goth, personally.

(I know very little about this either.) Manson's music is in the Industrial genre, which is either not "goth" or on the fringes of it, depending on how one looks at it. His most fervent supporters are goths or people who are called goths by outsiders. Of the Flinders Street crowd, a large part are ostensibly goth — faces painted white, black clothes, and other recognisable parapharnalia — but among them are people who style themselves as punks, hoodies, and metalheads. They are really a heterogenous crowd who only have their loser, psuedo-rebellion status in common. All my contacts have told me goths meet at Flinders Street because of Smoke Dreams, some tradition dating back to some time I have forgotten, and the gothic clubs in proximity to the station. There might be differences to "real" goths—this I have no idea about. As far as I know, because the goth scene is small in Melbourne, there is also a mix of "subcultures" at goth clubs. Although the Flinders Street goths annoy me, emos seem to be the growing vermin, the one I should worry most about. Rintrah 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic here, but I'll just follow up the question of music - Manson is industrial metal, which, at different times, may be very similar to "classic" industrial music, which was more of a post-punk thing, or very different indeed. For example, Ministry were an industrial band who started, after a while, to incorporate heavy guitars into their music; on the other hand, Fear Factory were a death metal band who after a while incorporated parts of industrial into their style, along with dance and other electronic genres. It's largely a POV thing, yes. Between how industrial Manson is, and how goth industrial is, and what exactly constitutes goth... you can get a lot of confusion. -Switch ^t 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, the whole 'Goth v. Emo' thing; When I think of Goth, I think of a subculture that dresses in more lacy, almost medevil inspired dark clothing, they listen to bands like Bauhaus, or Skinny Puppy, even the Damned and the like. Goth was more popular in the '80s and '90s. The attitudes were more of a melancoly, longing sort of emotional, S&M sexual sort of thing. When I think of EMO, I think of a subculture that dresses in a sort of punk-goth hybrid, the hair dye, the little black outfits with splashes of strange colors, the wrist bands, the pins on the jackets and bags. All of these are expressed either in Goth and punk. They listen to bands like My Chemical Romance and Dashboard Confessional, which IMO is a bit of a cry from the punk and goth music of The Damned (goth)or The Minutemen or even the Ramones (punk).People of the EMO culture that I've had dealings with, seem to almost feel 'oh woe is me' martyr, nobody understands me sort of thing. Goth was a bit more 'the world is a terrible place' almost existential sort of thing. Comparing the music of goth and punk is Similar to the comparison of 'new punk' to 'old schoolpunk', which would be like comparing Green Day to Fuguzi. Again, just watered down versions of the original. My point of reference comes from living in NYC but then again, it could be different regionally.

...but emo is the new goth; the new "in" counterculture of today's mid-school to college youth. Despite emo being almost totally different from goth, the mainstream culture's reaction is as it has been to teenage culture through the generations. "Oh no, that Elvis - that John Lennon - that Ozzy - that Kurt Cobain - that Marilyn Manson - will corrupt our youth and shake the very foundations of civilization!" This is the turnover; this is the new era. Soon the advertisers will focus on the emo as they focused on the goth. Before you know it, there'll be a major character in a mainstream television drama that dresses emo, sounds emo, but otherwise is just there to reassure the parental generation that their kids are okay. This is the way of the world. --BlueNight 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a just a little speculative. You are also generalising; Elvis and John Lennon, and even Kurt Cobain, did not cause the same reactions as Marilyn Manson. Although emos and goths have a lot in common, they are different. Perhaps what you are saying is emo represents many of the things goth used to more prominently, and that those who might have become goths in a different era are more likely to turn emo. In any case, neither goth nor emo was an "in" counterculture. Emo is also less likely to be featured in mainstream media because it is less of a rebellion. Rintrah 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Elvis did, though I wasn't around. Regardless, though there have been people like that in every generation (Jim Morrison, Sid Vicious, Eminem for example). However, there are a lot of negative connotations to the term "emo", and no one is exactly sure what it means, so I don't really know where it's going to go. In any case, I agree with Rintrah for the most part. -Switch ^t 10:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Emo song.

Should it be mentioned? Most people know what I mean you can find it anywhere, but ill post a link later. That song (if not true) is still better than the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.40.13 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I have no objection to it but others do. If you post a link to it, it will probably be deleted. Rintrah 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the "Emo Song" is like a part of the emo phenomena, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that there is a connection between emo and myspace as well as it being common for "scene kids" or "emo kids" to wear girl pants? 172.166.35.118 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)PhyreChild

I think you mean "phenomenon", but it's not really the right word either. People do keep bringing up the connection of emo to myspace; I am starting to believe there is something substantial to these rumours. Yes, tight jeans are popular — surely, no one is going to deny this? The article does have a problem with the lack of sources, however; so we should be hesistant at adding rumours and unsourced assertions. There should be magazine articles which describe the emo subculture — has no one found any of those? Emos strongly stand out, but so many people whine on this page how it is impossible to pinpoint them — yeah, sure. Rintrah 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the two should be seperated, Emo's attempt to live UP to their stereotype, they don't try and turn down those views unless they're doing it for more attention or because it's something they can feed off of for emotional pain.

