Talk:Emo (slang)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emo (slang) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2
  3. Archive 3
  4. Archive 4
  5. Archive 5

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[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)

I agree with you, I've looked at the article and its a harsh opinion that has no actual facts. - 19:25, 11 May 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).

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)

[edit] Image

The current image shows 'a typical emo's Myspace picture.' I think the older picture was a much better representation of emo style hair. Could the old picture be brought back?

The picture was deleted a few days ago. Also, sign your posts with four ~~~~. // DecaimientoPoético 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The old image was never deleted, just removed from this page. I have changed it back. Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current image just seems to be someone's little joke or a vanity peice. Could we get a more relevant picture? ___I uploaded a picture that I feel is more appropriate. I hope this helps your concern. Lazorz 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Lazorz

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Cheeser1 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classic Emo picture

Someone should mention and include that classic Myspace emo profile picture, camera held up high, dark lighting, fringe brushed to one side, sad look.

We actually do. It's the first picture in the box. J-stan Talk 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

-_..._I uploaded a picture of someone who calls himself "emo". I hope this will help your debate. Lazorz 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Lazorz

[edit] 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: http://www.youdontknowemo.tk/ 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).

[edit] Some Sources

I found some sources you might wanna toss in there:

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Rename

I think this should be renamed to Emo(subculture). Skrayl

Please put your comments under a new heading, or the approrpiate heading, below the table of contents. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~), and finally, please note that this has been considered and resolved, for the time being. There is no basis for such a name (see WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN) and no consensus (see WP:CONS) to make such a change. See the requested-move discussion above. --Cheeser1 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser: Please note the matter has been left unresolved. No consensus exists either way.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hence "resolved for the time being." I even explicitly stated that there was no consensus. What more do you want from me? I'm set back a bit by your ungraceful attitude and the way you seem to hound me at every turn, in the debate above and even now, after it's been resolved. The debate is over. You have no support from reliable sources or consensus. That means that it is resolved for now, and if that bothers you, I suggest you try to make peace with Wikipolicy and then maybe your behavior won't be so antagonistic. If you want to badger me, prod me, or attempt to draw me into another debate about this issue, I'm just going to ignore it from now on. --Cheeser1 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh Cheeser, calm down! Not everyone who disagrees with you is "hounding" you. Look at your past conversations with Switchar and EMC. Do you see how you have a habit of taking things too hard? You keep wikilawyering everyone. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of the rules. J-stan TalkContribs 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest you not threaten me, an RfC is not a cocked gun, don't point it at me like it is. You think I'm incivil? I have a habit of sticking to policy when others give up or don't care enough to bother. Citing policy on a frequent basis is NOT wikilawyering, since wikilawyering presumes that I am obfuscating issues with legal jargon and technicalities of policy in order to advance inappropriate changes. Are you accusing me of that, in addition to threatening me?
In case you didn't notice, I've contributed constructively here for months (despite my stick-to-policy attitude) - ZayZayEM has on at least three occasions butted in to conversations unnecessarily to hound me about this other another contentious matter. And, in fact, he only started editing this article when he saw my post about EMC on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and despite consensus in my favor there, came to this page to pick up EMC's argument on his own. Unnecessarily butting into conversations, especially like he has done, constitutes hounding, as far as I'm concerned. --Cheeser1 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the second point, about abiding by the letter of the policy or guideline, while ignoring the spirit of them (by the way, I have not heard anyone use the word "obfuscating". Except for lawyers, maybe). Your childish way of holding grudges seems to me to be incivil, yes. He is not butting into conversations unnecessarily, he has the right as a wikipedian to express his opinion wherever to influence consensus. His above comment was polite, and you immediately took offense at it. Don't let past arguments get in the way of assuming good faith. J-stan TalkContribs 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, everybody calm down. So ZayZayEM felt it rather important to mention to the newcomer that the matter had not been resolved. Of course you aknowledge, albeit not all that clearly/strongly as his comment did - also note the different usage of resolved (Cheeser - the BRD process has come to a halt, ZayZayEM - there is consensus). Just because ZayZayEM and quite a few others would have liked things to go different and we want to make it clear that we are on standby regarding this issue, does not mean we are after you - we just remain unconvinced, because we were presented with policies and not positive and convincing arguments for the way the article stands. Neither are we necesarrily disagreeing with policy, although the way things are done is sometimes problematic (maybe unavoidably so). Eg. that the article is now in a state which has not been argued for convincingly and for which there is no consensus. This is pretty important information for a newcomer. That said, I can also see how you would want to "defend" yourself when the same people who "picked a fight" with you is now nitpicking your comments (I do hope you will all take this comment in good spirit). Lundse 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
He has the right to defend himself, he could be more civil about it though. J-stan TalkContribs 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
You are making my comments look bad with your brevity :-) Lundse 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic was covered above. But we failed to reach a consensus. Marlith T/C 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that this is a bit late in the game, but poking around google news I just came up with 5 recent news articles refering to emo as a subculture. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Neitherday 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The Australian article is very useful. It is a discussion with a subculture academic :
The emo subculture is another area that has captured Cole's (British academic Shaun Cole) attention, along with other emerging groups called bears, scallies and homothugs.
"It's always interesting to look at fashion trends that emerge from a thriving club culture," Cole says. "It's been going on for years. You only have to look back to Leigh Bowery's incredible impact on fashion during his time on the London club scene.
"At the moment there's the emo scene where young men are experimenting through clothing with what is gender appropriate. Sexuality isn't the primary motivator here. Emo followers seem more interested in expressing their individuality.
"Although it hasn't been motivated by a gay subculture, with most of the musicians who influence this trend being straight, it's interesting that on wiki sites and blogs there is a lot of emo-bashing, with people dismissing it as gay, using the term gay as an insult." [6]
Wow, nicely put. J-stan TalkContribs 02:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As interesting as that is, none of those but the one you quoted has any semblance of reliability, as I read it. Many of them contain blatantly false or absurd statements (e.g. "The world's number one idols for Emo kids is [sic] the band Tokyo Hotel" or "Depression is a core emo value."). Several of them are first-person or narrative, in whole or part. And in the Austrailian article, unfortunately, your reliable academic source refers to it as the "emo scene." The term subculture was introduced by the reporter. --Cheeser1 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
What's unreliable about the Dayton Daily News article[7]? Neitherday 04:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a hybrid human-interest/local-events piece written by someone with no sociological credibility. --Cheeser1 04:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me rephrase my question, it what way does it not meet the standards of WP:RS? Neitherday 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
See here and here. Notice that while we have an extensive description of reliable sources for historical claims, we have no such guideline for sociological claims. Regardless, a journalist's passing appropriation of a sociological term is not a reliable source for the claim that emo is a subculture. No article presents evidence to support such claim, and no source of information given is attempting to demonstrate that claim. It's simply the result of google searching "emo (sub)culture," which turns up use of the phrase, but not reliable sociologically-sound sources for this sociologically dubious claim. --Cheeser1 05:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't the full paper, but the abstract here [8] not only demonstrates that peer-reviewed papers call emo a subculture, but also explains why articles by sociologists talking about emo are so hard to find " While the study of subcultures has largely been abandoned by American sociologists over the last two decades..." Neitherday 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess you're not an academic, or you'd know that papers presented at conferences are not peer-reviewed. They even qualify as self-published. The reason you can't find any "full paper" to go with this abstract is because there is none - it is unpublished. Unless you consider the Atlanta Hilton a reliable journal of sociology (this is just a joke, please, take it as one - I'm trying to keep things light). So it still doesn't qualify. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The text in the synopsis "Review Method: Peer Reviewed" confused me, but you do appear to be correct. Neitherday 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • almost all the sources supercede any RS standard present for the article's current sources (mostly self published blogs and a fashion website). I would like to see some information moved in a reported accurately, I would suggest leaving the subculture statement open for consensus first though.--ZayZayEM 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Being better than the unreliable sources we have is not any kind of standard for WP:RS. This article is tagged as unreferenced. Slightly better sources that don't meet WP:RS still don't meet WP:RS. Please note that some of the claims they support are not sociological or academic in nature, and require a different level of verification. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently wrong with an article on emo subculture, if sources can be found. The problem is that this article is not it. In my opinion, much of it focuses on emo as a stereotype (personality, criticism, and some of fashion). The only major section related to the subculture is covered by Emo (music). If we're going to rename, we first need a lot more reliable information on the subculture - we can't have an article on the subculture, and then just fill it with stereotypes. Mdwh 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say there's anything wrong with anything. This isn't a moral discussion, I'm just pointing out that there are no reliable sources regarding any such subculture. To say that this page describes a subculture is inaccurate, but we have no sources to even verify on their own that such a subculture exists. --Cheeser1 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to the unsigned poster above (at indent level 1) who supplied the Google news sources. I wasn't implying that anyone else had said it was wrong (and I mean in a "What should we do on Wikipedia?" sense, not a moral sense, since that obviously isn't relevant here), just clarifying to the unsigned poster in case he thought I was against ever having an article on the emo subculture, assuming reliable sources could be found. Mdwh 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I assumed you were responding to me, and I might have understood how you meant "wrong" if I'd known you were talking to him/her and not to me. Sorry to have misunderstood who you were responding too (the indent game gets to be a mess, no?) --Cheeser1 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to note that my comment was not unsigned, although the comment that came after mine (and is in the same indent) is unsigned. Neitherday 15:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed earlier that the disagreement between me and Cheeser stems from a differnce in how we look at the word subculture. Cheeser believes it is primarily an academic/sociological word and that any ussage of it here on wiki should take that into account, whereas I believe it is a rather common shorthand for a "scene", social grouping, what-have-you (correct me if I', wrong here, Cheeser). Of course, we are both right to some degree - the word is definitely used both by sociologist and laymen with academia and normal dinner-table conversations - much like "gravity" or "acceleration" is used by scientists and laymen alike. I also agree with Cheeser that the words roots in academia should influence our every-day usage here - people will easily assume that an encyclopedia uses this meaning. That said, I don't think we need a sociological peer-reviewed paper saying "there is such a sthing as emo subculture" - demanding these kind of sources would grind wikipedia to a halt (I call to your attention the way all our number articles start - none of that is sourced, nor would we ever be able to find a source for it). To summarize: I still believe Emo to be a subculture, although I am all for including in the article that this is the laymans definition of one and that academia has not really bothered with the subject yet. I'd like to know the thoughts of the other people in this discussion: should "subculture" be used as purely academic term or are we using it as a everyday word? Lundse 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Subculture may be used in such a sense, but it is a sociological term. Some people refer to "infinity" as a number (trust me, I've tutored students from Algebra 1 to Calculus 3, most of them seem to think 1/0 is "the number infinity"). But we don't just presume that common, uninformed usage of the term "number" allows us to misdefine infinity as a real number. See infinity. Misuse of the term "subculture" should also not have any bearing on what we include in an encyclopedia. Now see subculture. The article begins: In sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, a subculture is... There should be no uncertainty here. It is a sociological term. Being bandied about by uninformed journalists and/or you and/or people you know does not change what the word really means. It is a sociological term, and this claim requires a reliable, peer-reviewed, academically-credible sociological source. The fact that you think it's an "everyday" term is original research, your conclusion that emo is a subculture is original research, and your invention of the the "layman's definition of subculture" is also original research. --Cheeser1 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how to frame this as politely as I would like, but can you please calm down? Using terms such as "bandied about by uninformed..." and calling my claim that sociology is an everyday term for OR is not constructive. the term OR for what I am doing does not even apply as I am not trying to include this into the encyclopedia, I am just trying to talk about these matters - the criterion here is truth, not verifiability :-)
I clearly stated that I was aware it was first and foremost a sociological term, I clearly stated that our usage here on wikipedia should reflect that. Comparing me to people who misunderstand infinity is not accurate. Compare me to people who say that gravity is 9.82 m/s, if anything - while not correct in the physicists' definition, gravity has become a word which is used for "Earth's gravitational pull". When we are not writing a science article, we can use words which stem from science using their everyday definition.
So please, stop using the rules against me here on the talk pages when we are trying to reach consensus. That I think it is an "everyday term" is not OR, it is my opinion (one which I suspect you even share, if you think about it - especially considering you have recently been presented with article's and papers using it as such). My conclusion that Emo fits with this defintion is a synthesis, the kind of synthesis which allows us to say of 1 that: "It is the natural number following 0 and preceding 2." and which basically keeps Wikipedia floating, 50-90% of all material here would have to be deleted if we did not allow ourselves such simple inferences. And last, I did not invent the "layman's definition of subculture", I am merely pointing it out and claiming that it is relevant. If you want to argue against that, be my guest - it is an important point which should be discussed. Trying to exclude certain opinions and facts from the discussion trying to reach a consensus is not, on the other hand, constructive. And no, it does not help that you are doing this with rules meant to guide what content goes into the article at the end of the day.
On a happier note, I have stumbled upon a perhaps more acceptable word which does not have the same degree of sociological/scientific connotations. Maybe we can all agree that emo is a "social group"? If not, then I humbly ask what the slang word emo denotes... :-) I would love it if we could first state our opinions about this, and then go looking for sources when we write the article. Lundse 12:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone who's studied physics, I can say that your analogy doesn't make alot of sense. See gravity - the Wikipedia article on gravity does not say "gravity is 9.8 m/s" or anything like that, but is instead a properly written and well-sourced scientific article. The phenomenon you're describing, laymen's gravity (near-constant gravitation at the Earth's surface) has its own article that is properly sourced. On the other hand, use of the term "emo subculture" may (or may not) be prominent in "everyday speech" but Wikipedia is not written in everyday speech or based on your experience with the term "emo subculture." It is an encyclopedia. What you propose blatantly violates WP:SYN and is armchair-sociology. You can't draw your own conclusions, and you can't introduce new definitions of terms like "subculture" (even if you claim they are "everyday use" or "laymen's terms"). Your use of the word is unsourced, your new definition of it is unsourced (some broad public misunderstanding of a sociology term is not something you can cite, and violates WP:SYN), and you continue to want to explain it away as a "simple inference" or "the term people use" - failing to meet WP:RS.
As for me, I am not "blocking consensus," I'm explaining policy in order to help us form consensus that meets Wikipedia's guiding policies (if we all agreed to vandalize the article, that would be consensus too, but it would still be against policy and counterproductive). You want to change the title. I don't. My concerns are based on policy. I've shown you the policy. This isn't me "using the rules against [you]" or anything of the sort, please assume some good faith. I'm not excluding your "point of view or facts" - you're welcome to express your opinion, and to introduce properly sourced facts. But you don't have facts, you have what you believe, and what you think, and what you infer. If you can get that stuff published in an appropriate reliable source, then it might meet guidelines, but you can't just say "what I believe is laymen's terms, common, average, whatever, therefore we need to (mis)use this sociological terminology." This article is about a loosely defined slang term, describing a music genre/category, a fashion, a group of people, and a state of mind. To boil it down to subculture, fashion, "social group," or whatever else would not reflect the articles content and might not be appropriate at all. It is, however, a slang term, and that is what it's titled already. Slang terms are allowed on Wikipedia: we have a whole category for them.
I don't understand why you keep pushing to change it, without any reliable sources to back you up. And when you say this: would love it if we could first state our opinions about this, and then go looking for sources when we write the article. I am concerned greatly. The point of research is not to form an opinion and then try to prove it. You and others have been desperately Google-searching "emo culture" and "emo subculture" for sources to support your opinion. This is not how research works. You can't answer the question and then go try to find the answer. I wanted to see for myself if it was a subculture or not. I read a section from a sociology text. I looked extensively in library catalogs and in journal articles. Not a single source to substantiate the claim. And then I formed my opinion, which is: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, emo is not a subculture.
In the end, it seems to be pretty clear from how you started up this discussion again, citing differences "in how we look at the word subculture". You are correct. But it's not about my point of view. I'm not advocating my point of view, but that of policy and the (real) definition of the term. As far as Wikipedia goes, I fall in line with these standards, since they should be guiding our contributions. On a personal level, I'd like to validate people, if they want to see it one way, or to feel like a part of a subculture, or whatever. You're perfectly entitled to how you see it, but this isn't about how your or I see it, it's about what goes in Wikipedia and what doesn't. --Cheeser1 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
If a source is requested for X then there is nothing wrong with googling for a source for X. I edit many article on a variety of topics. Some of these topics I may have extensive knowledge on, others my knowledge upon coming to the article is fairly limited. One thing I particularly like to do in either case is find sources for unsoursed statements (usually statements that I did not add to the article). To do this quickly and efficiently, I use google. It is neither "desperate" or bad practice.
You requested a source, I attempted to find that will satisfy you. If the other editors of this article find that the sources are flawed or don't measure up, I will accept that -- that's how wikipedia works. Neitherday 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
No no, I didn't mean it like that. My point was that if it's so hard to find a source, maybe that's because it's not an accepted claim in sociology. My use of the term "desperate" was meant to emphasize that you are "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak (a search through a library or academic journal search being better), that there are virtually no results with any relevant authority, and that it is an attempt to prove X (as you call it) after some people have decided that X must be true and included on Wikipedia (instead of waiting for a source). --Cheeser1 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Re. Cheesers's response to my attempt to clear up a couple of issues.
First of all, you misunderstood my gravity example, I will assume it was not deliberate and will try to explain it further. The point was simply this: some words have a scientific meaning and an everyday meaning (sometimes slightly different, sometimes wildly so). I brought up gravity as an example of this. Going of and trying to explain to me, as if I was a 7th grader, the difference between the two terms when it was abundantly clear from the way I initially used the example that I knew this is not very helpful. The point was simply that I did not make the mistake of thinking that "infinity means 1/0" or that "gravity means Earth's gravity" - it was simply that I believe wikipedia has a place for articles such as "Earth's gravity". Please take note of this.
You say there is no place here for an article on Emo as a subculture (per the sociogical term). I am saying there is room for one on Emo as a subculture (per the everyday usage). This does not mean I confuse the two, quite the contrary. I believe that "social group" would be the best term for this latter article.
Also, I see you are still confused about what I am arguing is true and what should be in the article. Right now, on these talk pages, I am trying to argue for the truth of something so that we can reach a consensus. And I do not accept you critique that asking you this question first and then finding sources afterwards is necessarily poor scholarship - I am merely trying to make you state your opinion, so that we can see if it is consistent with your other claims. I am trying to make you understand my position, so that we can move forwards without you misrepresenting and misinterpreting me, which is a fool-proof barrier against reaching consensus. For instance, you are still claiming I want us to "(mis)use this sociological terminology." - apart from being a personal attack, this is also plain wrong. I specifically said, when I tried "burying the hatchet" on your talk page and when I re-entered the discussion above that I would like this article to be about the social group out there, not about any scientific definition of subcultures nor about the slang word (which is patently absurd, of course, see below).
You claim my point of view is my own, whereas yours is the opinion of policy. This is only half right. Your claim that subculture is only a sociological term and cannot be used otherwise here on wikipedia does not follow (cannot be infered) from rules regarding our basic encyclopedic standpoint. This would be begging the question - saying "we cannot use word X as meaning Y in our encyclopedia because using word X as meaning Y is unencyclopedic". You still need to argue seperately that other uses of the term are indeed unencyclopedic. This is where my gravity analogy breaks down (though a thousand other examples could of course be found) - because obviously using "gravity" as "earths gravity" would be confusing the issue. But it does not follow from this that we cannot have articles which explain or make use of the laymens term. This is also why I have always supported that the article should mention that emo is not (yet, by complete coincidence, IMO) categorised as a subculture as per the scientific term. And why I now believe we should rename this article Emo(social group) as this looses the scientific connotations - a change which you have only countered by comparing it to the initial suggestion, why is it this word is (also) unacceptable?
Now, back to the positive argumentation: you are saying this is and should be an article about a slang word. I ask you this: what does this slang word denote? I am not looking for the content of the article (what the word means, connotes) but what is it out there in the world which this word refers to? In my opinion, it just makes no sense having an article on a word while at the same time denying this word denotes anything out there (discouting unicorns, but I do not think anyone is claiming emo is a myth). We don't have articles on "Car(word)" or "Gravity(word). I would love to hear counterarguments to this, so far I have heard none. And please, since this seems to be a recurring problem, do not assume this argumentation has anything to do with sources, policies or guidelines - it has to do with common sense and building a good encyclopedia, which is the goal to which all rules are bent and the only goal in deference to which they can (and should) be broken. Lundse 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You've still missed the point - I completely understood your gravity analogy. The difference is that your "everyday notion" of gravity IS the focus of substantial scientific inquiry. Whereas your "everyday notion" of subculture is nothing but a misuse of a sociological term, a misuse that dose not have any sociological inquiry to substantiate it. Note that Earth's gravity is not a happenstance examination of what "everyday people" think of gravity. And you seem to think there are two definitions of subculture - one that academics use and one that "regular" people use. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to cite academic sources. And finally, the parenthetical (slang) is for disambiguation purposes. The article is about not just a slang word, but also what the slang word denotes. I've said that at least three times (and at least once already too you, I believe). I don't feel like repeating myself again, so please read carefully. Pick up discussion of this point below the "Arbitrary section break" if you want to continue to assert that this is not a slang term, or that the disambiguational use of (slang) is inappropriate. If you think Wikipolicy is here only for the purposes of being broken, I think you should seriously consider that while rules are meant as guidelines, they still carry some weight, as opposed to your arguments, which reduce to "I want to redefine and/or misuse academic terminology for no particular reason." You can't throw policy out the window just because it isn't absolute. See WP:WIARM. --Cheeser1 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, while I agree that there could be room for an article Emo (social group), it would require a reliable source to substantiate it. To make claims about the existence of a social group is, by definition, a sociological claim. You are not a reliable source, thus you cannot be the source of such a claim. Until a source is found, the room we have set aside for the hypothetical article "Emo (social group)" should continue to be left blank. And assume good faith, instead of jumping to the conclusion that I'm attacking you personally. You continue to think that I am maligning you because you are misusing a sociological term. You are. There's no doubt about it because you've admitted that you don't want to use it according to its proper definition. That is exactly what misuse of a word is. --Cheeser1 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we all just need a really good cry. Mike Murray 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I can see you did not understand my gravity analogy, because you are not addressing the point I made with it. And you are still misrepresenting me as wanting to 'throw policy out the window' when I have tried time and again in engaging you in a discussion about said policy - wanting to discuss something does not equate being against it.
I am sorry if you feel I have jumped the gun concerning personal attacks, but I am simply tired of you making derogatory claims as some sort of (probably unconscious) strawman strategy (see above). This also goes for your last attempt to shove 'misuse' down my throat - for the last time: wanting to use another meaning of a word when making 100% clear that this is what I am doing is not misusing the other meaning of the word. It is insisting that the other word has merits on its own (hint: try holding that sentence while rereading my gravity analogy, you might get my point then).
And lastly, we have (as I think I pointed out) plenty of sources saying the social group emo exists - namely all the ones I have pointed out and whatever else the article is currently based on. Otherwise, the slang term emo would not have any denotation. But then again, that touches on the argument you are still not willing to address.
Sorry for venting, but this discussion is over if it does not improve from now on (that means addressing my points, reading my analogies et al until you understand them and stop relying on 'you are against policy, I am its brave defender'). The subject matter is not of great enough importance to me to take this to the next level where it belongs, I sincerely believe you are hurting wikipedia with your attitude and I implore you to come back to one of your discussions in a years time and try looking at it from a fresh perspective. Lundse 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no "other definition" of the word subculture. The one you presume exists in "every day speech" is made up and such language does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you think my "attitude" is "hurting" Wikipedia, but if you don't want to follow WP:RS, I'd say if one of us is hurting Wikipedia, it's you. If you want to pretend I'm a jerk in crusader's armor, that's fine, but all I ever did was ask you to use a word properly and to follow WP:RS. I've addressed every point you've made, as far as I can tell. If I can't understand your analogy, then that's too bad. There is no basis for the use of the term "subculture" as it is properly defined, and there is absolutely no reason we should use some "other" definition that doesn't really exist. There's nothing more to this, and I'm not going to carry on with this discussion if all you're going to do is tell me that I'm hurting Wikipedia by attacking you and crusading against you. If you really think that's the case, I'll refrain from replying from this point on - I'm not interested in entertaining the idea that I could have a reasonable conversation with someone who thinks I'm attacking them and trying to hurt Wikipedia with my bad attitude. --Cheeser1 07:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The claim that there is no other definition is exactly the one I keep telling you we have to discuss, not wanting to do so and not responding to my points is clearly going against whatever policy you are far better equipt than me to find which says we have to find consensus. So there.
You have not addressed every point I made. This also contradicts your next claim that you are 'fine' with not understanding my analogy. Furthermore, I posit that though that may be true, it is a much more pertinent fact that you might just not be fine if you did understand it - it might force you to consider what I am saying...
And please don't, for the last time, try to strawman me. I am not saying you want to hurt wikipedia, I am saying you are doing it. Those are two different things! And btw, congratulations on ignoring the point about the denotation of the 'slang word' for the 4th time - you were too busy saying something about having addressed my points, maybe? Let me know on my talk page when you are ready to do so, or otherwise actually start arguing beyond "you want to ignore policy, you invent terms, I am therefore by definition right". Lundse 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The claim that there is no other definition?? Look at subculture. Look at the dictionary. There is no other definition (except one relating to microbial cultures). If you think there is, FIND A SOURCE OF THIS DEFINITION. "Everyday use" that you happen to perceive is not a source. This is a sociological term with a precise definition. You can't invent your own definition. I'm done with this "discussion" because your double-talk and nit-picking about how I don't understand your absurd and irrelevant analogies have frustrated me to the point that I have considered, in frustration, violating WP:CIVIL (although of course, I would not do so). What you propose is absurd and misguided at best, and blatant POV original research at worst. It has no place here and I'm not going to continue to discuss "other meanings" of sociological terms that you want to put in this article, now that the sociological term has been proven to be inapplicable. This isn't a subculture, not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. No consensus or source backs your claim. Get on with your life. --Cheeser1 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Ikiroid and the Dok weigh in