If you mean "The Emo Song", as featured on YTMND, it is a mocking satire of the phenomenon, and as such, posting the lyrics ("Dear diary...") is POV. However, mentioning that the "song" exists is NPOV. As for the Myspace connection, perhaps a mention of melodramatic blogs and other Internet postings in general is in order instead. --BlueNight 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. But can anyone find references? Do they exist?! Re unsigned, anonymous poster: just as the taste of diesel and mould can be separated, so can emos and goths. Rintrah 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also mention Tickle me Emo/Elmo please. =D Berserkerz Crit 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we mention "F*** Emo" by the Nihilists then? Just to give a well balanced argument.. <roll eyes> Waffle247 90.152.12.130 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this page protected?

And what is up with this global-conspiracy nonsense at the end of the first paragraph:

"Even though it is a group of kids it has leadership that resembles a monarchy. The knowledge of this is very discreet."

Don't make factual assertions, especially far-out ones like this, without some kind of support for your assertions. If you have some evidence of this global emo-conspiracy, post it. If not, take it out.

And unprotect this page while you are at it.

Jjobrien3 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected to prevent edits such as the one you mentioned. It was semi-protected so that most users may still edit the article but apparently that's not really working out. The last thing we want right now is to unprotect the page and unleash a swarm of vandals (especially vandal-only IPs). The edit you mentioned has already been reverted, so you don't need to worry about that. If anymore vandals strike, users who still have the privilige to edit the article, such as myself, will fix it as soon as possible. // Sasuke-kun27 18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Annon 22:13, 16 December 2006

I have a problem with the statement "there is no significant evidence of any correlation between emo and self-harm." Aside from the fact that the author uses no evidence in his claims throughout the article and calls for evidence here, there is a strong correlation between the two. Yet anyone who knows about statistics can tell you that correlation does not equal causation (see Pirates and Global warming proof.) There are lurking variables that can affect the two, as in the case of the Pirates-global warming the lurking variable is time. While it is near-impossible to determine if listening to emo music causes self harm, one can determine there is a correlation. As such I have repeatedly deleted the above said statement. This may have caused the protection of the page, but I stand by it.

The correlation may be that a teenager whose social life revolves around his own melodramatic interpretation of his own social life is also the type of person who is likely to attempt suicide, either as a cry for help or as a final decision. --BlueNight 22:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This page seriously needs to be reverted to a less insulting version. It has been locked on a version of the article that is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I request that it be unlocked so that someone can revert it to a better version (for lack of a better term) and then locked again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Merge this page with main Emo article

This article seems to serve more as a magnet for vandals than a useful information source at the mo, and is lacking in sources and verifiable facts. Any useful material would, IMO, benefit from being included in the main Emo article, which deals with the music scene, and would put the "emo lifestyle" more in context, perhaps. Hyperspacey 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In principle, it is a good idea; but doing so would degrade the main article, while unnaturally juxtaposing the content of this article with incongruous content. The two subjects are different: they only share their attachment to the emo theme. An article on Metalheads and one on the Heavy Metal scene, for instance, do not necessarily form the same subject matter, even though they are connected. It is better to keep this article separate in its substandard form. Improving it is the best option, in my very humble opinion. Rintrah 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, on closer inspection, the Emo (music) article wouldn't benefit. There's a lot of redundant info from it duplicated in this article; odds are it'd be best to strip this down to a look at "emo style" (clothing, hair) and and reference the teeth out of it. I'd like to comment on what people consider "emo culture", but it'd probably work out as a lengthy description of a stereotype. Suggestions? 194.73.163.108 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. If you can write an article based on the "emo style" with abundant sources, you will greatly improve upon the status quo. "Emo culture" is more difficult to define; a very brief description sourced from a few articles would be ideal, say perhaps magazines, if better sources do not exist. If you made it longer, it would be butchered by those who hate it, and other drive by editors would inject their own ideas into it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

I think this article should certainly be enhanced with more content, but I fully disagree with stripping it of content or rewriting it to exclusively focus on "style". Style should definitely be included, but this article should be a collection of all elements of emo that are not directly related to the music. The redundant content between here and the music article is intended to provide the origin of the non-musical element.

The real problem is that there aren't (m)any decent sources. Most articles written about emo style are best guesses written by journos or college folks. There is no specific emo style - while "emo" style includes certain elements, there's a myriad of varying versions thrown under the umbrella. -- ChrisB 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The style subject is most easily verifiable, whereas the others are bewilderingly subjective. It should be the foundation of this article because it is most objective; it is also the most prominent aspect of the non-musical element of emo. I agree, the origin is also important.

Best guesses by journalists and published academics are better than best guesses by random wikipedia editors. Rintrah 10:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That statement makes me think you haven't read some of the articles on emo in the popular press. Cedars 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The article does not have one reference.

This is everything I found after half an hour on Google:

• Description of "emo" from a magazine targetted at teenage girls: [1]
• Tabloid rant against "emo": [2]
• Article on emo which confirms the origin of the term, from About.com: [3]
• Article that discusses the perceptions of "emo", from knot magazine: [4]
• Poorly edited opinion piece which muses on the word "emo", from Incendiary magazine: [5]
• A link site I haven't explored: [6]

Now, put some references in! Rintrah 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I agree with Rintrah - there are no proper references, articles and magazines are not an reliable form of historic record, could we perhaps find some proper sources that are not so clearly biased? For example the article that rants about the dangers of self harm and "emoism" in exactly the same fashion that many similar publications did about goths, punks, metallers etc. It's so clearly not a source of information but an opinion that I see little or no value in including it - unless the authors of this article simply want to have a go at emo bashing like the rest of the net is at the moment. Waffle247 90.152.12.130 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This article doesn't seem to reflect what emo actually is, just stereotypes. Emo isn't "self-hating, crossdressing mopers who love post-hardcore." The original emo fad was art meets hardcore. (For example, a punk rock-loving poet may be emo.) And depression certainly doesn't constitute "emo-ness" either; if your only emotion is sadness, you're not very emotional, are you? — Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Find sources for your ideas, and amend the article accordingly. You might also want to keep in mind, This is not a forum for discussing the article's subject. Rintrah 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Emo" = Undefinable

"Emo" doesn't exist except in slang, but having that out of the way...The reason no one can find an exact definition of "emo" is because the group of members that are called "emo" differ in many different ways(redundant, I know). Let me explain this...the "emo" group is accepting to whoever wants to join. Anyone that feels they fit in no where else turns to the "emo" group looking for something to be a part of. Poets of many sorts usually do not fit into any other group but are accepted as "emo". Self-harm is highly disrespected in other cultures/subcultures, that is the reason why those that choose self-harm turn to the "emo" group for somewhere to go to. Seeing as how the "emo" group was formed in the early '80's, many of the early members that participated in self-harm or saw it from a person-to-person level grew up accepting self-harm in their lifestyle. Musicians knew who they wanted to get their message across to and knew how those people felt on things and included self-harm and depression in their music. Since this music had gone mainstream, media had linked romance related depression in some "emo" classified music to all punk originating music that contains romance, the struggles of life, or any struggles at all, for that matter. Media had widely spread the looks of the top mainstream "emo" musicians(who may or may not have been linked in any way at all to the original "emo"). This look had been the tight jeans and the hair flipped to one side. This brings me to my next topic, looks. The mainstream "emo" look, though it varies from person to person and region to region, is as follows...hair flipped to the side, somewhat tight shirts and jeans, and Converse Chuck Taylors or skate shoes of different forms. This is only a "scene" version of "emo" but it is widely spread and commonly accepted. Basically, whoever that feels the need or wants to be "emo" can be. It is a very broad term even though "scene emo"(mentioned above) looks are high associated with the "emo" title. So, no matter how hard you try and how long you work tryin to define "emo" beyond the media-filled, mainstream, "scene" image that has been produced, it is impossible. --CWark323 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you read my last comment or the one at the top of the page? Rintrah 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I will post citation when time permits it, but most of this info is from a first-hand experience and from speaking with many of my friends...I know this is unwanted because it is shown as not reliable, but I have webisites and magazine articles that also agree with me. I promise I will post later.--CWark323 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Typical Emo College Student?

I don't see what relevance this photograph has. To me it looks like general vandalism. There is no description of it on the page, but it could be just someone putting up a picture of their friend to wind them up. Remove? Coldcroc 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

   yes! Please remove it. While your at it Explain this SCENE thing please.

Here, I'll explain the SCENE thing. Before I start, allow me to inform you that I am a 17 year old male who attends high school so the only credibility I can offer is the fact that I'm exposed to teenage trends on a weekly basis. Scene kids (or scenesters as they are sometimes called) are kids who dress up in a particular manner that emulates the common fashion trends of a musical subculture so others will think they are "cool". Usually they'll listen to the popular stereotype of the music that claims to be part of the subculture they're trying to fit into examples include Good Charlotte or simple plan for punk scenesters, senses fail and 18 visions for the Emo/hardcore scensters, and bands like korn and disturbed for the metalhead scenesters. (note: while people may dispute whether these bands are emo, punk, or metal between themselves, there's no denying that they've made money by generalizing themselves as such). Now when most people familiar with the term "scene kid", they tend to think of the stereotypical "emo kid" because that is the particular subculture of today that is "different" and "cool to be a part of" so its the most emulated scene kid fashion. As far as I have seen personally, not many people (at least in my town) are aware of the difference between scene kids and emo kids, and I'm assuming its mostly the same elsewhere in the U.S.