Alright, I've read through the above thread and thought about it a bit. There are really two issues here:

  1. The current title, depicting the article as "slang," is an inappropriate title, as it implies a different topic
  2. The article should be moved to title such as "Emo subculture" or "Emo (subculture)."

Can we agree on the first point and go from there? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree on the first - why is it an inappropriate title? Ideally it would just be emo (as with other slang/stereotype terms like chav, preppy), but there's the problem that emo is the disambiguation page. We could move it to emo (disambiguation), but this depends on whether editors thing that this meaning of the word is significantly more common than the other meanings (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions). There may be better names than the current article title, but I'm not sure that this is a bad title? Mdwh 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a slang term. That has been sourced, and I can't understand why there's any dispute about that. You ask us to simply agree on that point, but provide no explanation other than "it implies a different topic." In fact, it implies exactly this topic. "Emo" as presented in this article, is a slang term that describes fashion, style, particular people, vague musical categories, emotional states, and many other things. How is it inappropriate? --Cheeser1 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I would support to move this article to Emo (subculture; can we ask support/help at the Sociology wikiproject and portal?Doktor Who 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The move has already been considered, and failed its nomination for moving due to lack of consensus and lack of reliable sources. No reliable sociological source has been found to substantiate the claim that emo is a subculture (see archive 5 of this discussion page). Saying that it is violates original research policies, and I am not the only one to opposite on this (and other) grounds. Please do not add such content to the article until at least after you have suggested such changes (I have reverted your addition of several subculture-related links/categories). --Cheeser1 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits at Emo (slang). I added a see-also-section because it is important for both the ones-that-believe-that-emo-is-a-subculture and their opponents, indeed such section provide any reader with a sort of introduction to the wide and loose topic of "youth movements, countercultures and subcultures". See-also-sections are meant to give the reader the broadest picture of the topic, its analogies and its differences with other topics and are usually very different from "refernces" sections.Doktor Who 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The see-also topics you added are a broad spectrum of sociological terminology, but no sociological data is present in the article (save that which is added in violation of WP:SYN). Until this is an article that is reliably known to be a subculture of any sort, linking to those sorts of categories and articles is inappropriate. Emo is not a culture, counterculture, or youth movement (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) until a reliable source says it is. --Cheeser1 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
And keep in mind that boldly adding such content should not be re-added to the article, according to policy, until consensus is formed to do so (which may be hard, given that there are no sources to justify all of those see-also links in any way). --Cheeser1 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, please look at your edit summary: Im sure that can be useful for a broader perspective of this subject please do not revert without asking more, Im not a "newbie" in sociology!! You seem to believe that what you think is useful is somehow a guideline for what content should go in this article. Linking to terms that have no established connection to emo is misleading and inappropriate. Furthermore, your status as a source of sociological information is irrelevant. You could hold four Ph.Ds in sociology, it wouldn't matter, because you are not a source of information, even if you "think" that the information might be relevant. --Cheeser1 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the scientific method, and science is my main interest. I dislike the word emo, the emo world and its slang. I don't think that a music genre named "emo" exists. Adding some more links can support this perspective, I'm not against you, you are misunderstanding me. This word emo is just one of those words invented by some pèress in order to create a commercial slogan, and sell music, magazines, and so on. ^_^ cheers.Doktor Who 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear that your perspective on this article is colored by your personal issues with emo music and emo things. Trying to lead people to unrelated or irrelevant topics is not what the see-also section is for, especially if you're doing it to support some ludicrous agenda or perspective you have about how emo doesn't exist. --Cheeser1 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not insinuating you are a vandal, just I suspect that, since you have never seen me before at this article, you were somewhat regarding me as a noobie. I have no "agenda", but, unlike you, I want to give other readers the chance to seek more info on simiilar, related and unrelated topics. Please note that I've smiled to you, if you do not stop your aggressive tone, I will report you for violating WP:OWN and WP:HAR.Doktor Who 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of DIK, and your link is broken. J-stan TalkContribs 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM is calling me a dick (if he'd linked it to the article correctly, you'd find information explaining, among other things, that calling someone a dick flippantly is just as much being a dick as anything). Interesting that he popped into another conversation, this time just to call me a dick and tell me that IAR is (apparently) the best rule (in other words, to once again tell me that he doesn't care that I want to talk about policy, since he'll just ignore it if he disagrees with me). --Cheeser1 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I like policy a lot. I cite it quite frequently. But I also tend to pay attention to more than one policy. (which usually really annoys people). Just sticking to one policy and just saying that its the end of a discussion is a very WP:DICK thing to do. I am not calling you a dick. I am asking you to consider the appearance of your actions to any other editor here. You are not discussing, you are repeating a single line and thinking that it solves everything. It's not going anywhere. If you are goingto revert a good faith edit, YOU should be the one to start a discussion on talk page (especially if you say "see talk"); otherwise a reversion of reversion is entirely warranted. Your reversion is pushing your own agenda, and calling people names (or arguing about who called people names first) really isn't going to solve anything.--ZayZayEM 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
More than one policy? The only policy I've seen cited to support inclusion of "subculture" is WP:IGNORE. Regardless, I've been discussing things thoroughly with all interested parties, but the most relevant policy appears to be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. I'm not saying "I'm right you're wrong end of discussion." I'm simply citing policy and trying to be as straightforward and clear in my explanation of why and how it applies. I said "see talk" and didn't start a new section because there is already plenty of discussion about the "subculture" issue here already. If you want to take the moral high ground and say that accusing people of violating WP:DICK is childish and "isn't going to solve anything" then why did you do it?? Because you seem to think I have an "agenda" that I'm "pushing." --Cheeser1 04:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, back to the main issue--how about Emo (meme)? My issue with the current name is that it indicates the article is giving a short dictionary definition of a slang word or describing the vernacular of those people who identify as emo. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, why "meme"? J-stan TalkContribs 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The components of this article do not describe a subculture, which has its own forms of folkways and mores between its members as well as a set of common beliefs. "Fashion" and "Music" don't work either, because this is really a combination of both. "Meme" may sound to minimal, but I think we're on the right track if we acknowledge that it exists as more of a large, long-term meme. Maybe "scene" would be the optimum word?The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "scene" would confuse some because "scene" is a slang term describing a fashion similar to emo. If we decide to move it at all, i think it should just be moved to Emo (slang term). J-stan TalkContribs 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And I don't see why Emo (slang) is any different than Emo (slang term). The parenthetical is only there to distinguish emo (music) - a music term - from emo (slang) - a slang term. The addition of "term" would be completely superfluous. The other ideas are good, but not optimal. I'm sure we could list ideas forever, but I can't think of any that make any more sense than Emo (slang). --Cheeser1 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Slang" by itself seems grammatically incorrect. It sounds almost as if the article covers the form of slang associated with Emo, even though there really isn't one. J-stan TalkContribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's why were here ;-) Anyway, so we're looking for a word somewhere between "meme," "scene," "subculture," and "slang" ...anyone have the magic word that will end this thread? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
How 'bout "Sub-slang Scmeme" :) J-stan TalkContribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha, looks like you've found it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Slang by itself tells us what kind of term emo is. Here it is a slang term, while there it is a music term. That's the point of disambig. words in parentheses. See Prism (geometry) and my explanation of all that below. It doesn't really have to seem "grammatically correct" - it's in a title, and a title is not a sentence. The prism article does not cover the form of geometry associated with prisms. --Cheeser1 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scene

I'd be quite happy with emo (scene). The current article just doesn't describe use of emo as a slang term to me. It's about the word as it applies to people + music + fashion. I don't really see how it is unreasonable Synthesis to label that as a subculture or a scene, anymore than it is to say something like dancehall is a genre of music or Human Rights Watch is an NGO. I am not disputing that "emo" is/was a form of slang, but that is not the focus of the article. Article titles, particularly disambiguating ones, should most accurately portray their content. It'sa bit like if LGBT was placed at LGBT (initialism) rather than something like LGBT (sexuality and gender) (not that either are necessary)--ZayZayEM 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I could live with that. Sounds good! J-stan TalkContribs 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source could be found to demonstrate that dancehall is a genre of music. A reliable source could be found to show that the HRW is an NGO. No such source can be found to substantiate the claim that this is a subculture. I don't see how your analogies hold up, and I'm not sure I understand this article. "Emo" is a slang term. Its use was and continues to be far more prevalent within particular groups (eg young people), and its use is varied and nonstandard. That's slang by definition. If that's not "slang to [you]," I can't imagine what definition of slang you're using. This article is about what that slang term describes, not about the term itself (although content about the evolution of the term would also be appropriate within this article). --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Several semi-reliable sources have been found referencing emo as a subculture. They are just as, or more reliable the present sources. I think it has been established well (including an abstract from the American Sociological Association) that RS do exist referring emo as a subculture. However my main contention is clarity/accuracy of the title. Which do you feel is more accurate considering the content at LGBT: LGBT (sexuality and gender) (proposing a direct link to an unconfirmed social construct) or LGBT (initialism) (a clear and simple fact) --ZayZayEM 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "semi-reliable." Where did you ever get the idea there was? Unpublished musings of sociology graduate students are not accepted sources on Wikipedia. They are not accepted in their field of study and have not been peer reviewed. Furthermore, few of them establish that emo is a subculture, only making use of the term "subculture" once or twice in passing. And as I pointed out previously, the abstract of an unpublished paper from a talk at a conference is not a reliable source (a point which was accepted as quite clear by the editor who originally posted that reference). LGBT culture and sexual identity are studied to a great extent in sociology. Setting up invalid and absurd analogies do not help your argument. The title is accurate because parenthetical words for the purposes of disambiguation are ONLY there for disambiguation. The are NOT there to reflect the contents of the article - the title is no place for exposition. They are there to distinguish one term from another. Emo is a music term and a slang term. This is why the articles are titled the way they are. I don't see how it could be any clearer. --Cheeser1 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
LGBT is undeniably an initialism. But it really serves no descriptive purpose to disambiguate it as that. Emo, while being slang terminology, is not best primarily defined as such. The analogy stands whether you fail to recognise it or not.--ZayZayEM 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point! It is not supposed to be a DESCRIPTIVE term, it's for DISAMBIGUATION. Since LGBT is always an initialism, LGBT (initialism) could never disambiguate anything! However, if I invented a laser guidance bivalve technology (LGBT) and it was on Wikipeidia, then there would be a need to disambiguate. Then they would say LGBT (sexuality) and LGBT (technology), since one is a sexuality term and one is a technology term. Here we have a slang term and a music term. Hence we disambiguate them as such. We can't say LGBT (initilialism) or emo (word) because those don't disambiguate. What we have now does. What we have now is accurate and sourced. What we have now conforms to disambiguation naming conventions. So what's wrong with what we have now??? If you looked, you'd find that naming conventions are not supposed to be descriptive. Hence Prism (geometry), not Prism (shape). You're just not getting it. Disambiguation naming conventions are not to provide exposition or description of the subject. They are supposed to tell us what context a particular term is used in. One is a music term, the other is a slang term. That's really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay scrap my example. Using your example. From what I can tell here, we have an article named Prism (shape). It's blunt with no real meaning. "Emo" is more than just a slang word. A "prism" isn't just a shape. I would support just about anything other than (slang) in this article's title.--ZayZayEM 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't have an article named Prism (shape). Why do you say that we do? Am I missing something? "Emo" doesn't have to be "just" a slang word, but it is a slang term (in the context of this article). It is a music term in the context of the other article. The disambiguation we have now is exactly how we do disambiguations everywhere else. Frankly, there is no need to change it; it's certainly not bad enough that one could reasonably support "just about anything [else]." --Cheeser1 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I am saying that emo (slang) is the equivalent to prism (shape) in your analogy. It's accurate, undisputably; but it is also blunt and doesn't provide a meaningful connection to article content.--ZayZayEM 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Your analogy is putting the wrong two things together, if that's what you mean. "Slang" is a kind of terminology. "Geometry" is a kind of terminology. "Shape" is not a kind of terminology. "Subculture" or "scene" is not a kind of terminology. The point of parenthetical disambiguation words is to tell us what kind of term we are dealing with, not to "provide a meaningful connection to the article content." Please note, however, that "slang" is in the first sentence of this article. --Cheeser1 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Emo (music) is an industry slang term. How does this title Emo (slang) accurately differentiate itself from that. I wasn't aware "music" was a form of terminology. This article describes Emo in a social context - Emo (social), Emo (society), Emo (scene), Emo (subculture), Emo (counterculture), Emo (marketing), Emo (mood), Emo (lifestyle), Emo (youth), Emo (youth culture) or anything would be really better. When emo slang is loosely defined and already encompasses two articles (Emo (music) is about a related slang term) I different identifyer needs to be used. The current identifyier is ambigious, open to misinterpretation, and is insufficiently unique.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Music is a form of terminology. See Music terminology. Slang is also a form of terminology. See slang. You continue to press for things like emo (subculture) and emo (mood). Subculture is totally OR, we've been through this and there was neither consensus nor sources for that move. "Mood"?? Is that a joke? This is absurd. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). You continue to suggest ludicrous things like "mood" and "youth culture" while completely ignoring the fact that what we already have conforms to naming conventions. If you aren't going to cite any sources or naming conventions or policies, I'm not going to continue repeating it to you: there is no reason to change it, or if there is, you haven't presented one. Until you do, it's going to stay as it is. The "identifyier" is NOT supposed to be precise or unique. That's NOT the point. A parenthetical word in the title for disambiguation is for disambiguation, not exposition or explanation of the article's topic. It tells us what kind of term this is. Nothing more. This is how articles are named. That's all there is to it. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Music terminology is a form of terminology that relates to music. Geometry is loosely terminology (or a study field) that relates to shapes. Just because English has a specific word for one, and not the other really doesn't make your argument. Slang is a linguistics term, this is not a linguistic based article. I really find the identifier ambigious and misleading, and its not just me. The only argument against the changes has been based on WP:OR. Please work with us here and make an alternative suggestion that does not violate this rule, or demonstrate how (slang) is not ambigious (as music term is also a form of slang) and/or not misleading as to content.--ZayZayEM 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Slang is a type of terminology. Geometry is a type of terminology. "Scene" is not. "Subculture" is not. I don't see how this could be any clearer if I wiped it down with Windex. I'm not going to repeat this. If you continue to deny the fact that "slang" is a kind of terminology, don't expect me to repeat to you the fact that it is. --Cheeser1 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, Slang is simple noun (i.e. object), Shape is a simple noun. Wheras Geometry and Subcultures are complex nouns (being fields of study) andare therefore more descriptive. Further suggest: Emo (sociology).--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is not what governs naming conventions. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). Your suggestions do not conform to naming conventions and often introduce original research into the article. They are completely inappropriate. I have nothing more to say on this. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
But your POV does? I'd really like to move beyond pot-kettle battles here, but I really don't see how we are progressing in any sort of direction.--ZayZayEM 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
No. I've pointed you to the policies and guidelines governing disambiguation naming. That's not my POV, that's consensus. Sorry. --Cheeser1 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article content

Cheeser you continually state "This article is about what that slang term describes, not about the term itself". This is my beef. The slang term describes a scene/subculture (or people+music+fashion), and as such is not about a specific piece of slang as the title suggests. The word emo is not basic slang, any more than the word punk - it is used quite readily by media, entertainment, music and fashion industries.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The slang term describes several things - music (emo (music) proper and not), people, fashion, etc. The slang term does not describe a subculture unless we know it is a subculture. You can't keep asserting that because it isn't about the term itself that somehow, this article can't be called slang. This is obviously not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. This article, like every article, is about what its title describes. And please note that the term punk is, or at least was, a slang term (throughout history being slang for many things, prostitutes, homosexuals, and many other things). But sociologists have studied punk and determined that it is a subculture, as demonstrated in many published books and articles (unlike this article here).
Also, use of slang is not forbidden in the media either, so I don't see how your point there is relevant, especially when music and fashion industries thrive on slang-related topics. "Gangsta" is a slang term originating in hip-hop, that doesn't mean it isn't prevalent in fashion and music. While I'm at it, check out gangsta. Notice that here we've called something a slang term for the purposes of disambiguation, to disambiguate it from the genre of music associated with it. Interesting...
And like I've said a dozen times, the purpose of the parenthetical is not to provide elaboration or to make claims about what the term sometimes describes - especially if completely unsubstantiated. If you want to say that the term describes a subculture, then why does some of the content in this article not reflect that? How can we use "subculture" if this article is not entirely (or at all) about a subculture? Even if it WERE a subculture, this article isn't just about the subculture, it's about much more general phenomenon. This is clearly established in the introduction.
I am curious though - what is "basic slang" and how did you determine that emo was not a part of it? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that a slang term has a precise definition, and that it exactly describes what you consider to be a subculture? That sounds like alot of assumptions to me. --Cheeser1 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More complex suggestion

I'd also be happy with just a whole move to emo, creation of emo (disambiguation) and moving the music article to emotional hardcore. I think it is fair to say most users searching for "emo" will be looking for this article's content.--ZayZayEM 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit awkward, since "emo" is just as much a music term as any other definition. Unless you contend that this article represents a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other - I don't believe this is the case, nor do I think that's what you're contending. In light of this, a disambiguation page is supposed to sit at emo. We really shouldn't be sticking this article at emo because doing so is pretty much the opposite of how disambig naming conventions are supposed to work. --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This page has a section devoted to the music, so I do not feel anyone will get lost by such a system (I'd suggest a disambig notice to both the music article in particular, and the dab page be in such a page). The music term is a shortened form of emotional hardcore (hence why that redirects to music not dab), so I don't see why its a problem to move that there (avoid parentheses). And yes, I am suggesting that this is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other. I feel that the use of emo in this context is far more universal than any other listed at emo (disambiguation)--ZayZayEM 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely disagree with your assumption that this is the "primary" meaning, and we should not make such an assumption and defer to the state that it's in now, one of disambiguation. My point was not about people getting lost - that is not what is in question. My point was about conventions that we follow here on Wikipedia. If you can somehow definitively establish that this is the primary definition of the term, feel free, but I don't think that's possible. Until you do, there is obviously a valid contention that it is not the primary meaning, and we should defer to the standard disambiguation scheme. --Cheeser1 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cheeser, I don't think we should move around the article and disambig pages unless we have clear evidence that this is the most popular article in the bunch. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • this proposed move was way too controversial, Please ignore it. And these guys are right, it probably isn't appropriate. --ZayZayEM 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flogging a dead horse

emo (neologism) also springs to mind. --ZayZayEM 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just point everyone here. --Cheeser1 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Or here might be a little more appropriate. If we move it to "Emo (neologism)", we're setting the page up for an almost certain deletion. J-stan TalkContribs 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emo summary

i think the article about Emo should just say "a subject in which people argue and run around in cirlces either defending or going out of their way to insult emos". how in the world does this invoke so much anger??? i know this: whether you love them or hate them, you can't stop talking about them --Zuki2love 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

I support to add the following "see-also"

I invite everyone to read carefully my (short) above posts, and then write their opinions within this section. Thanks.Doktor Who 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This poll is irrelevent. See alsos are not for pages that necessarily are connected to this article. They are for pages that provide context for information, contrast and comparison. Even if "Emo" in this article is not a clearly defined and established subculture, these pages certainly are going to be of interest to people looking at this page. I ahve restored them, except the History of subculture link and Lifestyle link. The former will require us to further establish the ongoing dispute on this page. The latter is not entirely relevant enough.--ZayZayEM 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Adding back in contentions material after it has been reverted out of an article is a violation of WP:BRD and creates an edit-war atmosphere. If you want to discuss it, discuss it, but don't revert a revert - it disrupts the collective editing process and is counterproductive and ungracious. See-alsos are not supposed to be laundry lists of tangential or unrelated topics. Except for adolescence, I see no reason to have this see also section, and I'm fairly sure a link to adolescence can be integrated into the article, which mentions teenagers repeatedly. --Cheeser1 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. J-stan TalkContribs 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Cheeser1 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thank you, at least my very little contribute to the improvement of this article didn't end up in a total waste of time, indeed someone wikilinked adolescence. In my opinion, we need to wait for some years in order to discover whether this "youth scene-slang-fashion" becomes the subject of sociological studies or if it becomes a forgotten topic.Doktor Who 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culture?

I noticed that Emo is present under the subculture category, and I personally don't believe this is a proper location for Emo. Unlike other musical subcultures, which are united by a relatively standard belief system, some form of communal gatherings, a "class" structure, and even culture-exclusive language, Emo (arguably) does not possess these unifying qualities. I propose that Emo be removed from the Subculture category.


Adrian Anansi 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Adrian Anansi

I think you're referring to an all-out culture. Indeed, Emo doesn't possess a standard religion, communal gatherings, "class", or its own language (on a literal level). And while it has been discussed and resolved that the information on this page doesn't constitute a subculture, perhaps the pages in the category do. I don't know, as I have learned not to form an opinion on the subject. J-stan TalkContribs 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a subculture is present with an over-arching culture, so in that sense I don't think I was inadvertently considering Emo a culture. I think you understandably mistook a few things I said. By belief-system, I didn't mean religion, I meant more of a common philosophy, by class, I meant sub-groups and positions (the whole poseur thing), and by language, I meant terminology. It was my mistake, I will attempt to be more specific in the future. I'm not sure what you mean by the "perhaps the pagies in the category do..." The main page redirects to here, and all sub-pages just lead to lists of bands as well as record labels and other various stuff. Adrian Anansi 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Adrian
OK, yeah, the way you phrased it made it sound like an actual culture. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by those characteristics of a subculture, giving a few examples? But yes, in the mean time, we should probably remove Emo from the Subculture cat. J-stan TalkContribs 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over the status (or not) of emo as a culture or subculture. It is not verifiably a (sub)culture. There are certainly indications either way, but the category was removed from the page some time ago I believe. I have also removed it from list of subcultures - I'm not sure why that list exists, since we have a category for the same thing. --Cheeser1 06:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the list I was talking about that I wanted it removed from. I had read the debate previously, I wasn't trying to rekindle it. Adrian Anansi 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Good, good. Just wanted to be clear about it. Glad to see we're on the same page. --Cheeser1 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See Subculture#Identifying subcultures. According to that, emo fits the definition of subculture, along the same lines as punk, hip hop, goth, skinhead, mod, rocker, greaser, etc. Spylab 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to draw conclusions, especially from other Wikipedia content. --Cheeser1 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's not clear that it is a subculture along the same lines as punk, hip hop, goth etc. Mdwh 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Cunningham, David., Hardman, Emilie. and Spinney, Ann. Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, Aug 16, 2003.
That is a paper I've been wanting to get a hold of for a while but I still haven't tracked it down on the net. Nevertheless, it works as an academic reference for classifying emo as a subculture. There are actually a lot of good texts out there on the emo subculture. Undoubtedly one of the best is Andy Greenwald's Nothing Feels Good - a book that also refers to emo as a subculture. There are also a lot of bad texts out there too - so it helps to actually know something about emo before you go looking for a commentary on the topic.
One of the things you'll notice if you read Andy's book is that it talks about emo a lot using Internet sources. I would argue that this is fair enough. This is a youth subculture that (arguably) came to prominence at a time when the Internet was just starting to be used by adolescents - where else would you go for information? Indeed good Internet sources like [9] can be invaluable for defining emo. So too can Andy's book, but unfortunately it was written at a time when Taking Back Sunday was just starting out.
Essentially what I am trying to say is that there is an intelligent article about emo - but this article isn't it. Believe it or not, all those kids don't put on "tight jeans" and "tight t-shirts" because they like to be abused by wider society. There is something real and substantive about emo (at least to its adolescent followers).* For me, I think emo had something to say about the way broader society looks upon emotional expression.
I wish I had the time and enthusiasm to write an article on the subject but I don't and apparently I suck at writing anyway. So I just hope you guys take the time to make this article the best it can be. In conclusion there are academic commentaries on emo out there. And they cover just about every topic you could associate with the emo stereotype. But to just look at commentaries because the people writing them have a PhD is stupid. My recommendation: start with the music and Andy's book and go from there. Peace all! :-) Cedars 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
* Andy's book also has something to say about emo and its link to adolescence.
Cheeser, is this source good enough? Or do we need to seperately prove that the article also contains the claims which the title and abstract [[10]] says it does? Or should we find a source which actually states these people are "proper" sciologists first? I see Cunningham is only an "associate" professor, does this mean the article is not sufficiently academic?
Oh, and please do not bother responding unless you can do so without personal attacks like "get on with your life". And don't start arguing for something if you are unwilling to answer followup questions like what the difference between "Emo(slang)" and "Car(word)" is... Lundse 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

.

I'd ask you not to begin your branch of this discussion by immediately hearkening back to your inability to understand how disambiguation parentheticals are formulated. I've explained it, and I will not explain it again. If you want to ask such a "followup" question, just refer to the explanation I've already provided. It's not your job to demand that I answer your "followups" - I will answer whatever questions of yours I choose to answer.
As for that source, that was already presented above. I've already explained that this is not an article and it is not published. It's an abstract of a manuscript that the ASA Please read this abstract more carefully. It is a conference talk. If you would look above, you'll notice that I've cited a detailed explanation of WP:RS that explicitly mentions talks at conferences as unreliable sources (and even if that wasn't explicitly spelled out, the bold points I've mentioned should clear up why it fails WP:RS). --Cheeser1 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
About my understanding of disambiguation, then you are completely missing the point. And you are still not answering my question, I see. I find this fact a lot more interesting than your convoluted attempts to justify it.
Regarding the source, then I would just love to see one of your long tirades exemplifying why this is not a good source. Please note that I too have access to that RS link you love throwing about (are you getting some kind of kick out of it, or are you really imagining we do not know it? Or do you somehow feel you prove a point about how you like it more than me by pointing to it every other sentence). As such, I am not likely to simply accept your interpretation of it. Regarding this, please note that it does not point out how conference talks are "inadmisible". Also note the source is peer-reviewed and that it was good enough for a roomful of sociologists
I know you are going to balk at this, and claim I am not following the rules. That I am out of line for saying (gasp) my opinion and that this is just not the way things are done here at wikipedia. But please try to take a step back from this, look at the source and tell yourself, straightfaced, in the mirror that this is not a good source. That somehow these three sociologists words (including the ones in the abstract) somehow do not matter.
Oh, and BTW, I would love if your next post could somehow mention how the abstract itself is not a good source. Lundse 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You want to talk disambiguations? Emo (slang) is appropriate because "slang" is a kind of term. Car (word) is not appropriate because "word" is not a kind of term (except in a trivial, non-disambiguating way). I've explained it several times, and those explanations are still on this page, but if you want me to type it out again, there you go.
Now then. A conference talk is not a reliable source because (notice this is exactly what I said above) it is not an article and it was not published anywhere, ever. A source of content, especially academic content, included in Wikipedia must be published, and not as a manuscript or draft. The relevant policy is WP:RS and the relevant community-wide consensus on how that policy works in this very specific case is here, where it describes the fact that preprints, conference abstracts, and other such information qualify as self-published, and cannot substantiate academic claims (in fact, self-published sources should virtually never be used).
I'm not here to "balk" at you or "tell you that you [aren't allowed to] say your opinion," so why don't you assume some good faith and instead of thinking that I'm out to quash your opinion, realize that I'm simply pointing you to the relevant policies and community-wide consensus on these matters. You see, I found a disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Here's the abstract that I found online. Should go ahead and change the article to reflect that? Oh wait, that's a self-published article. which means it is not a reliable source. The article even explicitly mentions that a source like this is dubious and not reliable. I guess I shouldn't add that dubious information to the article. That's how WP:RS works.
And once again, as for the content of this abstract: Since there was never any publication of this manuscript, there's no way to know if the author ever demonstrated that emo qualified as a subculture. Perhaps he did not, or perhaps he did so in a way that would not be accepted for publication. Maybe it was a crock and he was laughed out of the conference. Maybe he never showed up! (I missed a conference two years ago due to the flu, and my abstract - including references to an unpublished manuscript - is still posted online.) Certainly, those are more drastic scenarios, but we don't know what he said during that talk and we cannot use an unpublished manuscript - which we don't even have access to - as a source, nor can we use its abstract from a conference. The fact that a few sociologists may have heard him say something aloud, related to a draft of some unpublished paper does not qualify his work as being published, certainly not as being accepted in its field.
You might be impressed by any academic paper that floats through the internet, but I am not. Until it is reviewed thoroughly and accepted for publication in a scholarly journal, it has not made the cut, and could easily be wrong, biased, misguided, or completely absurd. I am not going to assume you are trying to do any wrong or that you're out to push your interpretation of policy onto others (a courtesy you have not given me), and so the most likely scenario seems to be that you do not understand how academic publication works. Until a work is published in a scholarly journal (or as a book, by a scholarly publisher), there is no way it would ever be considered accepted in its field. As I've explained, this abstract of a conference manuscript explicitly fails WP:RS. --Cheeser1 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Responses to my comment should be directed below, where I've had to repeat myself due to this discussion branching into a new section. --Cheeser1 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "new" source

I would like to hear from anyone else how they view the talk/non-published article/abstract source, found here [[11]]. The source is an abstract of an unpublished, peer-reviewed talk/paper given at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association 2003 (and, to some degree, the paper we can infer from it). It is called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’"

I personally think this is a very good source, as I believe we can trust the American Sociological Association to accept papers that use sociological terms appropriately. I believe ignoring this source because is has not been published would be wrong, as we have the abstract, which is pretty clear on the matter. Despite ones view on the source's usefulness, I think one must at least admit that emo can rightfully be called a subculture and refraining from using this knowledge on wikipedia is kind of contrary to WP:IAR.

Also, I believe this is cause to recheck consensus (unless, of course, somebody points out some big problem with the source or consensus seems obviously unreachable when the bullets start flying). Lundse 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you've duplicated this discussion, I will re-post my response.
A conference talk is not a reliable source because (notice this is exactly what I said above) it is not an article and it was not published anywhere, ever. A source of content, especially academic content, included in Wikipedia must be published, and not as a manuscript or draft. The relevant policy is WP:RS and the relevant community-wide consensus on how that policy works in this very specific case is here, where it describes the fact that preprints, conference abstracts, and other such information qualify as self-published, and cannot substantiate academic claims (in fact, self-published sources should virtually never be used).
I'm not here to "balk" at you or "tell you that you [aren't allowed to] say your opinion," so why don't you assume some good faith and instead of thinking that I'm out to quash your opinion, realize that I'm simply pointing you to the relevant policies and community-wide consensus on these matters. You see, I found a disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Here's the abstract that I found online. Should go ahead and change the article to reflect that? Oh wait, that's a self-published article. which means it is not a reliable source. The article even explicitly mentions that a source like this is dubious and not reliable. I guess I shouldn't add that dubious information to the article. That's how WP:RS works.
And once again, as for the content of this abstract: Since there was never any publication of this manuscript, there's no way to know if the author ever demonstrated that emo qualified as a subculture. Perhaps he did not, or perhaps he did so in a way that would not be accepted for publication. Maybe it was a crock and he was laughed out of the conference. Maybe he never showed up! (I missed a conference two years ago due to the flu, and my abstract - including references to an unpublished manuscript - is still posted online.) Certainly, those are more drastic scenarios, but we don't know what he said during that talk and we cannot use an unpublished manuscript - which we don't even have access to - as a source, nor can we use its abstract from a conference. The fact that a few sociologists may have heard him say something aloud, related to a draft of some unpublished paper does not qualify his work as being published, certainly not as being accepted in its field.
You might be impressed by any academic paper that floats through the internet, but I am not. Until it is reviewed thoroughly and accepted for publication in a scholarly journal, it has not made the cut, and could easily be wrong, biased, misguided, or completely absurd. I am not going to assume you are trying to do any wrong or that you're out to push your interpretation of policy onto others (a courtesy you have not given me), and so the most likely scenario seems to be that you do not understand how academic publication works. Until a work is published in a scholarly journal (or as a book, by a scholarly publisher), there is no way it would ever be considered accepted in its field. As I've explained, this abstract of a conference manuscript explicitly fails WP:RS. --Cheeser1 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the term "paper" or "article" is not appropriate. The source you are asking us to accept is a conference abstract. Particularly, it is the abstract of a manuscript. Article or paper refers to a published work. Manuscript refers to a a draft. In case anyone is misunderstanding the terminology involved. That means that while an article would be appropriate for Wikipedia, a manuscript would not. The source in question is a summary of what someone said about his own draft that he might hope to finish and/or publish someday. Until that day comes, it is not an "article" or "paper." --Cheeser1 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
From the top:
I know it was not published, why are you telling me this again? Furthermore, I specifically said several times that I do not believe this is a good guideline about which sources can be used or not - if the claim was controversial or extraordinary, if there was disgreement between sources or other problems, then of course we should prefer the published one. But the guidelines you point to to support your interpretation here is about "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine". So is this one of those cases where we can use our own judgement and extrapolate (as opposed to those cases were people disagree with you)?
Regarding assuming good faith, then my claims are simply that you do not try to understand my viewpoint, you do not answer my points and questions, that you continually paint me as wanting to ignore policy. And that you use language such as "your inability to understand" (something which was not even the issue), "Get on with your life" and "What you propose is absurd and misguided at best". I am assuming good faith, but no better than the evidence suggests. I am not going to obliviously ignore the behavior described above, sorry.
Your example from math is irrelevant as the policy you want to apply actually applies to this example and not to the case at hand. Also, I expect we have a lot of sources for that subject which contradict this less-trustworthy source.
Then you pose a lot of maybes. This of course a Argument from ignorance and obviously useless The evidence we do have suggests that sociologists use the word subculture in a way entirely consistent with the proposed move. More on this later (the wacky "think for yourself" section).
Regarding my supposed naivity regarding scientific papers, then I propose the following alternative to assuming I am a complete moron: maybe I am actually aware of these matters, but think that the source is good enough. Especially since we have no other sources (except the other less-reputable ones which also support my claim, of course). I maintain that the bar for being useful for wikipedia is not the same as academic acceptance "accepted in its field".
You also say it is not in any way a paper, which is interesting since it is presented as a "Paper presented..." Also, you somehow gloss over the fact that it has been peer-reviewed (which kind of throws your ad hoc "maybe he was laughed out of the room"-hypothesis into a new light). Is this an oversight on your part or did you consciously choose to ignore this?
And finally to the positive arguments. At this point, whatever ones opinion on which sources we can and should use, you obviously know that subculture is used for such things as musical... subcultures. By students and professors within sociology. I am going to assume this on good faith and normal intelligence (something you did not do for me). So my question is: why do you persist in resisting this change? Could it be because of a long history of defending the other side of the argument, or is there some other reason you do not want this obviously correct information in wikipedia? Why call on RS to keep this information out? Again, why not Ignore the rule at this point and simply write what we all know is true?
Oh, and just to keep track of how many times you will not answer this: why should we have an article on the slang word if there is no "thing out there" which it denotes? And what word would you use to denote such groups in general? This last question may be the real kicker, please try to see if you can fit in a response to it. And to help you out; "slang" is not a word for a social group, it is a word for a word. Which obviously renders the current name completely nonsensical as much as Car_(word) would be. When you attack that analogy instead of addressing it, could you please keep the personal attacks down, thanks. Lundse 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Emo (slang) is an article about the slang use of the term and what it denotes. What does it denote? The things in the article. A way of dressing, an attitude, a type of music, a group of people, etc. Something is not a subculture until it is demonstrated to be - you can assert that sociologists use a term in such a way, but that's blatant WP:SYN and how you think sociologists use a term is not a reliable source. I don't have to find sources to the contrary - until someone publishes a paper that shows it's a subculture, it is not (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). You see, you are arguing to include the claim "emo is a subculture." You do not (as I see it) have a reliable source. I am not arguing to include any claim. Nowhere have I inserted text into the article. I am not adding "Emo is not a subculture" in the article. I don't need to provide a source, because it's not a claim I'm trying to put into the article.
Also, WP:RS actually does require that an academic be a reliable one. Academic work that is either unpublished or not accepted in its field is not reliable. There's really nothing more to it.
Further, the ASA did not publish any paper. The draft may have been reviewed for the purposes of a conference, but that is irrelevant because unpublished manuscripts and conference abstracts are NOT reliable sources. This is explicitly stated in the guidelines relating to the policy. How much plainer could it be? --Cheeser1 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
On a further note, please do not misinterpret my asking you to assume good faith as a personal attack. I would even ask that you refrain from asserting, in each and every paragraph, that I "never answer your questions" or something like that. I am obviously responding to your concerns, and you're the only one who seems to think that I'm dancing around the questions. This is not a forum for you to come up with "the real kicker" sot hat I can "fit in a response to it." There is no need to "help me out" to try and up the ante. If you consider this a debate, contest, or competition, I would suggest you rethink your approach to this discussion. --Cheeser1 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