Basically, Scene kids are the new "posers", they try to fit in, but only for attention and acceptance, not because of personal beliefs or ideas.

Scene kids do tend to share much in common with the emo stereotype though, regardless of what subculture they're trying to fit into. One of these similarities is the belief that most emo kids are from well off middle class families but they pretend to be poor and act as if they live a harsh life. This is usually the case with scenesters as they are typically well off middle class, or even blatantly rich kids, who are cashing in their allowances for their own emotional security (once again, based on personal experience).

The term scene kid is appropriate because that's what they spend their time doing, trying to find a "scene" or subculture to fit into, yet never really embracing it or becoming a part of it.

If anyone thinks that my info is solid enough I'll write an objective article regarding the subject and send it to whoever would like to review it and possibly post it up.

~Fred Rogers~

[edit] Article completely rewritten.

I just spent about 2 hours COMPLETELY rewriting the article. I did not use a single sentence from the original article. My reason for doing it this way is that the whole previous version of the article was unsourced. My version of the article has no unsourced statements whatsoever. If you wish to add information from the old version, please feel free to do so, but ONLY if you can cite a good source, and ONLY if it is completely non-point-of-view.

Some may argue that some of my sources are unreliable. My response to that is that while they are not absolute sources, they need not be. This article is about a slang term which is VERY ambiguously defined, and is the center of much debate. All sources are mere opinions, which is quite acceptable since this word was "invented" in the last 30 years, and isn't even in dictionaries. We here at Wikipedia are merely reporting that these opinions exist

Please keep this article well-sourced and NPOV. Let's not let it get out of hand again.

Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits... adding {{sprotect}} to the top of an article doesn't protect it. You have to ask an admin to do that. And it says in WP:FOOT that "(Foot)Notes and citations" is the preferable title for footnote references, for two reasons: "References", where possible, should simply list resources used for the whole of the article (as in the article on Rage Against the Machine), and footnotes can be used to explain the text in greater detail where necessary (as in the article on Alternative rock), not only for references.

The rewrite is great though. The article has never looked better.~Switch ^t 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Okay, thanks a lot. I didn't know, but now I do. Can you ask an admin to semiprotect this article for me? It was just yesterday. I don't know how to go about asking for that. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, the page is semiprotected. log out and try to edit it. I added the tag back. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for using my sources. Rintrah 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for providing them! Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] slight edit to fashion section?

.... 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...

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. http://www.fourfa.com/fashion.htm 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.

~Fred Rogers~

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 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scene+kids

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 ;) ~Fred Rogers~

"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)

[edit] Emo is a steriotype

Add this to the article when it is no longer locked.

Emo is a Steriotype=== First and foremost, "emo" is a sterotype. "Emo" is often confused with [[punk]]. If one is to dress "emo", that does not nessessaraly mean the one in question brings harm to ones self. Emo often means a certian clothing style, hair style, or music genre. A person that harms ones self is simply someone who has false ways of relieving stress, not an "emo". A small word of caution to readers, don't call someone "emo" because of they have "unexplainable scars". It's a harmfull steriotype, and it hurts feelings. Do you not thing these people suffer enough? Not all "emo" people harm themselves, and not all people who harm themself are "emo".

• Thanks for the suggestion, but sorry. This is entirely unencyclopedic, unsourced, and it gives orders to the reader. Not to mention the spelling and grammatical errors. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] emo is emo

Emo used to be a type of music, "emotional" music if you will, like dashboard confessionals, and newer music like MCR and AFI. However, emo is so much more than that now. It is a way of dress and a certain image one portrays. Usually this attire includes tight pencil jeans, makeup, standard band t-shirts (that most of these kids have never actually heard of) as well as old school converse, and the standards of black white and pink.Now these fashion trends are for both men and women. It is essentially the less hardcore version of goth. However, it is not a STEREOTYPE. Kids who dress like that are just as conforming as those people who wear gap or old navy or american eagle. It is almost cliche now to have these "tortured" high school souls who feel like their lives are a drowning black abyss. They are not a stereotype. Most of the kids that can actually afford to dress emo, come from upper middle class suburban areas and their lives are not bad at all, but teen angst is as teen angst does. It is unlikely that these kids cut themselves, and there is a slim chance that anyone actually thinks they do. If you would like to know what an emo kid is really like i suggest this short educational video :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHTAT_UPm18 It will definitely answer any questions one has about the emo culture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.207.120.33 (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps. And perhaps this will clarify the proper scope of a talk page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emo (slang) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. It is quite clear. If you want to help improve the article, find sources for your assertions and then inject this sourced information into the article. Rintrah 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually before that emo was an off-shoot of hardcore punk (emocore) , before the term was applied to pop-punk bands with melodramtic lyrics. A song with emotional is not neccessarily emo. The term today is more of a creation by the media and is misused by so many people that it's meaning changes depending who is saying it anyway.