You seem t be very confused on a few issues, again top-on-down:
First you hand me my previous point on a platter, by admitting that the slang term emo is of course, in the end, about "a group of people". This begs the question of why you were against renaming it Emo_(social group). Why, for all that is holy, should we use X_(slang) for describing X? Are you still not clear on the analogy to Car_(word)? I really do not know how to make this any clearer...
Then go of about where the burden of proof lies. I have no idea why as I have never argued the other side of this.
You reiterate your opinion on the RS policy. Where is the quote substantiating this claim (no, not the one only about physics, math, etc.)? Also, one should not use a policy to keep obviously correct material out of wikipedia on which noone disagrees (lundse correlate to WP:Ignore).
In your next paragraph, you say "Further, the ASA did not publish any paper...". Are you reading what I am writing or have you invented some special version of me which you are communicating with? The post to which you are responding begins "I know it was not published, why are you telling me this again?" What is not getting through here? Why do you persist in painting me as not understanding these obvious facts? Please try to move on and start addressing my points.
The last section is completely weird to me. You seem to think my claim was that your calls for good faith was what prompted me to call you on personal attacks. I have no idea how you arrived at this notion! Please re-read what personal attacks I was talking about, it is written in pretty clear English... And I will keep pointing you to the questions, analogies and points you have failed to respond to. I would, of course, not normally do this in a discussion, but you seem hell-bent on ignoring what I write (and then inventing some other standpoint for me from which you can criticize me). You can stop me at any time by actually entering the discussion: reading what I have read, try to understand my viewpoint and then argue where you believe I am wrong. If you are not willing to do this, simply say so - I am not trying to force you into a consensus-reaching process you do not want to be part of.
If you do want to enter the wikipedia process, please address the fact that we both know that sociologists use the term in this way and why you are trying to keep this material out. I might as well delete all the number article beginnings going "2 is the number after 1..." and demand people find sources for each one. This would be disruptive behaviour and wiki-lawyering, and so is what you are doing here! Lundse 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundse - this is accusatory nonsense, and I'm not discussing this with you anymore. You have already assumed that I refuse to even "enter the Wikipedia process". I will not discuss this with you if you are unwilling or unable to assume good faith. I will also direct you to Wikipedia:Common_knowledge, which explains that what you think is common knowledge or "obviously correct" is not necessarily reliable, and back to WP:SYN where it explains that the conclusions you draw based on separate information from two sources (here, the definition of subculture and the description we have of emo) do not constitute reliably sourced information. This is just how things are, and if you want to continue to accuse me of "not understanding these obvious facts" while you ignore WP:RS, I will have nothing to do with this "discussion." --Cheeser1 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying you are not going to enter the discussion, and that I should not go against good faith in saying that you are unwilling to enter wikipedia process of discussing matters in order to reach consensus? The "common knowledge" policy is irrelevant here, please reread my previous comments until you understand how this is the case before you try arguing against me (otherwise, it would of course be strawmanning, although possibly unconsciously so). Do feel free to ask me to clarify. Lundse 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm leaving the discussion because my participation has yielded nothing but nonsense questions intended to obfuscate and prod me. "Why don't you answer my other questions?" is not a salient point in this discussion. You aren't making any points any more, you're just discussing tangentially related analogies and harping on how frustrated I've become by this absurd "discussion." I've pointed to the policies and guidelines that refute your only salient points.
  • Can your claim be included based on what we know about subcultures and what we know about emo? no.
  • Isn't the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript a reliable source? Nope.
  • Can you use some "layman's" definition of "subculture"? No.
  • Can you include your claim because it's "obvious" or "common knowledge"? Absolutely not.
Until you raise another salient point, this discussion will be stagnant. I am not interested in discussion of this nature. Until you raise a new salient point, I am not interested in continuing this discussion. You've been beating this dead horse for weeks now. Please stop, because all you seem to be doing is replying with tangential rambling, pedantic analysis of analogies, and claims that I am not "answering your questions" (as if I am required to do so). Unless you intend on proving a point (which wouldn't be appropriate either), you have no reason to continue this discussion. It is in no way productive, and I am no longer willing to participate in it. Please stop harping on irrelevancies, ignoring policy, and dragging me back into this meaningless nonsense. --Cheeser1 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please note that your "2 comes after 1" example passes WP:CK, while "X group of people is a subculture" does not. That claim requires technical knowledge of a scientific (social-scientific) subject, and thus requires a more reliable source than this alleged "common knowledge." Even if you don't believe that 2 comes after 1, if you look in natural number (linked to in the first sentence of 2 (number)), you find a reliable source wherein successive integers are DEFINED. 2 comes after 1 by definition, according to dozens (hundreds?) of mathematical texts, written by qualified mathematicians. --Cheeser1 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, please stop misinterpreting everything I write?
I am perfectly aware that there is a difference to the two claims - heck, I even believe the math example to be analytic and not synthetic.
But still, you actually prove my point later on... Obviously, the CK policy does not matter as we are talking the hypothetical situation where someone wants the information cut - whether because he believes it to be wrong or, like you, for some other reason (adherence to the rules as a goal in itself could be a possibility, you haven't really given any other when asked). Now, what we are left with is what you point out correctly: that we have reliable sources which DEFINE integers, and from these we can of course INFER all the "x comes after y" statements. So, in you own way, you stumble upon my point: that this is using inference and that this simply has to be ok sometimes. Otherwise, the entire project would/could crawl to a halt.
BTW, how is your answer to the denotation question coming along? Let me know if I can help clear something up about it... Lundse 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't get it. X comes after Y is how you define integers - this is stated in the article and sourced properly. Hence there is no WP:SYN going on there (unlike your proposal here). You are spending too much time pedantically and ignorantly examining analogies that you don't even understand. If you're going to try to be clever or witty and use math analogies against me (like I said already), please learn math first. --Cheeser1 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks. This is the last time I am going to tell you before I use (gasp) the rules!
This is also the last time I will explain to you how you really need to read what I am saying more carefully. In your latest message, you paint me as not understanding math, my analogy and specifically, that x after y is how you define intergers.
First of all, when we start discussing math, we can talk about who understands it or not. Right now, we are using a hypersimplistic example from math in order to make you understand something else by analogy. We agree about it (although you may side with Kant against me on whether 2 follows 1 being synthetic, but this is not important to the analogy).
Secondly, claiming I do not understand my own analogy is not constructive. I humbly suggest that it is you who do not understand my analogy, and that I actually know where I was going with it. Otherwise, please specify how you have better access to my thoughts than me.
And thirdly, in my message, it was abundantly clear that I agreed that 2 comes after 1 and that we use our definition of integers when we infer this. Please try to answer this one: how did you get the idea that I disagreed with this? I submit that not only does one have to assume good faith, one also has to assume that people mean what they say and are able to understand the things they describe accurately. Now, I am sure you are right in saying this claim regarding the definition is sourced correctly, but this is entirely irrelevant! I was talking about sourcing the claim "2 follows 1". Again, I said this specifically, how did you get it wrong? Are you trying to misinterpret me?
Where the synthesis is ostensibly going on is from "theory about integers" (properly sourced) to a specific claim about two specific integers! (unsourced, as few mathematicians run around writing papers proving 55 follows 54). The difference is between the rule and using the rule to describe eg. 2 in relation to 1. Please make sure you understand this last part before you answer. Lundse 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"2 is the number after 1" is verifiable and reliably sourced by pointing to one of hundreds of books on set theory or logic. This is not "inferred" from the definition, it is the definition. More importantly, this is irrelevant, inflammatory, ignorant, and tangential nonsense. Just stop. --Cheeser1 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... Well, apparently you did not understand the last part, so I cannot really do much with your "answer" as it still does not begin to address the point. Let me know if there is any specific area of the analogy/example I can help clarify - otherwise I will assume you either cannot or do not want to understand it.
BTW, if you truly believe the statement "2 is the number after 1" (and other comparable statements in the number articles) is directly sourced why don't you point me to the sources? The ones which do not state a general definition of integers but contain the claim directly? Apparently, being so much better at math than me, you seem to know about some branch of mathematicians who do go around writing "55 follows 54" in their papers.. Lundse 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I already said, this is the mathematical definition of the number 2. See here and here. The number 2 is defined as the successor of 1, which is itself the successor of 0. While it's not in any modern paper, this fact can be found in virtually any introductory text on mathematical logic or set theory. I've already said all of this. Stop repeating your made-up non-mathematical nonsense analogy, it is nothing but an invalid, irrelevant analogy wherein you don't eve know what you're talking about. It is absurd, off-topic, and nonsensical. --Cheeser1 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So far, you do not seem to have grasped what the analogy is about or what it is trying to establish. Given this, I hope you will excuse me if I do not take your evaluation of it too serious. I am aware that you have "said all of this" - but the fact still remains that it is all irrelevant to my point. Try reading it again.
You claim that "2 follows 1" is in modern textbooks. This seems fair enough. What about similar statements on other numbers (such as 54 or 124)? Can you not see the difficulty in finding a source for these claims? Lundse 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a multitude of books on number theory as well as many reference books that contain lengthy tables of solutions to mathematical functions. I still maintain that Emo is a subculture and that the current title of this article sucks, however I must concur with Cheeser1 at this point: without an adequate source the title shouldn't be changed. Neitherday 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection to renaming the article is not simply that I am unconvinced how much of a subculture it is, but also that the article seems to be primarily about emo as a slang term. If the article is updated so that it primarily gives information about the emo subculture (e.g., information about the history of the subculture, things like clubs or festivals, and referenced information on what the people actually wear), rather than things like stereotypes, then it might be worth renaming. Mdwh 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree. Only, I also believe there is no reason to have the Emo_(slang) article at all. Lets have an article on what it denotes instead. And I think we should make the move and then worry about the content (otherwise we will never make a good article as there is only so much one can write on a slang word).Lundse 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel it's better to adjust the article first ("slang" can cover the subculture too). Alternatively you or someone could work on a test article (I think you can put them as sub-pages in your user page, or something?) to see what people think. Mdwh 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that might work too. I am afraid, though, that good content for a page on the emo subculture might not be accepted in the article. A userspace article might be the solution, but then I am afraid not enough editors would want to add content (given the danger that it never becomes used). That said, I am all for expanding this article to cover the emo subculture better and then making the move when it becomes more clear that this is what the article has become. Given the controversies, I just thought it might be better to make it clear that such content is desirable. Lundse 11:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald [12], pg.37: "...and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." From Authenticity, Subcultural Capital, and the Rise of an Internet Scene by J.P. Williams [13]: "The punk subculture and its offshoots, including hardcore, emo, and straightedge, have been conceptualized primarily as music- and style-based subcultures." From Editorial: On suicide and subcultures by Graham Martin in Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health (AeJAMH), Volume 5, Issue 3, 2006 [14]: "There have also been suggestions that influences may not have been just personal, but rather that identifying with Emo culture may in itself influence toward suicidal behaviours. / We should really begin by examining whether any subculture increases the risk for suicide." and "...is said to be high in the group, and a key feature of Emo culture. Of course, such associations with suicidality are not just found in youth subculture...." JJL 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One is a primary (nonobjective) source, and not a sociological authority. We are supposed to use reliable, authoritative, and objective sources. Furthermore, to characterize the group of people as a subculture is an analytical claim - one that cannot be made in a primary source (only a secondary source will do). See here for the relevant part of OR policy. The other is an editorial by a psychiatrist. Editorials are not peer-reviewed, and are not considered accepted research in the field (which would be psychiatry anyway, not sociology). --Cheeser1 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
We're fortunate to have such an authority on authorities here. JJL 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but in either event, I'm just here pointing out what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, it's not like I'm any sort of expert, since all I'm doing is typing Wikipolicy out to everybody. --Cheeser1 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well Done

Good article, keep on pushing bcz you're doing great. Suggested linkable "encyclopedics": "a posture that recalls Beat culture", "literary and Romantic orientation" (check original definition of romantic, it's there), "asexual and anti-glamour, in contrast to seductive and theatrical Goth style", also check angst and 1800s German poets. Maybe there's something in some CD liner books?
You probably shouldn't point out that those sneakers really make your feet hurt, which enhances the aura of suffering, but it would be funny.
I can't add to this article cz I'm old, this is your deal. I wanted to know, and the dictionary wasn't doing it for me. Good job, thank you!
~ Otterpops 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article looks good - you have improved it a great deal!

A respectable article now. Good work! --Mattisse 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The new source, seen strictly through the rules

As has been established ad nauseum on these pages, I believe the source [[15]] to be good and sufficient reason to make the move from Emo_(slang) to Emo_(subculture). Other reasons to do this includes that by having an article on the slang term which describes the "group of people" out there, we are already making the claim that these people exist and "slang" becomes a weasel word at best. Also, no contributors I have communicated with seems to believe emo does not denote a group of people (making the alternative "social group" a great compromise). Lastly, keeping this article about the slang word means a lot of good material on the social group gets cut out be reference to the fact that "this is not about the slang word", which is a shame as a lot of this might be good information.

In the past, theese discussions have grinded to a halt, once with a vote which did not secure consensus for a move. I personally do not feel there were any good causes not to make the move, nor have I been able to discuss matters satisfyingly here - sorry to those sick of seeing the discussion going on so long :-). So I'll try the policy route. To summarize, the source is a "paper presented at a conference" and it has been peer-reviewed. We have the abstract for the paper and we know its primary author and presenter is a professor of sociology and that it was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

The relevant policies are:

WP:SPS - is basically against self-published sources. My opponent in this debate so far has himself cited this policy, and while the analogy between non-printed, peer-reviewed paper and eg. blogged content is not entirely without its problems, then this is a clear case of a source being "semi-published". But the policy also says:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

First of, we know this is a professor of sociology and he is published in the field. Regarding the end warning, then we do not have a better source for the claim, but nor do we even seem to have a single individual who actually disagrees with it! On the strength of this, I think we can use the source.

Conference proceedings [[16]]. There has been a discussion on something similar before. It warns of non-peer-reviewed conferences (not a problem here) and less-than-reputable-conferences (not a problem either). But you can read it for yourselves...

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Says:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

While I would love to quote from a book on my shelf (at this point, after long discussion - initially I would never have found it necesarry), then I am of course aware that the source we do have is somewhat less than this. I quote this policy to make it clear that while the former is prefered, then "mainstream publications" are also accepted. I maintain that the annual meeting of sociologists is a better source than a newspapers article on a sociology topic. This is counter to claims made here on this page that we absolutely need an academic, published source.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts. Is really a policy on math, physics and medicine, but I believe we can extrapolate some things from it (although we cannot wield it like a bible). Specifically, the policy on history clearly recommends certain abstract services. This policy does make it clear that:

Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a third-party source, and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material.

Now, our source here is mentioned in three places (and thats just the web, mind you): [[17]], [[18]], [[19]] - all of them within academia - one (sorry, the) sociological asociation, and within two university sites. So there has been editorial control, as the "peer-reviewed" bit also hints at... The policy also says:

Similarly, material presented at a conference may not merit publication in a scientific journal.

This is of course true, but I think that given the conference in question, this paper is not without merits. It has also been pointed out that the paper may have been totally unacceptable, etc. etc. While this is true (of any source, published or not), I tend to think that "peer-reviewed" is more important than "put to actual paper". I believe this is in the spirit of the policies and trying to use the best source.

The first one is of course most pertinent. I hope to get some comments and evaluations of my arguments. Lundse 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says Academic and peer-reviewed publications and respected mainstream publications.. Key word "publications." This was never published. Presentation of anything at any conference qualifies as self-publication. The fact that the abstract of a manuscript is mentioned at:
  1. a list of conference abstracts,
  2. a different, redundant, list of conference abstracts from the same website,
  3. the author's personal (self-published) website, and
  4. the other author's personal (self-published) website
none of this qualifies this as published in any way. "Academia" does not extend to the personal websites of professors. I could post anything I want on my department's website, does that mean it's academically verified??? No! All it means is that I happen to have access to dot-edu webspace, like thousands of other people, all of whom can post whatever they want, whenever they want, through the magic of FTP (let's not even go into the fact that personal websites are not a secure or reliable source of information either). Professor's blogs are not reliable (per WP:SPS). Nor are their manuscripts, conference abstracts, or personal websites. You see, the ASA publishes 10 journals [20], and this article was published in 0 of them. The fact that the conference listed some unknown type of review is irrelevant. Do you know how those criteria compare to the criteria for publication? No. Do we know if the manuscript has meet the criteria for publication? No. Is the manuscript even finished? No (it's a manuscript). For all we know, this form "Review type: peer review" is asking for review, not saying that it has been reviewed. None of us have any idea what kind of review process, if any, this manuscript has been through, or if has passed any such review. In academics, and in the eyes of Wikipedia policy on academic works, the only peer-review that matters is the review that approves your article for publication. Until that happens, the work is not accepted in the field and does not constitute a reliable source. I know you want to trust anybody with a PhD, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Finally, we don't even have the paper. All you have is a citation. Do you know what the contents of the paper are? No. It is not available for anyone to read because it has not been published. Maybe before it's published he will change the terminology to something other than subculture. Maybe it will never be published. Maybe he says somewhere, in a footnote or sidebar, that "emo" isn't really a subculture, but that he's using those methods of analysis anyway. This latter conjecture is reasonable, given the conference abstract stating: "While the study of subcultures has largely been abandoned by American sociologists over the last two decades, we propose a methodological approach that takes seriously Fine and Kleinman’s (1979) call for the examination of subcultural artifacts in the context of an interactionist framework.". For all we know, this is a new and untested kind of analysis, and it appears that this topic has been "largely abandoned" by sociologists - meaning that this is not necessarily within the framwork of accepted theory. In the end, it is just not a reliable source, no matter how much it agrees with you and no matter how much you want it to be. Sorry. --Cheeser1 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I will try to respond to your objections on an indicidual basis. If possible, please respond to each in kind.
You say that RS says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications and respected mainstream publications". What does this mean? Are you claiming that these are the only sources we can use on wikipedia? Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You claim that "Presentation of anything at any conference qualifies as self-publication". This ignores what I said regarding the stated reason for this, namely that we cannot trust it because of the lack of "editorial control". Since the article is peer-reviewed, this reason becomes moot (see below). Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You then belittle the mentions this article got and I gladly concede your points except where noted otherwise. But they are not terribly relevant, as all I wanted to show was that this article is not made up by the allacademic website (a fact I hope you will concede and which do not require academic sources). Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: "The fact that the conference listed some unknown type of review is irrelevant." Then I simply disagree, I am also annoyed that we do not know how this peer-review happened, but we must assume that when the American Association of Sociologists call a paper peer-reviewed on their online conference system, then this carries some weight. Your guesses about how wrong he might be, how lacking this process is, etc. are all arguments from ignorance and carries no weight. I say we trust the association on this, unless we have reason not to. You further claim: "In academics, and in the eyes of Wikipedia policy on academic works, the only peer-review that matters is the review that approves your article for publication." Regarding academics, I will gladly concede you point for now - I am not trying to write a paper here. Regarding wikipedia, I would like to see the quote from policy which says we can only use published sources. Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You then go on to make a lot of other guesswork, saying the paper might not say what its abstract says. This is again pure ad ignorantiam - we can guess until the end of the world, but at the end of the day we have to go by our best guess. Lets assume that a professor in sociology, at a sociology conference, uses the word subculture like a sociologist, shall we? Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You also make a quick personal attack "I know you want to trust anybody with a PhD". Please stop doing this, and stop assuming you know anything about me and my academic skills. I would also like to note that in matters concerning sociology, then given a random stranger on the internet on one side (thats you) and a sociology student and a professor of sociology on the other (the two papers we have found for you), then I think I am going to trust the later. Let me know if you find fault with this logic, apart from simply attacking me. Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You then proceed to sow more doubt about the article. It is all guesswork and argument from ignorance again, of course, but your point about how the theoretical framework for the analysis of the subculture somehow make the analysized subculture not a subculture at all I just have to pick out. He is not using this analysis to come to the fact that this is a subculture, it seems that within sociology, this is entirely unproblematic. Why is it again you are a better authority? Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to something you failed to comment. Namely the first policy I cited, which clearly states that even self-published material can be a reliable source (given certain conditions which obviously apply here). Now, since you yourself claim that this article is self-published, and you have mentioned no problems with the two conditions (expert and published in the field), can I assume that it is all right that we simply apply this policy? Or is this the one case were we should ignore policy? Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have asked other people to enter the debate at this time, as I think two people arguing this much is... too much. I am being up front about this, since I am not trying to "stuff votes" (which would be pointless here anyhow), but because me and Cheeser1 seem to be talking past each other or something. I left messages on talk pages of people from a closed AfD [[21]], who all seemed to have opinions on whether this is a term and/or a subculture. Please let me know if I forgot someone, as I do not want a oneside debate, just a better on. Lundse 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I have decided to stay out of discussions on this subject. I am now neutral, based on the negative history of these discussions. Remember, silence is consensus, so if fewer people than you'd like have a unanimous opinion, you have generated consensus. J-ſtan TalkContribs 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although I a bit vexed by your last sentence - are you saying there can be a consensus even if only a few people agree? I don't disagree or anything, I just don't see how this applies here and am a bit unsure of what you mean. Lundse 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The actual words are "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." There has definitely been enough exposure to the community. So let's say you and 3 other people agree that emo is a subculture. If you and the three others agree that it should be moved, and you let that opinion sit for a few days, and no one challenges it, there is consensus. So far, you and Cheeser1 are the only participants in this section. If you two can agree that emo is a subculture and should be titled as such, and no one else participates here after a while, you can move it. If anyone gives you a hard time about waiting for more opinions, it's not your fault that no one else made their opinion known. J-ſtan TalkContribs 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I just got lost in the sentence. I thought it was pretty clear that me and Cheeser are not going to reach a consensus alone :-) Lundse 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


I have not been making any "guesswork" - I did not say that "review type: peer review" meant any of those things. I simply stated that it might mean anything. "Article needs peer review" "article has been peer reviewed" and "article has passed peer review." Even if we assume it's the latter, it does not imply that this peer review is anything like the review required for publication. Finally, please note that this "exception" you are citing explicitly warns you However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. While not a "conspiracy theory" this could easily be considered a fringe theory. Not a single other sociologist has, as far as we know, published a work postulating that emo is a subculture. We have found the conference abstract of a pair of young sociologists who are studying what is admittedly not the focus of sociological study in America. Their claims have not been published, and like I said, until you have the actual paper, it's really a bad idea to assume that their definition of subculture is standard. One can apply subcultural methods to study many groups of people - a sociologist may say, in an aside, that they are using the term even when they are stretching or even defying its boundaries. But there's no way to know that, because you expect us to cite a conference abstract.
The fact is, there's only three ways we could accept this as reliable: if it were published, or if it were not objected to, or if these theories were somehow not likely to be reported by other experts in the field already. That is what the clause is for. Many sociologists study American culture, including popular music etc. Things like hip hop culture are widely studied. If we had a conference abstract stating "the hip hop culture etc..." we could easily find another reliable, published source instead of having to cite a self-published abstract. But this is not the case here. Despite many people studying popular American culture, not a single article or book out there has stated that emo is a subculture. Why? Apparently, no one saw fit to make such a claim and get it published, despite ample opportunity. The fact that there is only one paper, that might be peer reviewed, whose peer review might resemble the peer review required for publication - this is not what the exception in WP:SPS is for. And please note that in SPITE of these guidelines, conference abstracts are not considered reliable, in general, which tells us that your appeal to the SPS exception is not how WP:RS/WP:V are interpreted. --Cheeser1 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You claim not to have made any guesswork, then go on to say that you did point out a "might". This is what I meant. No amount of "might" proves anything (excuse the pun) - within academia, we call this arguing from ignorance. Your claim that "peer-reviewed" could mean "article needs peer review" is not guesswork, though, it is simply laughable.
You keep on guessing, then, that maybe his use of the term is wrong and he knows this. This is again arguing from ignorance (X might be true, let us assume X). The fact is that we have a sociologist (I know its really three) who does use this term and does not qualify it on his own web page, nor in the abstract he has submitted to the national association. No amount of "maybe he did not mean what he ostensibly says" is going to change the fact that this is the source we have. Your pointing out that the policy wants us to be careful and use a better source if we have it is completely irrelevant, we have no other source - and this is not a sign that emo is not a subculture, it is a sign that it has not been studied much within sociology. This in itself proves nothing, despite your claims this is included in the policy (lets see a quote) - and no, the quote you did supply is not a carte blanche to dismiss all self-published sources which you disagree with, it is a incentive to keep looking.
You claim to know what the "exception" in the SPS policy is for - could you give us an example of how you do believe this exception can come into play? Or do you just want to ignore this policy altogether?
To sum up: We have no sources that this is not a subculture. We have a student and a professor's paper which use the term subculture about emo. We are not talking about inclusion of a unconfirmed theory, we are only out to find out whether "emo" is called a "subculture" within sociological sources.
You do raise one good point - that maybe sociology does not in general study emo and this can be taken as a sign it is not a relevant topic for that field. This is, on its face, ad ignorantiam; but it could be bolstered by eliminating other reasons emo is not studied (such as "new field", "not taken serious because this is 'just kids'" or other possible reasons. A milder version of this objection might fare better - if we see sociologists discussing emo without using the word subculture and/or using an incompatible term then we would have a good positive reason not to make the move, as the good source we have is not "strong" enough. Realizing this, I googled "sociology emo". I found these: a Phd who discusses with her students whether emo is a subculture or counterculture (no, thats not an incompatible term) [22], a student looking for sources on the "emo subculture" [23], a student not using the term, but who prefers "sterotype" (not incompatible, but indicative that the use is not widely accepted) [24], a blog calling it a "culture" (not incompatible) [25], another post calling it a culture [26] (not incompatible). The best one I found was from a newsletter [27] mentioning a paper on emo which does not use any term related to subculture: "Punk as Historical Source Genre: Constructions and Applications of Punk in Emo" - do you want to use this to argue your point? That we have one (ok?) source not taking a stand, many non-usable sources saying there is some connection or not mentioning the classification at all and one student and one professor+friends who claim emo is a subculture - and we are somehow meant to use the one newsletter and say "this source is good, so lets assume that since it does not mention that emo is a subculture, it isn't; while completely disregarding the professor over there? Lundse 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Lundse, this is nonsense. I do not have to prove that the source is unreliable. It is assumed to be unreliable unless you can show that it is reliable. Likewise, I don't have to prove that emo is not a subculture. It is assumed to not be one unless you can show that it is. This is ludicrous. The burden of the proof is on inclusion - if a claim cannot be proven, it is always excluded. I do not need to prove that it should be excluded. --Cheeser1 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not including these because they are good sources, I am including them because these are the best sources against my claim.

It seems clear to me that this is indeed a (pop) subculture. Since Emo is commonly viewed alongside Goth and Punk in my experience (which means what I hear from my teenage daughter), the presence of the pages Goth subculture and Punk subculture and maybe even Youth subculture seem quite relevant. The academic reference helps, but the treatment of Goths and Punks here on WP is what's convincing to me. I would suggest moving it to Emo subculture (no parens). At this point calling it (merely) slang seems a bit dismissive. JJL 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been several users who contend that this is "clear," "obvious," or what they "think." That is original research. Also, you cannot cite the "treatment of [other articles] here on WP" as a source. Those articles could be wrong - would we want to repeat their mistakes? Those articles could also be "treated" differently because they are, frankly, different subjects that have been studied by sociologists and (published, academically reliable) works have called each a subculture. This is not the case here. --Cheeser1 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How about we be bold, ignore all rules, and move it to Emo subculture? Even if just as a test run. If we hear few complaints (Cheeser, we all know your opinion on the subject), we have generated consensus. If not, we move it back, and we'll see where it goes from there? J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would just move it back. The use of the term is not backed by reliable sources, for which reason I staunchly oppose use of the term. "Silence implies consensus" does not generalize to "if only a few people or only one person complains, it's still consensus." Wikipedia is not a democracy, so outnumbering the non-consenting people and/or having very few of them does not matter. Especially when the non-consenting opinion is based on policy, while the bold consensus actions are based on ignoring all rules. If you make bold edits and they are reverted, then you are supposed to work towards consensus and/or compromise by discussing the issue. We're in the middle of that, and I don't think it's appropriate to try to force a consensus by sticking the contentious material back into the article to attract people's attention.
The fact that we've been discussing this for so long and only one dubious source can be found - what does that mean? Lundse has been dragging out this argument with inapplicable, incorrect analogies and continual assertions that this solitary, unpublished conference abstract of a manuscript is reliable. I don't see alot of consensus or sourcing for this move - moving it in the hopes of generating more discussion/consensus would appear to be an unnecessary drastic edit, which would at best show that people don't care enough either way or don't want to participate in this discussion. It doesn't prove the point I think you intend it to: if we move it and only a few people object/revert, that does not establish that there is consensus for the move.
After all, if such an interpretation of "silence is consensus" works, then I could simply say that Lundse is the only one who supports citing this source, and since no one else has said anything about this in the last two weeks but him, I'll assume they support the article as it is now, therefore the source is excluded based on WP:CONS (disregarding my argument based on the relevant policy, WP:RS). The fact is, it only applies when silence is silence. Neither application of the "silence is consensus" principle is correct. The point of this "silence" clause is to explain that totally uncontested edits are assumed to have consensus support until challenged (even by a single editor). --Cheeser1 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cheeser, when such a small number of editors are involved, I am not going to go for consensus when just one is so vocally against it. That said, his above comments that I only want to ignore all rules and that my analogies, which he does not want to try to understand, are incorrect are of course bordering on personal attacks (as usual). But there does come a time where we have to ignore a single user who will not enter the discussion but just persists in strawmanning and attacking the other side of the debate. As Cheeser said, this is not a democracy and we are not obliged to listen to someone who will not explain his views. Lundse 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I have explained my views repeatedly and thoroughly, and it's not up to you to decide to ignore me. We could just as easily ignore you - you're the only one who continues to insist that these sources are reliable. You are also out of line - when I tell you that your analogies are irrelevant, and that you are being pedantic, it's not a personal attack, it's true. You are examining analogies in an unnecessarily literal and detailed sense, contributing nothing to the discussion. That's why I asked you repeatedly to stop. I even made it clear that I wanted nothing but a constructive discussion - something we were not getting. I had already repeatedly and thoroughly explained myself based on policy, the analogies were totally unnecessary and were creating undue conflict. Please do not "summarize" the discussion in this fashion, as if it were for the benefit of everyone involved, so that we can all conclude to ignore Cheeser and get on with things. It is misleading and demonstrates a lack of good faith assumptions. End this line of discussion immediately. You are making unfounded and unnecessary accusations, in order to discredit my interpretation of policy and try to end this discussion prematurely. --Cheeser1 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There are other academic references, as in these pdfs which both use the precise phrase "emo subculture" (with varying capitalization of Emo/emo): [28] (Emo, short for "emotional music", is an evolving and complex American youth subculture that listens to a specific genre of music"), [29]. A Google scholar search on emo scholar turns up other references to Emo as a subculture. In any event, to call it merely a slang term no longer captures its impact. Being bold is fine by me, though calling this consensus may be an exaggeration. JJL 02:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we now have Google on our side. Can't get any more reliable than that :) Please add those sources that state emo is a subculture. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are also unpublished. Both has been discussed already, and one of them, by the way, a "thesis" completed for a bachelor's degree - unpublished and NOT by any sort of expert. And please note that if we're talking about "emo music" we have a separate article for that, emo (music), which is of course, about a kind of music set squarley in hardcore punk, whose subcultural status is an unrelated matter for that article to consider. Let's not get our wires crossed. --Cheeser1 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Self publishing policy is not as significant when dealing with popular culture Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction. These current sources, through virtue of being actual sociological writings are far more reliable than the miscellany of self-published blog and casual website references used at present. I would suggest however that another poll be taken, these sources directly mentioned in that poll, before such a significant change occurs - as previous experience has shown, that despite vocal appearances objections to the subculture phrasings do exist beyond Cheeser.--ZayZayEM 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would note that this is not a matter of pop-culture. If the object in question is the "emo subculture" then this becomes a sociological matter. Note that sociologists are precisely the people who study pop culture. If we have an article on an element of pop-culture prima facie, then we need only consult sources that can reliably report pop culture (newspapers, magazines, etc). If we want to make sociological claims about a subculture, then our sources must have sociological authority - it makes the matter an academic one. --Cheeser1 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to note that Cheeser has never established that we need academic sources for all claims which has to do with the humanities. Also, all the sources we do have with ties to academia support the move. Lundse 07:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sociology is a social science, and even if it were "the humanities," it is still an sociological claim requiring a suitably reliable expert source - the published work of a sociologist. Also, take note because I've said it twice already, personal content on .edu websites is not reliable. Being on a .edu page does not count as publication, verifiability, or reliability. --Cheeser1 07:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Can both you guys state in about one or two sentences what you want done (or not done, for that matter). It might assist those of us who are trying to understand what's going on here, but don't have enough time to read the mass of text up there. Thanks Cowicide 07:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, good idea: I think the article should be named Emo_(subculture) or Emo_(social group). The reasons are:
There is a very obvious topic to be covered and so far I have heard no better description for it than these two terms, "slang" is a weird way of putting it because it denotes the thing which the article should be about and is similar to having a Car_(word) article - it also suggests a bias that the group should for some reason not to be taken as serious as eg. punk.
We have a pretty good source (and lots of worse ones) where sociologists use the term "subculture" about emo. We have no sources to the contrary, nor any sources that it is something else (apart from a word, which is obvious and does not contradict it being a subculture). Lundse 08:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
See here (or above, where it was posted). I will try to summarize (accurately) what has gone on: Users suggested a move. It did not pass, due in part to the fact that no reliable source establishes this group of people as a subculture. There was also discussion (by Mdwh, for example) of the fact that this article is not strictly about the group of people, but a broader subject. Lundse has repeatedly revived this discussion, citing the same unreliable sources (conference abstracts from unpublished manuscripts, self-published papers from an undergraduate's personal website, etc). These sources don't meet the burden of WP:RS - and if the claim were so "obvious" or so clearly true, as Lundse states, he'd be able to find a more reliable source (something published, of course, would be what meets WP:RS). Some of his argument has also incorrectly presumed that he can simply concoct some sort of "common use" or "lamen's" version of the term subculture (which is a highly specific sociological term), for use here. Another argument of his has been to simply say it's allegedly obvious or common knowledge that emo is a subculture. None of these arguments are valid, based on policy, and he has even suggested ignoring all rules in order to introduce unreliably sourced information into the article (which is not what that policy is intended for). --Cheeser1 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a few misconceptions here which I have not been able to clear up so far:
Cheeser assumes that "selfpublished" necessarily means a source does not meet RS - this is simply not true. I have shown him the policy which says this (WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.").
He also assumes that an obvious claim would have sources - despite being shown counterexamples (eg. that the claim "54 follows 53" is obviously corrent but not sourced directly). If "subculture" is trivially the right label for emo, then we cannot assume that sociologist write this in papers, but rather that they would simply assume this (and maybe writing it as non-problematic in their abstracts).
Cheeser claims "some of my argument" hinges on a "laymens definition" of the term. This is incorrect - I tried convincing Cheeser with a different argument which had the existence of this term as a premise. I am not retracting this claim and argument, I am simply not going to argue it with Cheeser as he seems adamant that "subculture" can only be used in its sociological definition.
Regarding my argument that this is common knowledge, then it was more of an appeal. Given the burden of proof that subbculture can be applied to emo (a phd., a bachelor student, one professor, numerous blogs) then I said that anyone would come to this conclusion - regardless of whether it lives up to specific policies. I am appealing to Cheesers better knowledge that this information is correct and saying we should, yes, WP:IGNORE the rules which says we cannot include it - in order to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia (which is exactly what the policy is for). Lundse 09:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You continue to cite WP:SPS despite the fact that it makes clear that this exception is generally concerned with uncontested material that we just can't find a better source for - if something is contested, and the best you can come up with is a SPS, you should really start to wonder "Gosh, why hasn't thus been published?" Your math analogy is still wrong because the number 54 is explicitly defined as the successor of 53 in dozens, if not hundreds, of texts. There are reliable sources stating this, and no one disputes that 53+1=54. Your claim about emo, on the other hand, is (1) not obvious, (2) not explicitly stated in a published source, and (3) disputed. STOP making this analogy. It is distracting from the issue at hand, not really analogous, and you really shouldn't be demanding that I answer to all of your analogoes - I've already explained my argument in terms of this article. If you really went and made this objection at 54 (number), you'd be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The fact that you assert that you would, hypothetically, do so is just as irrelevant. If you want to discuss this article, discuss this article. I've made my points without using analogies. Do not demand that I make them in the context of the analogies you've (incorrectly) presented. --Cheeser1 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Regarding SPS, then policies and their exceptions do not suddenly become moot because someone (not even you) disagree. If we had some other source which disagreed, then you are perfectly right that we should not allow a self-published source. But we do not, we just have you (do you even, at this point, claim that emo is not called a subculture within sociology)?
Regarding the math analogy, then I am getting confused. Are you claiming that we do have good, academic sources for every number up to, say, 1000, defining it explicitly? And no, I am not asking if this fits the definition of integers, we know it does and that is not the point. Lets take it step by step if it is so difficult - do we have such sources?
Please also onte that I am not demanding anything of you - I am asking you to address my points instead of just outfitting me with some weird opinion and then attacking that. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then there is no pressure from my side - you are just writing yourself out of the consensus-seeking process. Also, you are of course right in claiming that it would be disruptive to actually demand these sources - eben though it would be in line with policy. So it seems there is a time to IGNORE? (Do you begin to see how the analogy may have a point relevant to the current discussion?). Lundse 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Since arguing this point here is just not getting us anywhere, I say we open an RfC on this article, to determine how the community feels about this. J-ſtanTalkContribs 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I don't have a lot of experience with the procedure... Lundse 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move to Emo_(subculture)

Better description for the topic, emo is a social group of actually extant people and not just a word


I (Lundse) initiated this RFC, after suggestion by J-stan. I would equally support a move to Emo_(social group), although I will argue for "subculture" below. My reasons are:

Better article. Having an article on a slang word is not all that interesting in itself, and does not allow for a lot of content, which we could and should add to wikipedia regarding this phenomenon. This content (on how the group dresses, how they are viewed, what they typically believe, etc.) does not fit under Emo_(music) except as a note and a link to a fuller article. Retaining Emo_(slang) unfairly stops us from adding good content, so anny alternative which makes it clear that this is about a social group and not just a word would be fine by me. This is my main reason.

Common usage. I will point this out, despite its non-existent sourcing, since there has been confusion in the past over what I mean. It is important to note that this is a distinct argument from those below. Here, I am claiming that in addition to its original, primary use, then "subculture" is also used "on the street" and hence that we do not need a sociological source for this, but that a newspaper article or similar would be fine. I further claim that we have such non-academic sources and therefore that the move should be made. This argument does rely on WP:IGNORE (not all of my arguments do) - I am asking the community to apply common sense. I accept, of course, that if we had a sociological source saying different, then we should not rely on this argument.

Denotation analogy. This is basically an argument made up to support the "better article" reason. Consider that we had an article called "Car_(word)", this would obviously be absurd and whether (policy or not). So why is this article different (I assume we agree that there are actually people out there which fit the emo sobriquet)? This analogy fails if there is some difference, and only goes to show that the current "slang" designation is bad, not what we should replace it with. I would be happy if we could just agree that this needs to happen.

OK synthesis. This is another argument which does rely on WP:IGNORE. It simply states that sometimes we need to go WP:SYN because the case is overwhelmingly clear. For example, it would be disruptive wikilawyering to demand a source for "123 is the natural number following 122 and preceding 124." and all similar statements - even though this is obviously a synthesis stemming from the definition of integers. We have a definition of a subculture under which emo fits about as well as 123 fits "number", so I really see no reason behind all this debate. I am not going to defend this argument further, here (except if it is strawmanned against, which I have had enough of lately) - I am including it to make it clear which arguments do depend on the IGNORE policy and which do not.

We have sources. I have already admitted the sources are not perfect, they would not be enough to add a new, unknown theory to an article or to defeat any well-sourced claim (such as a source saying emo was not a subculture). But since we have no other sources, and those that we have are good enough for inclusion. I have been told time and again that we need a proper, academic source which is published and peer-reviewed - but I do not believe this is the case. We are not making a huge academic claim here, we are just reporting how sociologists use the word. This we do have sources for:

An abstract service used by the American Association of Sociologists annual convention tells us of a paper called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’" [30] and the abstract confirms the usage a few times ("...“emo,” a youth-based musical subculture... "). The paper is peer-reviewed and written by "Cunningham, David" (a published professor of sociology), "Hardman, Emilie" (a major in Sociology and Communication Studies) and "Spinney, Ann. " (an Assistant Professor of Music and Irish Studies). It was presented at the annual conference and its existence is verified on a couple of private webpages of the writers.
The relevant policy is WP:SPS, which claims the reason we do not as a rule allow self-published material is that anyone could then "...claim to be an expert in a certain field." But it also states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is clearly the case here, and neither the policy nor anyone else has notified me of another reason we cannot use a source such as this - the only reason behind the policies prima facie rejectin of such sources fail here, according to the source itself.
Technically, the paper is not even self-published. The abstract service in question is a way for the conference staff to keep track of the conference papers, events, etc. The abstract (as a source in itself) was therefore published by the American Association of Sociologists! I think this makes it a pretty good source, even if it is not (as an abstract) academic in its own right.
I further believe peer-reviewed and presented at a conference the major association in the field means more than "put to paper". Some may disagree, but I think this a good place to ignore the rules and accept this source.
There are other sources, but they are not as good as this one. These include newspaper articles: [31] [32] [33], a phd student (self-published) [34], the mention of other papers using the term about emo from a newsletter from a university [35] and a whole bunch of websites, forums and blogs of course. Nowhere do we find a claim, by a sociologist or otherwise, that emo is not a subculture or that it should be designated something which is incompatible with this (culture and counterculture do come up). It is this rather glaring imbalance in the sources which I humbly suggest tells us something about how the term is used, by sociologists and laymen. I really can see no reason wikipedia needs to be different than the rest of the world (even if it does violate policy, which I do not believe it does).
As a point, what sources do we have that say that Emo is merely a slang term? I am in support of the move, because sociologists refer to Emo as a subculture, and who really knows subcultures better than those who have deeply studied it? Also, I believe that moving it to Emo subculture will give it more credibility as more than a word, as titling it as a slang term puts it on the hanging edge of violating WP:NEO. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this. I have already addressed every one of these points, but will summarize once again:
  1. The name of the article does not prevent you from adding any content. WP:RS does. If you want to add content that is tantamount to saying that emo is a subculture, it needs reliable sourcing. You should not be making move requests in the hopes of putting particular kinds of information into an article.
  2. "Subculture" is a sociological term. It may be used by unqualified people to make claims they are not qualified to make, often about groups with which they are involved, but it is a sociological term nontheless. You cannot conjure up some secondary definition of the word subculture and presume to use it in an encyclopedia. People in general tend to misuse or misunderstand technical terms from any subject, be it science, sociology, medicine, or anything else. That doesn't allow us to misuse them too.
  3. Emo is a slang term. Emo is a music term. Cone is a geometry term. These all make perfectly good sense because these parenthetical words are for DISAMBIGUATION. Your use of "Car (word)" is absurd, because every word is a word, and such a parenthetical would serve no disambiguation purposes. This is an inapplicable analogy. Emo (slang) provides adequate disambiguation. Its characterization as "slang" has been sourced.
  4. Another argument relying on WP:IGNORE - you intend to use WP:IGNORE in two different places, both times to violate WP:RS by introducing disputed original research into the article. And don't tell me it's not original research - you prpose that we ignore WP:RS to make these claims, which means it most certainly is. And you again hearken back to irrelevant analogies. The set of integers is defined in hundreds of mathematical texts. This irrelevant analogy is (1) not disputed, (2) properly sourced and in no way constitutes synthesis, and (3) obvious. None of this applies to your argument, and you cannot continue to claim "well if you exclude my claims, we better go muck up all these mathematical articles." It's a hypothetical disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point (through flawed reasoning, no less).
  5. That source is unreliable. Conference abstracts constitute self published sources. SPS has a small exception clause that is for undisputed information, and even then, it strongly warns us that if the best we can do is an SPS, we should really start to wonder why no one has published on this matter. There is no evidence that this paper was peer reviewed. It indicates "review type: peer review." Does that mean it was peer reviewed? Possibly. Was the manuscript peer reviewed at the same level as publications? Possibly. But we don't know for sure. That's why we (are supposed to) rely on published sources only. JStan is mistaken. "Sociologists refer to emo as a subculture" is a false impression he is getting - a few unpublished manuscripts (some by undergraduate students) have possibly used the term. We don't even have the text of this possibly-peer-reviewed draft of a paper that has never been published. We are expected to cite its abstract. This is highly inappropriate, and fails WP:RS. And do not continue to insist that we have to find a source to prove that it is not a subculture. This is absurdity - no one would write such a paper, and a source is required only to include content, such as what you are proposing. Exclusion of content is automatic until a reliable source is found.
I'm afraid this is a case of "oh just trust-the-experts" syndrome. Lundse has wanted from the start to move this article, and after digging and digging, after drawing out this conversation 4 weeks past the last move nomination (which did not pass), he is attempting to revive the discussion in a more formal way by requesting a comment. He has demonstrated that he knows very little about sociology (he thinks it's a part of the humanities), but insists that he knows that an abstract of the ASA is peer-reviewed thoroughly enough for publication - despite the fact that we have no assurances that this is the case (and it has not, not, not been published). He says "but it's the ASA, surely we can trust their conference abstracts." No, we can't. All academic conferences are held by academic groups. That still doesn't make conference abstracts reliable. We do not know what peer review, if any, this underwent, because it was not published. He is conveniently using WP:IGNORE to violate WP:RS in the hopes of adding dipsuted material to the article, because it's what he believes and he found an unpublished manuscript's conference abstract that might possibly have something similar to say. This is not a reliable source, no matter how he bends the rules. He insists that we're just "documenting how sociologists use the term subculture to describe emo" but until they do so in a scholarly publication, then this assertion is false. I propose that we summarily reject this move: there is no merit to Lundse's claims and we settled this only a few weeks ago. It's far too soon for a re-nomination, especially when this is a dragged-out version of the same discussion.
I also dispute the "it's not just a word" statement. The article is about a slang term that describes many things, and in case no one noticed, all articles' titles are words. These include a group of people, who are already discussed on this page. The fact is, what Lundse wants is to upgrade that group's status to "subculture" instead of "loosely associated group" - something he's advocated from the start, because he is of this opinion. Furthermore, this proposed move will exclude all the other content, and make the article smaller. Besides narrowing the scope of the article, this will also require us to use sources about this subculture (if it were one). Since we only have a handful of unreliable sources, this new article could not be reliably sourced. We already have sources that barely merit inclusion in a pop-culture article. They'd never pass as refs for an article about a social science topic. --Cheeser1 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser, I know you are frustrated, and I am willing to take a break from this to let us both cool down. But please, for the umpteenth time stop with the attacks. It is not persuading me (on the contrary) and I hope it does not persuade anyone else. Noone needs to be told that I have English as my second language and therefore went wrong in calling sociology a department of the humanities. It is not relevant. Saying I have "oh just trust-the-experts" syndrome is not helpful either. And neither is misinterpreting my analogies and still' claiming I want to use IGNORE for everything (I even told you specifically where I want to do this and where I do not, this is strawmanning). I will try to turn down the snideness in turn...
But you do respond to my points one at a time, which is great, I will respond back below:
  1. You claim the name of the article does not prevent content - this is plain wrong. I should not add content on math under a car article and I should not add content on the emo subculture and their way of dressing under an article which is only trying to explain the word emo as a slang term. So yes, we should move the article in order to allow better content in it. Or we could just start an article on the actual social group... Your claim that this would make the scope of the article smaller is pretty weird, what is it we can write about the slang term that could not be included under the right section in an article on a real group of people out there who so far have no article covering them!.
  2. Good point. I don't think the danger of misunderstandings is as great as you do, and at one point we even agreed that we simply have different views on how much a technical term this is and how much it is a "laymans term". Erring on the side of caution is fine, and so your point is well taken. As stated, I included this here so I would not be misunderstood in only applying WP:IGNORE.
  3. The analogy is fine. My examples are not meant to be good disambiguation terms and I never advocated actually changing Car to Car_(word). You get really close to, though: saying that "every word is a word", is correct, but we could easily find another example - Punk_(slang) would be absurd too. And the reason is of course that Punk is not only a slang work but also the only word we have to denote the thing itself. So the article should be about that thing, not about the word. We have no other word for the emo subculture than "emo", so why should the article be about the slang term when we have group of people out there, whom we have no article on?
  4. First of all, the reasearch is not disputed. There are no sources of any kind saying this is not a subculture. You are still failing to see the analogy: you say "The set of integers is defined in hundreds of mathematical texts". And this is correct and part of my point, I have no clue how you ever got the idea that I disagreed on this... What you fail to see is that if we were to use this definition to source such claims as "124 follows 123", then we would be violating WP:SYN. And we should! Anything else would be absurd. Hence, there is a time for ignoring the rules. You also try to make my analogy sound like a threat, which is again strawmanning and more than a little spiteful.
  5. You then belittle the exception clause (do you want to ignore it or not, you never answered this), which ignores my point that this clause also fits with the reasoning behind the policy in the first place. The only reason we have this policy is to exclude any whackjob with a blog. It is not meant to exclude the opinion of published sociology professors. The policy "exception clause" is there exactly because we want to hear his opinion over that of others, even when he is not speaking "ex cathedra" from a published paper! It really is as simple as that - all the talk about how academic this is and is not is simply avoiding the issue. We have a source, and it is ok according to the V/SPS policy. Nothing more to see here, include the claim.
Also, a few points: you are asking my to stop claiming we need sources for the claim that emo is not a subculture. I never did this, I might as well ask you to stop beating your wife. You also say that I "...but insists that he knows that an abstract of the ASA is peer-reviewed thoroughly enough for publication..." which I never claimed. I am just claiming we have a pretty good reason to think this paper and its abstract is a good sociological source. This is because it has been through some kind of review-process, because it was used at the ASA and because it is written by a professor of sociology. I know you want to imagine that this professor is so incompetent that he was laughed out of the room when he gave this talk, or that he is completely new to academia and does not know how to write an abstract properly, or that he is some kind of fringe nut with a twisted theory. This is called ad ignorantiam and it simply does not fly. The source is good, on his reputation alone, no less. Your claim that "...until [sociologists] do so (use subculture about emo) in a scholarly publication, then this assertion is false." I assume you meant "...the assertion cannot be a part of wikipedia" - but this is also incorrect. We do not need a published academic paper for the claim "sociologist use the word subculture about emo", since it is not a scientific claim but just a claim about how certain words are actually used by certain people. A newspaper article with a sociologist's quote would be fine. So would, of all things, a blog entry by a sociologist. Or a paper abstract and title. Or do you think we should delete all material sourced by newspaper articles or similar? Lundse 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The first two sources seem to be reliable. KGET (which appears to have a relation to NBC) published something on the subject, stating that it is a subculture. Cheeser, please support your argument with reliable sources that state that Emo is merely a slang term. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Journalists do not have sociological authority, especially when writing a human-interest piece about local 13 year old self-described emos. Half of that article is about cutting for Pete's sake. And like I've already said, it's not up to me to prove that it's not a subculture. --Cheeser1 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, but if you insist on there being no reliable sources to prove that it is a subculture, you are responsible for proving that others have proved that it is not a subculture. All our sources (reliability aside) state that it is a subculture - now if you are so adamantly against this, provide sources (again, reliability aside) that emo is only a word. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
J-Stan, this does not make sense. Until we find a reliable source stating that emo is a subculture, it is not. Sources are required to include content, not to exclude it. I am arguing against inclusion. I am not asking that we add anything to the article, not even a statement like "emo is not a subculture." If I had proposed including such a statement, I'd need a source. But I haven't, and I don't. --Cheeser1 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
So you admit, it can't be proved that emo is not a subculture. Therefore, this discussion should stay alive until we can prove that it is a subculture. Lundse has provided a paper (or at least proved the existence of one) whose abstract affirms that emo is a subculture. An abstract can't contradict the paper it summarizes, so therefore, it doesn't matter whether we have the actual paper - the abstract is enough. And again, it defends our argument. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Prove to me that George W. Bush is not a Martian. I demand a reliable source! Oh wait, you don't have to provide a source, because until I can prove that he is a Martian, we presume that he is not and do not include any statement either way on the article George W. Bush. This argument is lunacy - I do not have to prove that it is not a subculture, my argument is simply that you have not proven that it is. You are the ones who must demonstrate that it is (using reliable sources) before we can say so. The abstract of an unreliable source is not enough, especially when the actual paper is not (1) published, (2) publicly or privately available, nor (3) accepted in its field. The claim "emo is not a subculture" would never have reliable sources backing it because nobody is going to write a comprehensive list of everything that "emo" is not. Emo is not a type of bread either, I don't see you demanding that we need a source proving that emo is not a type of bread. --Cheeser1 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, while the full contents of a paper cannot "contradict" the abstract describing it, they can contextualize it. Like I said, we have no assurances that this paper demonstrates or claims that emo is a subculture, only that it uses the phrase "emo subculture" in its abstract. For all we know, they coined this phrase because they couldn't think of anything better, and for all we know stated that emo is not a subculture in a footnote. You might think this is unlikely, but terminology is often generalized, reused, and adapted beyond is proper use - this is common in almost any field of study. The fact is, if an article is not available publicly or privately, we cannot presume anything about what it states. Especially when it is a draft, and no part of it has ever been published. Like I pointed out, this is not acceptable for exactly the same reasons that our source is not accpetible (such sources are even explicitly stated to be unreliable in the relevant article, here. It is an unpublished, untested theory. And this one, at least the full text is available and complete. You expect us to accept the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript. --Cheeser1 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at WP:COMMONSENSE. We know George Bush isn't a martian for obvious reasons. However, whether emo is a subculture or not isn't common sense, as most people have never even heard of emo, it being a relatively recent concept. So if you would be so kind, stop using obviously ridiculous analogies (see, I'm using common sense here. Are you?) and please prove that we are in fact wrong, rather than try to prove that we are violating policy. J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support move to Emo (subculture) or preferably Emo subculture. To describe it as (merely) a slang term is clearly no longer accurate; this is an improvemment (though the article will then need some expanding). I'm convinced by the references produced that it is an accurate descirption--that Emo is a subculture--and it does bring this article in line with similar WP articles. JJL 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose we expand it? The closest thing to a reliable source we have on this "subculture" is the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript. There are zero reliable sources for content, if we want to write an article about emo as a subculture. Please note that "similar articles exist" is an irrelevant claim, and your evaluation of a conference abstract does not qualify as proper peer-review towards publication, which is what we require of academic sources. --Cheeser1 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongest support move to Emo subculture (I'm coming from the RFC). I think the many references provided below (including Contemporary Youth Culture: An International Encyclopedia, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, a body of literature addressing the connection of emo to youth suicide/depression, and an _entire book_ written on the subject) suffice. I'm not sure what more we could have here. Calliopejen1 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion vs. Exclusion

I am making a sub-heading to clarify a point: I am not arguing that emo is not a subculture. My position is this: we have not established that it is a subculture. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. My argument is that there are no sources to justify including the statement "emo is a subculture". My argument does NOT advocate including any content, and I do not need to present reliable sources to prove that emo is not a subculture - that is not my claim, and I do not intend to include such content in this article. I will no longer respond to anyone insisting that I "prove that emo is not a subculture." I do not intend to do so, and need not do so. --Cheeser1 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. If you think anything I have ever said goes against this claim/point, then you have not read my arguments right. I am fully aware where the burden of proof lies, I just think it has been lifted. That said, there is good cause to compare the proposed title to the current title - if it is better and/or better sourced then it should be changed. Lundse 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this was meant for me :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It was. --Cheeser1 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From the RfC

I fail to see why this can't just be included in this article with a link from a redirected page to the appropriate subsection. As long as it is APPROPRIATELY referenced (abstracts are generally not peer reviewed, but published articles are). By definition, it is a slang term. If there is more than one thing it can portray, but they are related, then it should just be included in the basic article...maybe even as the opening subsection after a short history section? It certainly doesn't need its own page though, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not move

Four weeks ago we had a discussion on the proposed move to Emo Subculture, we did not move because there was a consensus not to move. It shall stay. Marlith T/C 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. We just had this debate and Lundse simply refused to let it end. This isn't even a new discussion - he's just dragged this one out for a month, mostly by drawing on long-winded and non-applicable analogies. --Cheeser1 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
While I understand that this is not new to the page, the original discussion was almost entirely based on OR. Lundse has introduced sources that argue in defense of an emo subculture, so I believe it is relevant to revisit this discussion. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
His proposal includes explicitly asking us to use WP:IGNORE to ignore WP:RS for two different reasons. I'd say that's still highly dubious - we used to have other unreliable sources about emo being a subculture. They didn't seem to help in the last move discussion. And for the record, he did not introduce those sources to this page. Others did, and when explained that a conference abstract is not published, nor reliable as far as WP is concerned, the issue was dropped (by everyone except Lundse). Now that it's been a couple weeks since anyone but him (and me) talked about it, he's asking people to jump back in as if he's re-enlivened this debate with new sources. These are the same sources we've been discussing since right after the move failed, and everyone who brought these sources forward originally, they all let the issue go after I explained that abstracts are self-published and that conference manuscripts and their abstracts are not reliable sources. He's the only one who's run with it, picking up the torch (figuratively speaking) because no one else would carry it once they saw that conference abstracts do not constitute reliable sources. He's just dragging out a long-dead argument by continually insisting that these things he has are reliable sources, despite the fact that those who originally proposed using these sources have already had a change of opinion due to policy on this matter. --Cheeser1 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's try this. Here are the contents of a book. I surmise that we must now include "lesbian balladeering" in this article, because this book is actually a published sociological source. Nevermind that all we have is the table of contents or abstract, nevermind that we have no idea what the book says, after all, this one is even published and we can just clip a term out of it and insist that how we're using it is correct and consistent with the author's use. The fact is, the manuscript was nto published, we have no idea how it used the term subculture, we have no idea if/how it was peer-reviewed, and it is not available for others to read. We cannot cite sources that are not available for anyone to read. --Cheeser1 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that an overemphasis is being placed on having a board-approved sociologist render an official opinion. First, it's not clear to me that only a sociologist(s) is able to render judgment on that. You can trust a physicist pretty far on math. and a psychologist pretty far on statistics, for example. But more to the point, especially if the move is to "Emo subculture" (vice "Emo (subculture)"), it's enough that the term is used by those commenting on the scene, as in the Greenwald reference and the comparisions to the widely accepted terms Goth and Punk subcultures. In that sense, it's not much different from allowing Dr. Dre instead of insisting on having it be just Dre because he's not a real doctor. If the phrase is being used--and that is certainly well-attested--it's being used. This justifies the move, but the argument against a statement such as "Emo is a subculture in the sociological sense" within the article would require adequate sourcing as that is indeed a stronger claim.
I realize Cheeser1 is taking a break and am not trying to draw him back in. There's certainly no rush on this move, and marshalling sources isn't a bad idea. But I do feel some of the current soures are being overly deprecated. Indeed, I feel that the two sides are talking past one another in this way--over whether the phrase is used vs. whether the phrase is accurate. JJL 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've been drawn back in. It's not up to us to decide how terms are used, or to report it. I mean, if we want to report on how the term "emo culture" is used, we might as well just move the whole thing to Emo culture based on this and this. However, we are not here to report "some undefined group of people consider emo a (sub)culture." And we're supposed to weigh the verifiability of claims, paying attention to the authority of the source. That's certainly not grounds to move the article. If we intend to call something a subculture in the title of the article, it shouldn't just be called a subculture, it should be a subculture. After all, the article Joshua A. Norton is not called The Emperor of the US for a reason - he wasn't really the Emperor, even if people called him that. Now, if there were a substantial reason to mention that people call emo a subculture I would understand including that (in Norton's case, an alias is always relevant in a biography, here it is not so clear). But moving the article essentially constitutes a claim that the new title is accurate - not just how people misuse a term.
This is the same as your claim about Dr. Dre. "Dr. Dre" is an established alias of a particular person. "Emo subculture" is something people use not just as an "alias" of emo, but as if they believe emo were a subculture. The fact that they are wrong notwithstanding, it is not another name for emo, it is a claim about emo. There is a HUGE difference. It would be like moving the article to "Dre Ph.D." which implies that Dre has a doctorate (since this is not an alias of any sort). An alias is a poor analogy, because it is, in its own right, a way to identify a person.
Furthermore, since your claim about calling it "subculture" is based on usage, should we not remind ourselves that the usage of this word is already more aptly indicated by its current title? The fact that its use in slang also collides with misuse of the term "subculture" should be somewhat expected. --Cheeser1 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it is important to note that the "move" camp did not have anywhere near the number of references they have now. No matter what Cheeser's personal evaluations of them may be.
I again, will reiiterate the conclusion of the last RFC was not a consensus not to move, but a lack of consensus to do so (not the same thing)
However, I too agree it is a little too soon to think about instigating another RFC on the issue just yet. I think it would be wise for parties involved to WP:COOL for a while, and cease arguing over the matter. I think sources should be mentioned and provided to the talk page for analysis, but not evaluated until the next RFC. That is unless they are clearly not up to any wikipedia standard (ie. WP:FRINGE or personal blogs). Editors should also avoid pushing for the move, instead just provide sources. --ZayZayEM 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions, especially about WP:COOL. I have been (essentially) repeating myself for so long (mostly to Lundse) that I (1) haven't had a break from this "discussion" since the official move discussion ended and thus (2) I'm pretty frustrated, due to a number of issues in this discussion (like this for example). On those grounds, I am temporarily removing myself from this discussion. I've made my points clearly, repeatedly, and unequivocally. Certainly, there are other opinions out there, but I've seen and addressed them pretty thoroughly so far, and I don't really think I have anything more to say. I'm not required to respond to existing or future comments, of course, so I'll take a (probably necessary) break - and don't forget that my bowing out of this discussion temporarily is not "silent consensus" for anything. So that's that. I'll be back in maybe a week or something, to re-enter the discussion (if necessary). --Cheeser1 06:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


  • Previous archived of the Proposed move discussion can be found here [36] Support 6 / Oppose 4. Result from Admin User:Stemonitis was do not move : no consensus to move. (11 August 2007) This was an accepted outcome. I would strongly advise against instigating another RM prematurely (i.e. make sure your sources will survive scrutiny etc.). I'll also note that both myself and Marlith who are arguing for a stay at the moment both supported the page move (and I still do). There is nothing that says an article cannot be nominated again, just make sure the situation has changed.--ZayZayEM 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The sources for emo being a subculture

The first two are good academic sources which meet V and/or SPS. The third is a good source for how sociologists use the term (also by policy). Then comes a few less-reputable ones, just to show that this is not just a few hits, but a general usage of the word which authors, journalists aong with sociologists use the word in this way. Is the internet great or what? Lundse 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Emo Music and Youth Culture. [37]
Clearly states emo is a subculture.
[38] claims this guy has a masters. Everything suggests that he is reading for a phd. and that he has taught for Yale (but do your own search on the guy). It has been published.
Note that it was published int he Encyclopedia of Contemporary Youth Culture, [39], which would seem to be a pretty definitive source on this sort of thing. Calliopejen1 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Authenticity, Subcultural Capital, and the Rise of an Internet Scene [40]
It is by "J. Patrick Williams, Ph.D. Department of Sociology." (now he is an assistant professor).
"The punk subculture and its offshoots, including hardcore, emo, and straightedge, have been conceptualized primarily as music- and style-based subcultures..."
It is selfpublished (or counts as such), but that is fine since he is published in the field (see [WP:SPS]).
  • Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures. [www.allacademic.com/meta/p106514_index.html]
The title and abstract make it clear that the authors think this word is unproblematic to use about emo. One of the authors is a professor of sociology. It has not been published, but seems peer-reviewed and was ostensibly good enough for the American Association of Sociologst annual meeting.
This would make it a selfpublished source WP:SPS, which is OK by policy because it is written by someone published and educated in the field.
  • Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo (Paperback)
If someone have this book or has ever bought a book at amazon, they can check out what else it says on page 37 besides "...course of getting to know them I discovered an entire subculture-and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." Or on page 58: "...what was once a subculture…is now something completely new and unexplored: a national subculture dominated by those too young to have their voices heard, but savvy enough to make their presence felt".
It is written by Andy Greenwald and the amazon link is here: [41].
  • Music, Youth Subculture and Self-Harm. [www.chmeds.ac.nz/research/suicide/music_youth_subculture_aug_2006.pdf]
Research done by University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences. Specifically, the Canterbury Suicide Project, a "research study of suicidal behaviour in people of all ages". It is pretty clear in its use of the term: "...the “emo” subculture emerged...", "...its existence as a youth subculture...".
Selfpublished by an organisation
  • Debates of Artistic Value in Rock Music: A Case Study of the Band Weezer, 1994-2001. [42]
A bachelor thesis by Jeff Rosenfeld affirming the claim. Self-ublished.

Here are a few more (I was brought here by RFC). Calliopejen1 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture. According to Booklist, "Simon and Kelley describe emo culture slyly in this perky lifestyle guide."
  • ANN NGUYEN. "'YOU ARE SO SCENE!'; IT'S NOT JUST THE CLOTHES; Once outsiders, fashion has helped push scenesters into the mainstream; Finding Emo." The Houston Chronicle, September 19, 2006. ("If you were to ask a true emo, he or she wouldn't call it a type of music or clothing. No, it's a lifestyle. The grunge of the millennium, emo has reach-ed heights grunge never did. ... Kids once labeled as emo are now being called scene-sters. The more modern term of emo kid has blended into the same definition as a scenester. ...the subculture has forever sunk its claws into American pop culture.")
  • Barbara Mahany. "Be savvy about emo culture." Chicago Tribune (May 22, 2006)). ("What started out as a devotion to a particular music has evolved into a subculture all its own.")
  • and a presumable companion article: Barbara Mahany. "Finding emo: Angst spreading from older teens to middle-schoolers." Chicago Tribune (May 22, 2006)). (" Now emo is a subculture with a dress and drama all its own. According to kids, teachers, and therapists, it has become the latest cool thing in junior highs, where cool is everything. ... You can find the ever-more-youthful emo trend in cities and suburbs. And it has spread, thanks to the Internet, ... . ... You can Google "emo" and find step-by-step pictorial guides for "emo makeovers." That is, how to transform a geeky guy with a pencil tucked behind his ear, working at a copy store, to a "bona fide emo boy," who is shown dying his hair black, ditching the smile, slipping on a black T-shirt and scarf and, in the final photo, putting razor blade to wrist, from which something red is spilling.")
  • Rebecca Christian. "Trends tough to keep up with, or understand." Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA) (July 29, 2006). ("Emo is a term for the fashion and music of a youth subculture, like Goth of yesteryear.")

[edit] Sources unreliable

I've already made most of this clear, so I'll try to be brief:

  1. The grad student's paper - According to the publisher of this book, its content "rang[es] from academic to autobiographical." This is not a strictly academic source. The author was a graduate student (at the time of writing), and if you read the article, it is puerile, speculative, vague, and totally non-empirical. To be verifiable, it must be an EXPERT in the field writing something that is ACCEPTED in the field. Not a grad student writing in a book that has never been cited, it barely shows up on Google, barely shows up on Amazon (under a different title, so this may not even be our book), and it's not in any library as far as I can tell. Sounds to me like this work is hardly accepted in its field yet. And why is this paper hosted on a radio station page? This source seems very fishy to me. AND even if we accept it as a reliable source, it says Emo, which seemingly started as a somewhat “agreed-upon” collective subculture, has in fact become a highly contested set of meanings. Sounds to me like it's not much of a subculture now, and not the emo our article is about.
A very poor article. It seems to center around a music genre and misuses the term sub culture to describe a music genre, it also makes a number of very speculative claims and many contradictions. --Neon white 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Right. So if the cource says something we do not like, it must be talking about something else, then? And I am sorry, but I do not agree that given a choice between no sources for "slang" and a handful of sociologists word for "subculture" we should choose the former because the sociologists are not sufficiently published, or EXPERTS enough. Also, I wonder how you judge whether something is ACCEPTED in the field, since this is apperently something else than writing in the field and having a phd or teaching in it...
And misrepresenting the source is just sad, really. Anyone following this discusion should read the first paragraph and make up their own minds about what this source is saying on emo. The "contested meanings" secion is also interesting, it talks about who are emo and what they mean by that (not, amazingly, whether it is a subculture or not - but then, every source we have come across with just a hint of authority on the subject seems to take this for granted...). Lundse 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The Google cache of an unpublished paper's abstract - This is a Google cache of the abstract of an unpublished paper. Not reliable in any way. Plus, like with Source 1, there's no way to know what emo he's talking about. He might be talking about 1990 emo, which Emo (music) is about. He only mentions emo in passing, as far as we know, and this article should not necessarily even be considered a source of information about emo - it's about straight-edge and the internet.
So the fact that it is written by an independently published phd in sociology does not matter? And since he does not write a paper on "emo is a subculture" (which _everyone_ but a few lone voices in here seems to take for granted) then it cannot be used as a source? Lundse 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. The conference abstract - "Seems peer reviewed"? Seems? We have no idea if it was peer reviewed. We have no idea what kind of peer review it had - was it similar to the review published papers get? We don't know because this is an the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript, which are decidedly not reliable sources, EVEN when the author is a research in that field. The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case. And, of course, "expert" is a relative term. The authors appear to be relatively green - one is a grad student, the other two were PhDs 6 and 3 years before writing this. Note that it's been 4 years since this paper was written and 2 since this conference - it still hasn't been published.
Reread the policy, please. You will find, as I have pointed out about 7 times now, that the policy against abstracts only goes for math, medicine, et al. Also, I find it funny that a published sociology professor is "green". And of course it has not been published, it was written for the conference and not for publication. Lundse 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. A personal account with no analytical authority - Andy Greenwald is a primary source of information, and cannot make analytical claims (to make such claims requires authority in the field, which can only be found in secondary or tertiary sources). This also, by the way, tackles any claim that since "people in general" or specifically "emo people in general" call it a subculture, that we should too.
So no journalistic sources on wikipedia at all, then? And of course we cannot assume he knows anything, nor has talked to anyone with professional opinions? And hundreds of people using a term is no indication that it is a valid way to use that term? Lundse 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. A medical organization's self-published, non-sociological musings on self-injury - Self-published by an organization that does not study sociology. Furthermore, their claim that emo is a subculture is totally speculative and is based entirely on the conversation between two DJs on a radio station. Not reliable in any way.
  1. An undergrad's paper - This is all you have for this one: "A bachelor thesis by Jeff Rosenfeld affirming the claim. Self-ublished." I don't think I need to say much more. Totally unpublished, no scholarly authority, and the claim that emo is a subculture isn't even established here - the term is used once or twice in passing, talking about the band Weezer.
  1. A gossip-column style how-to-be-emo book. "Simon and Kelley describe emo culture slyly in this perky lifestyle guide." Nuff said. Totally unreliable, no scholarly authority (no authority of any kind, really).
  1. ANN NGUYEN's newspaper article - No scholarly authority, and claims of subculturality based on "if you asked an emo kid" - this assertion is made by a primary source, and is not reliable (see Greenwald book above).
  1. Barbara Mahany's newspaper article - No scholarly authority. Might as well be citing this. Emo makovers? How reliable do you consider a source that gives emo makovers?
  1. Rebecca Christian's newspaper article - I'm sure the good people of Dubuque, IA appreciated the heads up about emo, but this author also has no scholarly authority. Random human-interest and/or "watch out for suicide!!" newspaper columns carry no sociological authority, and to be honest, can even make this claim based on this Wikipedia page, which used to call emo a subculture. It does happen (my guess is, often without acknowledging Wikipedia as the source).