[edit] RCB

If anybody has any discussion on the flipside of emo as in the acronym RCB I´d like to hear about it.

What do u think of RCB? Do u think that its creation will cause people to rethink stereotypes, opposites, name calling and labelling? Read it and see!

Otherwise there gonna bin my article which is actually turning into a positive backfire on emoism!

I want people to feel inspired to Use The Write Words!

[edit] Emos and Self-Harming

I believe you have got the wrong idea about emos, yeah, some emos self-harm, but theres a reason behind it, they don't follow along with other trends (the whole point is to stand out and be different) and so they get bullied for it. They then become depressed and start self-harming. If you believe that all emos self-harm, you are stereotypring all of them. Most of my friends are emo, and I'm goth, and I believe that you have got it all wrong. This 'definition' of emo is unfair and maybe if you spoke to a few emos yourself, you would realise they're not people who sit in corners in darkened rooms listening to depressing music while slitting their wrists, thats just sick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherri.om (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

• "Some definitions of emo hold that a typical "emo person" is likely to inflict self-injury..."
  This is what the article reads, and it is a matter of fact that some definitions do hold that as "emo." Go get 10 randomly selected people and ask them if they think that an emo person is likely to self-injure. Many will say yes (see sources cited). Wikipedia is not here to create an ideal definition, merely to report the definitions which already exist. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let's get this straight here....Emo's are wannabe punks who can't be like us. And you spelled stereotype wrong. Emo's brought it on themselves. All emo's are are goths and punks combined. Besides everyone hates them and preppies.....

No one will believe anything you say unless you give a source. 64.121.36.5 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Historically I don't recall the emo fad being mentioned, I'm sure the Greeks would have jotted something like that down somewhere, so how do you get a source that says emos aren't into self harm? I don't think it's likely to make the news headlines e.g. "No suicides reported in nice emo teen sub-culture dominated town" or "Emo does not kill himself over breakup" - it's not exactly riveting, edge of the seat action is it. Waffle247 90.152.12.130 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emo poetry

I just discovered, and linked to from this article, the emo poetry article. I'm not sure it should exist, but real work has gone into it - unlike emofication, which I nominated for speedy deletion for being an attack page - and it uses sources. Some of those sources could even be used for this article, while others already are. Anyway, it contains some public domain text and images this article could also use, although the picture of a "typical emo girl" doesn't look very "emo" according to our sources or my opinion. Anyway, just letting you guys know. ~Switch ^{t c g} 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube video

I missed when this video was readded in the "reorganise a bit" edit a few days ago. Can someone please explain how this is appropriate here? If the video was an article, it'd be tagged db-attack within minutes. It only exists to disparage the subject. Is it funny? sure. Is it necessary for this article? I don't think so. --Onorem 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources and links don't have to be NPOV, only articles. Why exactly do you think it should be removed? ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed because it's a 3 minute attack on Emos. I don't see what encyclopedic value it holds beyond what's already stated in the article. Should every YouTube video that makes fun of Emos get a link in this article? Why exactly do you think it should be in the article? --Onorem 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good example of how "emo" is perceived in a popular context. That's why I think it deserves to stay. Maybe that What Is Emo? video, too, could be added. Emo has barely had anything said about it apart from criticism. I'm not vehement about it though, so if you feel strongly remove it. ~Switch ^{t c g} 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SwitChar. I think that the "Emo Song" video a well as the "How To Be: Emo" video should be included in this article. This is because both are very well-known, and both present information about the subject of this article, and insight into a subculture. While the "Emo Song" is 100% criticism, satire can provide insight into a subject, even though it is biased. Are you also saying that we shouldn't have the "EMO cult warning for parents" article as a citation because it is biased? On the other hand the "How to be: Emo" video is quite informative, and while it pokes fun at the subject, it is actually very insightful. Additionally, the "How To Be: Emo" video even has its own Wikipedia article. If another person agrees with me, please add both videos to the article. Here are the links: [7][8] Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

External links to YouTube are usually (but not always) frowned upon by WP:EL. // PoeticDecay 15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this instance constitutes an exception for the reasons I mentioned above. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the video cannot be traced to its original source; if it can, we shall link to there. The How to Be: Emo video can definitely be linked to its original source, and probably should be. ~Switch ^{t c g} 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.115.220.77 (talk • contribs).

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)

[edit] Emo Female?

Is there such a thing? I think there is.... but no reference is made as to what that might look like. I don't feel I am an authority, I was just called emo and I wanted to know why, since I don't think I fit my definition of emo. 71.236.252.185 03:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Dracling 21. February 2007

Google image search or myspace might help. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Emo female = emo male with genitalia on the inside. Waffle247 90.152.12.130 13:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Emo poetry

Please merge any relevant content from Emo poetry per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emo poetry. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 07:58Z

[edit] Subject change

You need to change the title of this, because people need to learn that 'emo' is not a trend, or a fashion, but an emotional state, scene on the other hand is EXACTLY what ya'll are saying is EMO!!Rawr I'm Scene. 05:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The same was said about goths.... but many post-goth people don't claim the same thing. If 'emo' is nothing to do with fashion why does it have it's own sub-genre of clothing? Waffle247 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] How to be: Emo

The inclusion of the "How to be: Emo" video seems to be promotional. If "How to be: Emo" was a documentary I wouldn't see a problem, but it's obviously a satire.--BlyMagister 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it also clearly suggests at the end that emo = bisexuality, which is a bit far fetched.... is this an encyclopedia or a dissing match? Waffle247 90.152.12.130 15:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it shouldn't be where it is, but it should be linked somewhere at least. Perhaps the "In popular culture" section, or somewhere else. ~Switch ^{t c g} 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

To my mind it would be more accurate to describe the link as what it is - a deliberately derogative joke drawing on the publics negative perception of sterotypical 'emo' culture that was never intended to accurately represent the culture or it's members. Maybe we need a Public Perceptions section? EDIT: Or maybe the criticism section :) Waffle247 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See Also

I've noticed it to be a Wikipedia style thing that if a link is made in an article, it need not be in the "See Also" section. All of the links in the "See Also" section of this article are already in the article, so I'm removing the section. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 15:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic bias

This is basically an issue with the 'Don't be Emo' picture. I have a great dislike for the emo 'subculture', so don't think of me as someone trying to defend myself. However, this picture automatically greets the user with the words 'Don't be Emo', and that sounds, to me, stupidly biased. That image is something that I would expect to see on uncyclopedia, not here. The fact that it has now been moved up to the top just makes it even worse. If no one has replied within a few days, I will remove it myself. J Milburn 20:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The point of the image is to demonstrate the backlash against emo in popular culture. It was basically lifted from a similar Vans sticker I saw somewhere. It's demonstrative, not instructive. Anyone should be able to see that. ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with J Milburn about its its being on top. It is the first thing the user looks at, before reading to understand it. Let's move it back to the gallery, but not remove it. It does demonstrate something clearly true. In fact, it demonstrates exactly why this page is vandalized dozens of times per week: people dislike emo subculture. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you think it shouldn't be at the top, but articles should always start with an image at the top-right where possible, and I didn't think any of the other pictures were comprehensive enough. It just makes no sense not to have an image in the lead when there are four below. Move the cartoon up maybe? Or I (or someone else) could edit the image to only show the "emo kid" but not the rest. In fact, I'll probably do that. ~Switch ^{t c g} 05:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you plan on, you know, documenting this backlash, you should consider not promoting an unfounded idea in what is (by my estimation) an already vague and weasely article. Cheeser1 03:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't realised there wasn't a section on the negative reaction any more. I've just created it. All of it is sourced, and the soures were found through a searh on Google News. ~Switch ^{t c g} 09:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seriously cleaned up that section, but I still consider it to be very poorly supported. Random op-ed articles by unqualified night-life commentators in obscure blogs and college newspaper pieces don't seem to be highly indicative of a firm basis for this backlash. Everyone gets made fun of in high school for whatever clique or group or whatever they're in. This is unremarkable unless you can seriously find more than just a couple college newspaper op-eds talking about how they dislike emo kids. I'm going to go ahead and propose that this get removed. The articles themselves are nothing but opinion pieces, more or less with no sourcing of their own and often frought with factual error (this one is particularly bad). I don't think these sources are reliable and I'm still going to say that I find this "backlash" phenomenon to be exaggerated if not entirely imagined (regardless, neither particularly significant nor notable) - and still it's not at all documented in a reliable source. And so I'll still say that this whole section has to go, and wait for a response. Cheeser1 14:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you haven't "seriously cleaned up that section" at all; you made five minor edits, most of which only turned references to emo as specifially a music genre or subculture into some all-encompassing concept without definition. Otherwise, you removed the writer's somewhat fair - and common, though not often in reliable sources - comparison to nu metal (and in the process made a grammatical error), changed "members of the emo subculture" to the vague or pejorative "emo kids" and linked needlessly (and in a manner that seems to violate NPOV) to the Emo (music) article. I don't see any improvement at all.