All in all, none of these sources have enough weight on their own. They reflect the fact that some people use the term "subculture" loosely. Emo kids are not reliable sources of information about emo - not analytical information anyway. Unpublished papers by undergrads or grad-students that have not been accepted in the field of sociology are not reliable sources, and are NOT written by experts, and could easily be misusing the term, due to its rampant misuse elsewhere. To somehow weave into the SPS loophole, you'd need to have an EXPERT - not an unproven grad (or worse, undergrad) student or random journalist. Certainly, there is a teeeeeeny body of unpublished work in sociology that might be academic in nature, where the author uses the term "emo subculture." But these sources are themselves unreliable. Further, I might say this is a fringe theory, except that it isn't even a theory - it's just a few (literally, I could count on one hand) sociologists using the term when describing this group. The fact that very very few people, none of whom are established in the field, use "emo subculture" in unpublished/unreliable sources is totally unconvincing. I'm sorry if I can't magically prove that the consensus is the other way, but I am arguing against inclusion (see my inclusion/exclusion comment above). It's not up to me. Until there are reliable, accepted, authoritative works that establish that emo is a subculture, we can't make that claim. --Cheeser1 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but the current citation for emo being a slang word is a news radio site? Given the context, I am really struggling to understand how you can make the claim that none of the sources carry enough weight. Can you cite any source (more authoritative than the ABC one) that makes the claim emo is not a subculture but just a word? You seem to be just defending a point of view that you believe is correct, not attempting to reach a reasonable conclusion on the matter. Cedars 10:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, Cheeser, where are these definitive sources on emo? I used to enjoy reading the latest writings on emo (accurate or not). If there is some authorative source out there that backs up your point of view and is more definitive than any of the above, please point me to it. Cheers. Cedars 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And (one last thing) even the ABC NewsRadio site mentions the word subculture. [43] Cedars 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I've stated, the burden of proof does not rest on me. I do not have to disprove the claim - the claim is included only if one can prove that it meets the relevant policies. I don't have to dig up sources that state "this is not a subculture" - one tends not to find sources listing everything that things aren't. Furthermore, if the article is not "upgraded" to subculture status, it remains an article on popular culture and slang. It is unreliably sourced as-is (lots of blogs), and those need fixing. But to make a claim about slang is not an academic claim, it's a claim about usage. That kind of a claim requires a source of a particular authority, and news articles fit the bill. And yes, it uses the term "subculture" as follows: One unkind website says that "emo" is "an entire subculture of angsty teenagers with fake personalities." It's quoting an "unkind website" with no sociological authority, and which is clearly not meant to be taken as reliable. --Cheeser1 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And to make a broader point, this is not a "subculture is better than slang" discussion. If someone wants to argue the merits of one title based on the fact that they don't like the other, they should remind themselves that additions to an article require justification for what you put in the article, not just for what you take out or replace. If I find an inaccurate statement in an article, I am obviously allowed to remove it. So if we grant the assumption that (slang) is not the correct parenthetical (I am not doing so, this is hypothetical), then we would use a different parenthetical. One cannot argue "slang is not the right term" in order to somehow hope that if it is removed, "subculture" will magically be the automatic replacement. --Cheeser1 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I hope you see the irony in you setting yourself up as an authority on the qualifications of sociologists in order to argue that they're unqualified to be authorities on sociology. Looking especially at your 1. above, it seems a quite broad and harsh judgment and I'm not sure you're qualified to make a judgment that a graduate student's sociological work is "puerile, speculative, vague" and so on.
You grant that the use of the term subculture to describe Emo is "rampant" above. But you're stuck on insisting that there can only be a main entry for Emo subculture if it's truly a subculture in a technical use of the term. This might be true for Emo (subculture), but not for "Emo subculture" the widely-used phrase. To me, you might as well be arguing that there should be no entry for the Nintendo GameCube because it is not actually shaped like a cube. Rather than get the opinion of a mathematician whose qualifications meet your standards, I'd accept that that's what it's called even if it's a misnomer. Would you eliminate the firefly entry because fireflies are technically beetles rather than flies, according to biologists? The phrase "Emo subculture" is well-attested and is, as you grant, in wide use. Insisting that this is unacceptable because it's a mis-use in your mind when it's so commonly used by those describing members of the group is a little like insisting that Doctor Who be renamed Mr. Who because we haven't been shown his medical credentials.
I'm not convinced that subculture is only a technical term, and I do think that referring to adherents of Emo as being part of a subculture is reasonably accurate (at least as the term is commonly used w.r.t. music-based movements), but in any event I don't find this a sociological question. People who are into Emo are widely described as being a part of the Emo subculture in a variety of sources. It's a phrase that has entered common usage and describes a group of people. American Indians aren't from India and Japan isn't the land where the sun rises from my point of view, but I accept that those terms exist and are in use. JJL 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I grant that the term "subculture" is misused by unqualified people, in many different circumstances (emo being just one example). Your examples are bizarre, irrelevant, and not analogous to this situation - please don't make them (Doctor Who is the name of a TV show - if there were a show called Emo Subculture I would not be arguing this point there). They could be interpreted as belittling and inflammatory. "Emo subculture" is sometimes used - how frequently is unknown, but what is known is that it is used virtually only by people with no sociological authority. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's not our job to redefine technical terms based on common usage. If you want to discuss this rationally, feel free, but I'm not going to address two paragraphs of bizarre, inappropriate analogies. I am not making any claims about my authority on sociological sources - WP:RS and WP:V make this very clear. And finally, "common usage"? Upon what do you base this claim? Examples of misuse that you consider "rampant"? There is only one definition of subculture - using another, based on how you perceive it to be "commonly" used is not how we write an encyclopedia. "Japan" is the proper name of Japan. "Doctor Who" is the proper name of the show Doctor Who. "GameCube" is the proper name of a video game console. "Emo Subculture" is not the proper name of anything - saying this asserts (without any sociological authority) the existence of "emo" as a subculture. --Cheeser1 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The choice of the word "rampant" was yours, in the first entry under "Sources unreliable" here. I was quoting you. As to misuse, I contend that your implicit assertion that "subculture" has only a narrow technical meaning and may properly be used only by sociologists is incorrect in the context of a phrase like "Emo subculture" (vice a claim that Emo is a subculture in the sense used within a sociology paper, or as would be implicit in Emo (subculture)). When journalists covering the music/fashion scene write of a musical/fashion subculture, they're using the term in an accepted way that may not agree fully with the technical usage of the term by sociologists. The phrase gets 846 ghits and more on Yahoo!, many of them news articles. I chose obvious examples as that seemed necessary; my point remains that the phrase "Emo subculture" is widely used and that even if you feel that it is incorrect when parsed down to its component parts--the old joke that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron--that doesn't change the fact that it's in wide usage, making it a name like Doctor Who or GameCube (or more like firefly, which was assigned from ignorance rather than by a company). It's like the old Mike Myers "Coffee Talk" skit on SNL: ""The Progressive Era was neither progressive nor an era. Discuss." There's an entry for Progressive Era here. You're wikilawyering every source as being insufficiently technical in your judgment, but I feel you're missing the big picture that the phrase is widely used and concordant with similar uses for Punk, Goth, etc. whether it makes sense to you or not (and it does make sense to me). Since we agree that it's either "rampant misuse" (your term) or "rampant use" (my veiw), rampant is rampant and hence notable. JJL 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
And all of that is exactly why we have a redirect at Emo subculture. None of that justifies the misuse of a sociological term, because (despite your perception of some "common usage") it only has one definition - as a precise sociological term. I would point out that this is essentially the purpose of many redirects, this one included. --Cheeser1 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that while "monkey" is often used to describe an ape, the article monkey doesn't split hairs - it is a biological classification, and is treated as such. On the other hand, while a peanut is not a nut, it is still properly named a peanut. Unless you want to argue that the proper name of this group of people is "emo subculture" (this is absurd), I don't see what you're getting at. --Cheeser1 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you're making an argument based on the fact that a redirect exists, you should remember that (1) Wikipedia is not a source for itself, you can't cite the existence of a redirect as proof of the term being valid and (2) redirects are intended to point people who search for a particular term in the right direction - they are not there to validate any particular term. One cannot go to L'Hôpital's rule and claim that the correct spelling is L'hopitals rule, based on the existence of a redirect. --Cheeser1 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article's current sources

The articles current sources are an absolute joke compared to the ones being provided here. These may not be the best sources available, but they are accessible and an improvement on what we have got. I see no problem as long as they are attributed and not pushed beyond what they are worth. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress, shooting down improvements because they aren't perfect is not very progressive or productive.

Suggestion: Editors use information from these sources to improve the article, if this results in an article more about a subculture, a move will be more likely accepted by the community. Moving before changing content is innapropriate, I think this was part of the message from the last RM.--ZayZayEM 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Current sources
  • Self published flash website How to dress emo 2.0. It's vanity and he has zero credentials in sociology (which is the field relevant to pop culture trends like slang).

    i'm a 24 year old graduate of the rhode island school of design who puts his degree towards mocking current trends amongst scenester kids rather than making fine art.[44]

  • Several music genre orientated articles in webzines (which are unreliable,a nd generally "selfpublished") KnotMagazine Incendiary about.com
  • Self published Emo FAQ site by some guy who takes photos What the heck *is* emo, anyway?
  • Newspaper's Blog that references wikipedia. Strict no-no. [45]
  • University newspaper opinion piece written by some guy Cheer up Emo Kid, It's a Brand New Day Might have some POV issues:

    When it comes to music, I would like to consider myself open-minded. I am always eager to discover new bands, and I would never criticize a person for having different musical interests. Except when it comes to emo kids. ... I don't think there is much need to worry, though. I have a feeling this ridiculous fad will be gone faster than you can say Limp Bizkit. Remember them? Yeah, exactly.[emphasis added]

The *good* ones
  • Daily Mail EMO cult warning for parents: a tabloid scare piece that confuses Emo as a subset of Goth (wait, if all Goths are part of a subculture, and some goths are emos... ^_^)
  • ABC News Radio "Emo" segment entitled Word Watch - pretty superficial investigation to explain it to the conservative old types that would rather listen to John Williamson.


I think you're missing the facts that: (1) less reliable or less authoritative sources are slightly more appropriate when the topic is pop-culture/fashion related and (2) using different unreliable sources is not better, just because they are making claims that normally require more authority/reliability. The way to fix this article is to find reliable sources, like the cleanup tag (which has been there forever) says. Either we treat this article like it is now, and hopefully find better sources, or we "upgrade" it to making claims that require more authority (in which case we will have trouble finding any sources at all, given that the exhaustive efforts to scour the web for reliable sources turned up dubiously credible sociological work and/or unrelated scholarship). Are the sources we have now good? No. Does that justify using sources that are also unreliable to make a claim that requires more authority? No. There is a bar that's set, that we have to meet. If you want to talk about a subculture, you raise that bar - the fact that the new sources can "jump higher" is irrelevant - they can't get over their bar either. The unreliability of the sources we have now is immaterial - it does not change anything about the sources you're trying to introduce. --Cheeser1 06:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That last comment might have sounded like I'm disagreeing, even though in great part what I said was agreeing - I probably should remember to be more clear about that. I agree that we do need new sources. However, I believe attempting to introduce new sources intending to change the focus/content of the article in a particular predetermined direction is nonNPOV and is poor form. There seems to be a clear desire, on some parts, to make this article about a subculture. I'm all for removing the bad references and getting better ones in there (I've been a strong advocate of that from day one), but replacing them with slightly more reliable sources doesn't help if the claims those sources make requires even more authority. If I have a family of 5 and can't feed them, a small raise in my salary won't help if it requires me to adopt several more children. I hope that analogy makes sense (if it doesn't, do not make this a discussion about analogies you don't get, just ignore it). If we're going to replace these bad sources, we should do it with better sources, not with sources that still lack the adequate authority to make the claims we're using them to support (even if those claims are more lofty). --Cheeser1 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
So sources by published authorities within academia, sociology students and teachers is no better than some guy's blog?
Please also note that the "new direction" towards actually writing about the people out there is unavoidable; unless of course you are saying there is no emo phenomenon and it is just an empty word denoting nothing... So please do not paint me in the light of "wanting" this to be about a subculture - I want it to be about whatever the phenomenon out there is, not just about a word. I think the name should reflect this.
And I do get the analogy, BTW, it is quite clear and good at illustrating your point. I just do not agree that it applies. Lundse 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. (1) Is just wrong. This article cannot avoid RS issues (especially with regards to slef-published material by non-notables, and articles that reference wikipedia) than any other. Your argument contains some brain-crushing logic for someone who is fighting to uphold RS.
  2. I am saying these new sources are better. There is no bar they have to cross. That bar was set by the previous sources and is practically non-existent. Improvement is improvement. I advocate these new sources are an improvement.
  3. Pop-culture and slang are sociological topics. They require sociological references as much as subculture articles.
  4. (No your analogy doesn't make any sense.)
  5. I am arguing to improve this article before any resurface of a move. The idea of moving to improve the articles direction was very poorly construed. The article should be improved, and then, if needed a new move proposed. As the article improves it may apparent not to move, or to move it to a different article (say emo (fashion) or emo (epithet) not supporting these, just hypotheticals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you don't get what I was saying. Maybe being concise will help: Replacing unreliable sources with (supposedly) better unreliable sources is no improvement, even if the new sources are trying to make loftier claims. Doing so with the underlying intention of shifting an article's content to reflect personal beliefs about what it should be about? That's out of the question. Journalists can report on popular culture - analytical claims require more authoritative sources. For example, if a journalist reports "emo is popular" - this is fine. If a journalist reports "emo is a vast American subculture" - this is analytical, and requires a more authoritative source. --Cheeser1 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
What Journalists? Sorry. None of the current references aside from Daily Mail are written by Jouranlists. The San Diego blog might be as well, but it references wikipedia, ergo - unusable. Oh, and the webzines are about Emo (music).
Wikipedia can use newspapers for analytical claims, as long as the claims are attributed to the newspaper. Eg. "Emo has been reported as an emerging youth subculture by many media outlets [cite] [cite] [cite]". Just the facts ma'am.--ZayZayEM 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The point about journalists was an example - analytical claims require a qualified, authoritative source. Journalists have no sociological authority. Emo has been reported to be the cause of self-injury by media outlets. But we routinely remove such content because such claims are not substantiated by real authorities in psychology or psychiatry. --Cheeser1 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The conference abstract as a source in itself

My claim is that this is a good source, in that it meets SPS, on its own merits. Not as a academic paper, but as a source from a published sociologist who says that emo is a subculture. Note that I am not talking about the paper, but the text that we do have. This is clear from the WP:SPS policy:

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]"
This clearly tells us that the reason we cannot use selfpublished sources is that we cannot trust selv-proclaimed expertise. This is the only reason given.
"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
Here we are given the logical extension of the general ban on selfpublished sources, that if the expertise is established independently, then the source is fine. This is the case here, this is a professor of sociology and he is published in the field.

I have seen no clear argument against this, except a plea to use a policy intended for "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" [[46]]. Even if we conceeded that we should treat a sociological claim as a mathematical one (and I see no reason why we should do this), then the cited policy states that another policy is at work if we treat it as a primary source, which is what I am advocating here. That policy says:

"For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

So a person reading the abstract should be able to surmise himself, without expert knowledge, that emo is a subculture. I think the "... the specific case of “emo,” a youth-based musical subculture..." is pretty clear.

Again, I urge anyone who finds fault with this logic and use of policies to state explicitly where the fault lies and what policies apply. Specifically, I would like to know the reasoning behind:

"The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case."

And

"The authors appear to be relatively green - one is a grad student, the other two were PhDs 6 and 3 years before writing this."

To which I have to add that the presenting author is a published associate professor of sociology [47]. I would like to know what level of education is required before one is no longer "green"... Lundse 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to focus on changes not discussion. If the desired change is to move the emo page then we need to have some sort of vote to see what consensus there is amongst us. The vote should allow each person to briefly summarise their position and IMHO does not need to be externally arbitrated or announced. This discussion is going nowhere and I am no longer able to follow Cheeser's arguments. For the record, my beef is more with the content of the page not the title. I'd have to think a bit more about the move but I probably would support it. Cedars 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
My main beef here is actually that the discussion is going nowhere, and for some odd reason I seem to think more discussion is the solution... :-)
Seriously, then I am becoming irritated because rational arguments are not being heard and mainly because I am being strawmanned time and again. I am losing faith in the wikipedia process because a single individual who refuses to discuss matters rationally is able to block the improvement of an article... So I guess I am really trying to prove to myself that the system works, by trying again and again.
You are right that the article's content is more important, but I think it is problematic to ask people to edit an article about a slang word when there is nothing more to write. I would have a hard time finding motivation for editing against the title of an article, knowing that any editor could delete everything I made, claiming it is irrelevant and being right. This is the reason I believe the move comes first - there is no place on wikipedia to write about the emo social group! Lundse 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Another thought, maybe we should just start an Emo (subculture) page, build up some good content and then decide whether to redirect later. Alternatively (and to be honest this is my preferred solution), maybe we should just start rewriting this article and forget about moving for the moment. Cedars 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I support the first suggestion, fully. Lundse 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Me too. Suggest doing a draft in a sanboxspace and putting a well referenced article into the articlespace.--ZayZayEM 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case" comes from the Wikipedia's policy regarding conference abstracts. This is not a primary source - appealing to that policy would be nonsense. This is an analytical claim, requiring a secondary source. Sociology is a social science - the policy on academic/scientific sources is clear. This is a sociological claim, and insisting that there is "another" definition of subculture aside, there's nothing you can do to change that. I've made my case repeatedly - every time you repeat yourself, so do I, and you expect to make progress by doing it some more? Attempting to "make a new discussion" or anything of the sort is, what, an attempt to hope that I don't speak up any more because you've started this entire thing with a thinly veiled personal attack against me?? Read up on Wikipedia's conduct policies and etiquette guidelines. You shouldn't be going on tirades about how "a single individual who refuses to discuss matters rationally is able to block the improvement of an article." You are violating several policies here. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and while you've argued that this means you are allowed to ignore people who disagree with you, it actually means that even if an opinion has a majority, the minority viewpoint must still be considered (not rejected as "irrational" "problematic" etc, just because you consider it irrational or problematic). You haven't let this discussion die since the move request months ago, and the bulk of the time we've been discussing the exact same source. If this claim were accepted in its field, you'd be able to find published work supporting it. That's what it all boils down to. Digging and digging gets you some primary sources (unable to substantiate analytical claims), some self-published ones (unreliable), sources with no authority to make sociological claims, and a few more with other dubious qualities. Time and again, I've been attacked as "blocking" the "progress" of the article, but I don't believe your opinion of progress is necessarily right. You shouldn't either. Respect the fact that people can disagree, and instead of attacking my character or accusing me of "Wikilawyering" or "strawmanning" why don't you accept the fact that I'm making a somewhat reasonable argument based on several relevant policies. Your argument is based on what you want the article to say and what you think should be allowed to be a reliable source. I've still given it plenty of consideration, but I disagree. --Cheeser1 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: the "arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts" policy then I think I have pointed out three times that it deals with the harder sciences specifically. Why are you still making this point?
Re: primary source. Of course it is. Everything can be regarded as a primary source, although not everything is a secondary one, obviously (a biography on X by Y can be a sec. source on the life of X but a prim. source for the writing style of Y). You seem to be claiming once again that we can accept no sources except academic ones... Are you really convinced of this? I am not trying to make a sociological claim, I am simply claiming that sociologists use the word in this way. For this, I have an excellent primary source of a sociologist using the word. Please stop mudding the issue with your talk about academic papers, which is quite unnecesarry (but would be nice).
You also reiterate your claim that if "emo is a subculture we would have source saying so". Did you not read my comments on this? It is arguing from ignorance and there are a thousand possible reasons why such a claim woud not be in the literature (that is is obvious, would be one - just like you never found that source for 124 follows 123). Please do not see this as an invitation to once again claim that I am saying we have no source for the definition of integers, these are seperate claims and need seperate sources (unless you want to synthesize from the latter claims).
About attacking your character etc. at the end of your post, then I think you have had plenty of time to prove me wrong. You have repeated your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my points, time and again. This is strawmanning and calling you on it is not against policy. I know people can disagree and I am all for respecting the minority view. But wikipedia and I should not be forced to respect a viewpoint you are not willing to argue for. And repeating your irrelevant counterarguments to some argument I never made is just not good enough. Lundse 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to belittle sociology into a "soft science" to make your argument, I suggest you find better grounds. Social sciences may not be physical sciences, but they follow the same standards as other sciences. Furthermore, if you want to make a claim about how sociologists use particular words, you'd better check WP:OR one more time. You have looked up some papers, and you have decided that this means "sociologists use the term in such a fashion," which is a claim that you are making. And for the last time, there are hundreds of texts in mathematics that explicitly define the natural numbers in terms of successors. You are making bogus irrelevant analogies, and you accuse me of strawmanning and attack my character? Read up on Wiki-etiquette, and get your facts straight. --Cheeser1 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Sociology is a prime example of a soft science. Dictionary.com describes it as a science that studies behavioral patterns in humans - society. It even lists sociology as an example. Also, we have looked up papers (which is not included in the wikipedia definition of OR) which show sociologists using the term. We have not "decided" this means sociologists use the term this way, we have proven that this term is accepted in sociology. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
And what you prove is OR, by definition. Note that the dictionary does not say "soft sciences should be treated differently" in any fashion, nor is dictionary.com a source of Wiki-policy. Sciences are sciences, and we have policy telling us that conference abstracts are unreliable. We also have guidelines telling us that unpublished papers are unreliable. --Cheeser1 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody other than Cheeser seems to be arguing the abstract is unusable source. I think that is consensus that it is a reliable source.--ZayZayEM 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