I also fail to see exactly which soures you would like to see used. In case you hadn't noticed, the rest of the article at current is sourced with less reliable sources if anything - the Daily Mail op-ed piece which is certainly more poorly written and factually incorrect than the Fairfield Mirror's is a standout, and the others are along the lines of Urban Dictionary and independent op-ed pieces. Publishers are not likely to publish hard news stories on youth subcultures, so op-ed pieces are about the limit. That's just the way it goes. I find it a little suspect that you wish to entirely remove the section on criticism, but have little to say on the equally-troubled remainder of the article.

When the clear majority of the only sources at all that can be found relating to emo paint it with a negative slant, I'm not entirely certain you can justify a claim it is "exaggerated if not entirely imagined." I find it difficult to take your comments on the article seriously when your only activity involves the removal of any and all mention of negativity. ~Switch ^{t c g} 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no "members of the emo subculture" until you establish it is a subculture. There is no link to emo (music), not really, according to that page (which is well sourced and accurate). You want to call it a subculture? Find me an academic paper. Find me sources. Explain how a fashion trend adopted by trendy, well-to-do, white-America adolescents constitutes a subculture (besides whatever they've ripped off, which is not the topic of this article). Find me something that actually demonstrates any of these claims that your additions to the article make, and not just someone else's opinion that perpetuates unfounded stereotype and anecdotal nonsense. Lack of information is better than unreliable information. And quit acting like I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm fed up with this idea that if you perceive something to be the case, it belongs in Wikipedia (so long as you find an op-ed in a random college newspaper that agrees). I won't bother reverting your nonsense because I know you'll revert it back. It is odd to me how you want to add a negative slant and then accuse me of bias when I remove it, even though I've clearly cited the policy under which I do so. Don't tell me that I "have to delete the whole article." I'll do whatever the hell I want, and if I'm not removing all the unsourced material, that's no case for keeping the garbage I'm trying to clean up. But, to be clear I am ending this argument. You seem to have taken some personal offense, and you're clearly not interested in discussing policy nearly so much as you are in accusing me of attacking you and your precious paragraph. Feel free to muck up this article as you see fit, with weasel words and unreliable sources and broad categorical claims based on anecdote - I couldn't care less because it's not worth dealing with you. I'm not going to get involved any more, if for no other reason than because I don't care about this enough to waste my time dealing with someone like you. Take this one as a win, brag, rebut me, whatever, just know that I really don't want to deal with you and I'd hope (but doubt) that you'd just let it go and not try to draw me back into your stupid little hissy-fit. Cheeser1 04:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are no "members of the emo subculture" until you establish it is a subculture ... Explain how a fashion trend adopted by trendy, well-to-do, white-America adolescents constitutes a subculture.

Are you aware of what a subculture is? A link to a genre of music is far from a defining feature, let alone necessary. The angry young men constituted a subculture. Musicians constitute a subculture. Any group of people with a shared ideology, aesthetic or activity constitutes a subculture.

Find me something that actually demonstrates any of these claims that your additions to the article make, and not just someone else's opinion that perpetuates unfounded stereotype and anecdotal nonsense. Lack of information is better than unreliable information ... I'm fed up with this idea that if you perceive something to be the case, it belongs in Wikipedia (so long as you find an op-ed in a random college newspaper that agrees).

How about these Google searches? 3,540 for "emo is crap". 5,570 for "emo is shit". 33,600 for "emo is crap". 40,000 for "I hate emo". 62,200 for "emo sucks". This !!!!emo sucks!!!! group on MySpace has almost 700 members, and there are other groups I didn't check. That's demonstrative, but it's not anything approaching appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm doubtful that you are actually unaware of the prejudice surrounding emo. It's just too blindingly blatant. You can buy anti-emo clothes from major outlets (see the Vans sticker above; it also comes on shirts). There are bands singing "Emo Kids Fuck Off!" at shows.

It is odd to me how you want to add a negative slant and then accuse me of bias when I remove it, even though I've clearly cited the policy under which I do so. Don't tell me that I "have to delete the whole article." I'll do whatever the hell I want, and if I'm not removing all the unsourced material, that's no case for keeping the garbage I'm trying to clean up.

It's very hard not to question your actions here. Very few people will publish academic papers on recent youth subcultures, and people write even less on what is already apparent. Those papers that are published will be of limited circulation. I'll certainly have trouble finding them. Your requests for academic papers are unreasonable. I'm not trying to "add a negative slant" to the article. I'm trying to document the negative reaction that emo has faced, and one that pervades quite strongly. This article is vandalised dozens of times a week just for that reason. When you take issue with even the slightest mention of criticism of emo, but are happy to have independent online magazines and Urban Dictionary as sources for the rest of the article, you just don't come off as acting on behalf of the policy. You seem to be using the policy, where it suits you, to keep the article in the state you want it, and then simply ignoring the inconsistency in your actions when they are pointed out to you. I never said you "have to delete the whole article" - I challenge you to show any of us where I said that. All I request is that you act with consistency.

I'm not going to get involved any more ...

Liar. :P

Listen, mate - I'm not the one throwing the tantrum here. Since you arrived here you've been aggressive in your activity, which (again) consists solely of removing any negative view of emo, or even mention thereof. Your first comment here was a sarcastic attack, and you've kept the attitude up. Me personally, I think most bands cast into the "emo" stereotype - My Chemical Romance et al - are the worst music fad I've ever seen, but I know those bands aren't really emo, and I hate the stupid anti-emo push at least as much. My only interest in this article is that I'm more or less objective, and I want to see it as comprehensive and accurate as possible with the limited soures available. Speaking of which, I found another,[9] but it's just another stupid anti-emo rant, and worse than the ones in the article now. Op-ed pieces like this are about the limit of our resources. Requiring academic papers is all well and good for the maths articles you normally work on, but this is a different field entirely. We simply don't have tha kind of research at our disposal. I know of one academic paper that has been written, and it may have been published. If it has, I'll use it as a source for the article. I've contacted the researcher, asking them about it. But as far as serious, reliable studies go, that's the only one I know of or can find, and I wouldn't place too large a bet on its usefulness. ~Switch ^{t c g} 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll just say this: 1) Take a sociology class. You still don't get it. It's not a subculture. Not any more, that's for sure. 2) Google searches? More op-eds? You still haven't found a single reliable source. You say it's impossible to find one? Then you shouldn't be including this nonsense in an article. I'm (still) just talking about policy. You want to include garbage in Wikipedia, I've already said you can go ahead, and I already asked you to shut up and to stop continuing this argument. You've won. Include your unfounded junk. I've tried many times to clean up this article (this persecution you think I'm taking out on you, it's not the only thing I've ever done here, despite what you think), but now I'm done. Go on and show everyone how smart you are, just do it on your time - without trying to use my wish to leave this argument as an opportunity to insist that I've got some vendetta against you. Cheeser1 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Two words: Chill. Pill.

I had left this argument, until you came back to continue editing to your preference well after you said you'd left. I have no interest in debating this with you, trust me. I never even implied that you had "some vendetta" against me, I simply questioned your inconsistent standards, which you are yet to justify. I have no idea why you continually insist that this is some kind of personal issue, or that I'm a paranoid egomaniac who rejoices in "winning" petty futile arguments with the mean mathematician man who exists solely to quash my efforts at every turn. You, in fact, were the one claiming I would revert any edits you made. It's not personal. It's a disagreement about appropriate content for a Wikipedia article. Please stop implying that I'm being the aggressor here, that I'm attacking you or pretending that you're attacking me, and that I'm trying to extract some kind of victory from this. Either stop being so uncivil and petty, or make good your offer of staying out of this.

Refusing to offer an argument and, in place of one, insisting that you are right and everyone else is (in this case, I am) wrong is quite possibly the worst debate tactic ever exercised. Your contributions inform me that it is a tactic of which you are fond. If you insist on continuing to make edits without discussion and disregard attempts at discussion, I will act in kind. I will then call on higher wikipowers and let them decide for us. This is tiresome. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, in the spirit of show-rather-than-say that all good writers emulate, listed some examples of anti-emo sentiment. The "Emo Song" would be a good addition to that section if anyone can ome up with anything on it. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also just realised that, judging by your responses, you have not been reading the entirety of what I say. I would appreciate it if you did so. ~Switch ^{t c g} 08:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Error

Spelling Error: "beome" should be "become" (shouldn't it?) under the "Criticism" headline. Jus' wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.99.217.176 (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

You can just fix little problems like that, no need to discuss them. I would also suggest creating an account. It's good for Wikiepdia, etc. Cheeser1 04:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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!

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] emo - what does it mean?

i don't want the encyclopedia definition i want a person to explain why they choose to be an emo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.7.0.141 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Then maybe you shouldn't be looking to an encyclopaedia. I recommend the Emo Army on MySpace or any similar group on a social networking site. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Emo is a cool combination of sensitivity, artfulness, hardcore, goth and nerd...works for me. Emo am I. Xcryoftheafflictedx 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is completely not relevant to Wikipedia. Please note the banner at the top of this discussion page, where it clearly and firmly states This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Cheeser1 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't bite the newcomer, now. Xcryoftheafflictedx 04:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I was quoting the policy relevant to this page, and stating that this discussion is inappropriate. I am sorry if you interpreted that as a personal attack. I just wanted to make clear the policy governing this page. I'd suggest we leave it at that. Cheeser1 07:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)