We should hold a poll (note: the word intended here is "vote", but people seem to frown on using that word). J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by all means, let's have a vote, instead of discussing policy. Majority rule is not consensus-building, and unless I'm mistaken, WP:RS doesn't say "take a vote to determine if a source is reliable." Consensus is supposed to consider how we read WP:RS, not on how to overrule WP:RS. Asking that you use a published source is not unreasonable, especially when there are no authoritative published sources supporting your claim. Like WP:SPS and WP:RS make clear, if you have to resort to using unreliable sources to make your claim, but assert that the claim is accepted or verifiable, you should wonder why it hasn't been published or accepted in its field. Ignoring WP:RS and the objections of a minority is not what consensus/majority building is supposed to allow. --Cheeser1 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser, you need to tone down the sarcastic attitude. Just understand: you are staring down the business end of a majority. You don't need to lash out at us just because we (when I say we, I mean those of us who want to move it) are trying to build consensus in favor of our argument. We are trying to discuss this in the most civil way, and you are bordering on incivility. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well you've already made up your mind - you want to move it. The point of discussion is not to build consensus for what you want. It's to discuss policy and come to conclusions and compromises about what content we include and what sources we can use, based on policy. If you want to vote on what to include based on what you'd personally prefer to have in the article, I'm just going to bow out of this nonsense now. You can wreak as much WP:RS-havoc on this article as you'd like, if you're going to point your shotgun-majority in my face whenever I object. That kind of browbeating is exactly what you're not supposed to do when people disagree with you. I'm done with this absurdity. You and Lundse can pat yourselves on the back for "making the system work," as he so obtusely put it, by I'll remind you that this is the opposite of how things are supposed to work. --Cheeser1 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur that there is consensus. The only hold-out is someone who is convinced that he is always right. Be bold. Note, the article will need some work to change the tone post-move. JJL 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it appears we have a consensus that there is, in fact, a consensus. Nicely put, JJL! I do agree, we need the article rewritten. Now that Cheeser1 has left the discussion, we can start using "subculture". J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting that you misunderstand consensus so poorly that you'll use it to justify drowning out dissenting opinions? It appears that my RfC has generated several outside opinions that also object to the move, on reasonable grounds. --Cheeser1 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I have made it clear that I do not believe consensus is achieved by being in majority. I believe it was achieved when you and others against the move stopped reading, understanding and/or responding lucidly to my explanations for how the conference abstract in itself was a source. Noone has presented an argument against it, only reiterated old arguments shown to be based on a fallacious reading of policy. Hence, we have noone actually arguing against the move. Hence, we have policy.
I am not pointing a majority at you. I am pointing my arguments at you. I would love to hear you counter-arguments and discuss them with you, but if you persist in mis-representing me and not answering my claims and arguments, then you have taken yourself out of the process. And there does come a time when it has to move on without you... Lundse 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, and while you've decided that I have a fallacious reading of policy, the rest of the Wikipedia world works by building consensus, making edits based on reliable sources, and including only information accepted in the field of study. Now, we disagree on that. The fact that we read policy differently doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. You seem to be under the impression that your reading of policy, despite others' disagreement (particularly those brought in by the RfC), is magically correct and that your sources are reliable simply because you believe them to be. --Cheeser1 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The consensus is at the bottom of the page and is that the article should remian as is because the article is a) needs rewriting and b) there is no evidence to suggest a change. --Neon white 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't a consensus. There's a clear lack of consensus. Appropriately, things are in a holding pattern. Certainly it's true that improvement of the article is a more pressing need than renaming it. JJL 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you realize that the status quo version of the page has consensus a priori. Lack of consensus for change defaults to the prior consensus, even if some people wanted to change things. --Cheeser1 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

A move nomination failed four weeks ago, and the issue has not been dropped since then. Several users have formed a majority opinion that advocates moving the article based on sources that have raised WP:RS objections. It appears that the majority group intends not to form consensus, but to push their majority opinion by having votes and claiming consensus rule. Note that I am not participating in this RFC due to my leaving this discussion once again. I have repeated myself far too much and should not be forced to "[stare] down the business of a majority" or endure accusations that I am "blocking the article from being improved" just because I'm trying to work towards an article that satisfies WP:RS. Due to the disposition of others in this discussion, my contributions are being disregarded and dismissed due to the alleged singularity of my opinion. This is why, as I'm noting, I will not be participating in the discussion on this page - I would be unable to keep my cool in such an injudiciously hostile environment. --Cheeser1 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Don't move the push to include the word "subculture" appears to be due to a desire by the "majority" for this to happen, rather than a valid reason for it to happen. The sources that the "subculture" claim is based on are, as Cheeser1 has exhaustively explained above, not reliable. No amount of consensus will change that. The reliability requirements may seem like a pain to those in favour of a move, but that's the point; preventing this kind of thing is why they are there! Establishing emo as a subculture requires multiple reliable sources which, as yet, do not exist. My suggestion would be to drop this as a total waste of everybody's time and bring it back up only when some decent sources are available. When that happens, no one will have a reason to oppose the move. Miremare 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe we have good sources. I am not trying to push something because I see things a certain way, but simply because it bothers me to see the editing process blocked and because I believe I have been strawmanned time and again - such as suggesting that those who support the move want to do it with a majority ruling against policy.
I have argued for why the sources are good. Please tell me what is wrong with those arguments. And please note that the claim is only that sociologists, journalists and laymen are using the term "subculture" about "emo", and that there is no other word which has the same popularity (counterculture, culture and social group would be candidates, though). Lundse 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, social group (or a more acceptable variant thereof) appears to be a reasonable compromise. Subculture might be too much of a leap, but Emo does appear to be a subset of society. Can we just please move it from "(slang)"? It makes it seem as if Emo is an informal, perhaps derogatory collection of words, not a group of people. As far as I know, emo doesn't even have its own terminology. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Social group is (still) acceptable. Lundse 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
While we don't agree that the sources say that emo is a subculture, and the ones that do are somehow decidedly unreliable, I don't think anyone (other than punk youtubers who claim "there's no such thing as Emo") would report that emo is not a social group. J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not exactly what I am claiming the sources say (they tell us "subculture" is used about emo by a wide range of people, including sociologists). But never mind, I agree that emo is a social group and that we should not let the lack of sources hold us from stating the obvious, especially when the alternative (for now) seems a misleading "slang", which have a lot of connotations we do not want. Lundse 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, no matter what the prvious sources say, emo is a social group. Let's let this sit for a couple of days (I'll tag it post for a suggested move), and people can add their opinion. I would move it right away, but we seem to be the only two who agree at this point. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't move The article isn't about a "social group" - it's about hair, clothing, and other elements thrown under the term "emo". It's not about a subculture, as many of the people who wear the hair and the clothing (etc) identified with "emo" are in no way part of a subculture. If I get an "emo" haircut, does that automatically make me part of a subculture? Would it matter if I didn't personally think of it as an "emo" haircut, but someone else did? Whether or not the subculture can be proven through sources to exist is completely irrelevant as far as the title of the article is concerned.

Take the bands who are called "emo" because of their appearance and fashion sense. You're saying they're part of a subculture or social group, even though they flatly refuse to be associated with anything "emo"?

"Emo (pop culture)" doesn't work, either, given that the use of "emo" in "pop culture" is as a slang term. The simplest and most generic term is "slang".

Feel free to create a section or sub-heading about a subculture or social group within the article. But "subculture" or "social group" does not encompass the entirety of the article, making it completely unacceptable. -- ChrisB 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really help our argument now that the Fashion Wikiproject came along and tagged it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What does the slang term emo incompass that it is derived from the social group? The ridicule and how the word is used connects directly to the group and should be included in the groups article/section anyway. So should fashion, music (mostly a link of course), age, etc. What is left which can fit into the slang article but not the subculture? Lundse 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Move. We have an article, for example, on Goth subculture. There seems no reason for emo to be treated differently. Also, Emo (social group) seems like a good compromise.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there no apparent reason to treat this group differently--the sources given here indicate frequent use of this phrase ("Emo subculture"), giving a positive reason for the move. Bringing some measure of uniformity to WP is desirable, and the fact that other groups made a similar decision is encouraging, but mostly it's the obvious term to use for a group that self-identifies by music, style, and attitude, as writers concerned with this group have obviously recognized. While Emo (social group) would be an improvement, the term "social group" doesn't seem to be used much in this way here. Presumably most people type in "Emo" or "Emo music" when looking for Emo anyway and hit the dab page! There's already Emo (music) and Emo rap, plus several redirect pages, about Emo. It's also interesting to note that Subculture mentions Emo (slang) in passing. JJL 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid it isn't just "no reason to treat the group differently" - unless you have a reason to treat the group the same, it stays. You can't justify edits on Wikipedia by citing other edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and this kind of circular logic would put us in a situation where mistakes can be repeated forever, justifying themselves. Not only that, but there is no evidence that the two are analogous (beyond what you assume or believe you know - see WP:OR and WP:CK on that one). You can't use subculture or list of subcultures or emo as justification for this move! Wikipedia is not a source of information to be used on Wikipedia. It's utter nonsense. The only other substantiate for your claim is that it's "obvious." Well, your thoughts on what is obvious do not constitute a reliable source. You're synthesizing analytical claims based on your impressions of emo and/or primary sources (which cannot verify analytical claims). --Cheeser1 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Emo (social group)

It has been suggested that instead of moving this to "Emo subculture", we should instead move it to "Emo (social group)". I think this is a reasonable compromise. Your thoughts? J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of a parenthetical is not to explain what kind of a thing it is, but what kind of a term it is. It is a slang term. Examples: Cone (geometry) not Cone (shape). Emo (music) not Emo (genre). This is in accordance with the relevant disambiguation guidelines. I appreciate the desire to compromise, in "downgrading" the claim to "social group," but the title of the page is "Emo" - the (whatever) is only there for disambiguation purposes, and it stands to reason that it should follow disambiguation guidelines, and should not be a point of interest in a content dispute (even though it has been tied to the dispute about whether or not we may include content to the effect of "emo is a subculture" - in that instance, we'd move it to Emo (sociology) or something). I will remind everyone that the redirect at Emo subculture is there to help people find this page, not to substantiate claims that emo is a subculture. --Cheeser1 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Cheeser here. This is not an acceptable compromise. It is still a misleading use of parentheses, as the article deals with Fashion, Music, Personality, as well as public perception and reception - not just social structure of a "group" (Emo is subculture, not a collective). (subculture) helps bring these together, (social group) would not. And I am still against any move until the article's content is improved. Please put information from these supplied sources into the article and see what we have after the dust settles.--ZayZayEM 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we change the proposal to read "Move to Emo (sociology)"? I would be in favor of moving it to that. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
No. This would require very genuine sources denote it as a sociological term. I do not agree with Cheeser's assessment that "subculture" is somehow any different level of classification than "slang". And still, I'm currently pushing for article first, name later.--ZayZayEM 05:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Equally fine with me. And I would like to add that I think the move should come before the content; how are we going to decide what to include in the article if we do not know what the article is about? Plus I think Emo_(slang) is silly, it is a group of people first, a word second (you would not have an article on Minutemen_(word)). Also, slang could just as easily refer to the music as to the social group... Lundse 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
And a significant portion of the article does cover emo music. (And the remaining sections cover a stereotype, not a subculture.) Mdwh 11:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the guidelines on disamb. and here is my comment on the possibilities we have:

"1. When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket), that should be used."

We could use this to argue for "Emo subculture" (fine by me) or "Emo social group" (a bit unwieldy, methinks).

"2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: * the generic class that includes the topic (for example, Mercury (element), Seal (mammal));"

This "allows us" to use "Emo_(social group)" or "Emo_(subculture). Note that this possibility has been glossed over before: "The purpose of a parenthetical is not to explain what kind of a thing it is, but what kind of a term it is." is oversimplistic, because the policy cited here clearly tells us that we can and should in some cases use the "generic class" for the parenthesis. Using Emo_(slang) under this policy amounts to the claim that emo is best classified as a slang term, not a group of people. I believe this puts things upside down.

"2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: * the subject or context to which the topic applies (for example, Union (set theory), Inflation (economics))."

Under this, I would propose "Emo_(sociology)" or "Emo_(culture)"/"Emo_(pop culture)" (as in "this term relates to culture/pop-culture", not "this is a culture/pop-culture in itself". Using "Emo_(slang)" under this policy would be saying that there is a subject/context called "slang" or "slang words" and that somehow emo falls under this "area of study" before it falls under any other (such as sociology). I believe the first claim is teneous at best and the second plain wrong.

3. Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.

Not useful here, methinks.

Lundse 11:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that emo is best classified as a slang term, rather than a group of people. I would say that the word "emo" comes under the context of "slang". What do people think about Emo (stereotype), by the way? Mdwh 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The stereotype is just a derivative of the slang term. Through usage in slang, a stereotype of "emo people" or "emo stuff" in general is developed. (Stereotype) would restrict our language to that which can be established as "stereotypical" - not something I think we can easily or verifiably discern. --Cheeser1 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem lays in defining what it is exactly, it's indefinite. It's certainly not a social group and i'm not sure there is a sub-culture in the traditional sense. Isn't it more of a media construct, a buzz word? The problem in the age of mass communication is the mudding of sub culutres. There are very few distinct sets of beliefs that differ enough to form a sub culture. --Neon white 00:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can apply the following (from wikipedis social groups page) to a pop culture trend

A social unit consisting of a number of individuals interacting with each other with respect to: Common motives and goals; An accepted division of labor, i.e. roles, Established status (social rank, dominance) relationships; Accepted norms and values with reference to matters relevant to the group; Development of accepted sanctions (praise and punishment) if and when norms were respected or violated. --Neon white 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I am at a loss. The stereotype comes after the slang word for it? People listening to the same music and wearing the same clothes are not identifiable as a group? And a term's linguistic categorization is more important to an encyclopdeia than what the term denotes?
We are obviously not going to agree on much else, so lets agree to follow the best sources we have. I say sociologists' words come first, followed by related sciences and commentators, journalists and laymen. I don't think we should give preference to the slang-source because it came first... Lundse 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you see, you believe that the slang term describing loosely connected fashions, music, behavior, and style somehow indicates the preexisting presence of a subculture. The claim that it's a subculture is not verifiable as of yet. However, the slang term is known to exist, and describes a number of things that we are outlining in this article. If it's ever established as describing a subculture too, then we'll include that in the article. You continue to insist that your sources are "best" and thus that we should "follow" them - why don't you consider for a moment that these are highly contested sources that quite conceivably fail WP:RS on its face. Insisting that we disagree, therefor we must follow your sources is ludicrous - it is not agreed that your sources are reliable either. --Cheeser1 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I no longer see a definite proposal before us. While "social group" is not inaccurate, "subculture" best distinguishes it from other items at the Emo dab page, I think, and as stated earlier I think that's not a special kind of classification so different in kind from "slang" that nonspecialists can't make the determination. There's already Emo (music), leaving this article to cover both fashion and the youths who self-identify as Emoists. I continue to favor doing what was done with Punk and Goth--making the analogue of the Punk subculture and Goth subculture pages. The sources establish the fact that people have come to view Emoists as analogous in this way, and I am reaching the same conclusion that was apparently reached by the people writing the Punk- and Goth-related pages. At a quick glance I didn't see hand-wringing over "subculture" in the discussion archives there. JJL 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Other article can never be used as justification for decision making on Wikipedia. The reasoning there could be just as flawed as your reasoning here. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, nor can you use claims one article to substantiate some analogous claims in another. And that doesn't even touch the fact that goth and punk are not emo. Why not spin off subculture articles for swing music, reggaeton, and house music? The fact that it wasn't brought up there doesn't mean it shouldn't have been. Furthermore, if people call it a subculture, then we need a redirect. That is the purpose of a redirect. There is no precedent or reason behind "this is what it's (erroneously or unverifably) called, thus this is what the title of the article should be." You claim that "the sources esablish the fact that people have come to view Emoists [??] as analogous" but the sources we have are unreliable, they do not establish much of anything, and none of them speak to any sort of analogous cultural status. You may think that "subculture" is "not a special kind of classification" but it is. Undeniably. It is a specific kind of classification in sociology. The fact that the term is also used (and misused) in common parlance is irrelevant. --Cheeser1 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
These articles are not being used as sources. They are being used as examples of an accepted community standard of article nomenclature across Wikipedia. I have used similar reasoning for uniformizing article nomenclature for Avian influenza, Canine influenza and [{Equine influenza]] (bird flu, dog flu and horse flu).
You are really pushing for "subculture" as some special kind of term. this is your interpretation. You have provided no basis for this, whether reliably sourced, or by prior precedent. This is really becoming crank-like (sorry just read [48]). You are creating an argument from a non-existent basis while pushing your expertise in the area above others. there is no precedent in wikipedia that "subculture" is some kind of special term that requires extra-special reliable sources to use as disambiguator. The old "Ferrari (car)" analogy resurfaces, you don't need a reference for the obvious.--ZayZayEM 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In this case it is not obvious. The arugement is valid as their is little evidence as yet to suggest a subculture is in existance --Neon white 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll thank you not to accuse me of being a crank. No one would object to the notion that canine influenza is properly called canine influenza. If you have a source indicating that the contents of this article are properly called "emo subculture," feel free. But you don't. You have unpublished, unreliable, or non-authoritative sources. That's not going to cut it. "Standard of article nomenclature"? That would be an argument to use, maybe, if I said "we are never allowed to call an article ____ subculture" - but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in this case, there is no evidence. The fact that other articles do something similar is irrelevant. I could go raise complaints over there (but I won't, because I respect WP:POINT). However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion "punk is a subculture, thus emo is a subculture." You may see the two articles as similar, but you can't introduce analytical claims into an article based on those in another article. Blatant violation of WP:SYN. --Cheeser1 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Evidence has been supplied. And dismissed by you as not good enough. Yes you have cited wikiepdia guidelines, but the interpretation of these guidelines has been disputed. That the other articles use the word subculture without a reference is relevant. It shows that "subculture" is not some amazingly technical term that needs extra special citation. Its like calling a Ferrari a car. Noone has said punk is a subculture, thus emo is a subculture - we have said emo is a subculture, just like punk. They are parallel examples not genealogical.--ZayZayEM 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
But those other articles clearly describe a subculture. This article just talks about a stereotype. If this article can be changed to describe a subculture, I believe only then does it make sense to rename. Mdwh 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This is fair. ZayZayEM makes some very good points, but it is reasonable to ask to see more about the subculture in the article. I am not so concerned about whether it's done before or after--If you build it, They will come (and edit it)--but there are now several sources talking about (worrisome?) aspects of the group's attitudes, such as that by the psychiatrist, and more of that should be in the article. JJL 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute about those sources, and apparently there is also a dispute about what is obvious. Drawing your own analogies between punk and emo is not convincing. Citing other Wikipedia articles isn't doing much either. The fact is, there are legitimate concerns being raised about the sources for this content (either in the article, or in the article's title), by several users, for valid reasons. To think that saying "a subculture is a subculture" is any more convincing or would be agreed upon is silly. You already know people are raising concerns, and brushing them off with "everybody knows it's a subculture" or "it's obvious it's a subculture" or "we don't need a citation for this information" - it's no answer to the concerns of other editors, it's an outright dismissal. When you propose bold changes, consensus has to form. That means addressing people's concerns, not dismissing them. --Cheeser1 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser please consider your comments about dismissiveness to your own debating tactics. And noone has cited the article subculture in recent history.--ZayZayEM 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, subculture and the punk and goth articles are relevant in the way you mentioned here [49] and here [50]; they indicate that "subculture" is not a trademarked term usable only by licensed sociologists. I don't think there's any need to further argue that point. JJL 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you think subculture has a non-sociological definition you better provide reliable sources to prove that. Otherwise all you're doing is citing Wikipedia, which is not valid. --Cheeser1 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also interesting to note that Subculture mentions Emo (slang) in passing. JJL 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Add this to the fact that everyone is making claims based on "but we have punk subculture and goth subculture" and I see a significant problem with people citing Wikipedia articles to make claims in other Wikipedia articles (without even any basis - goth can be a subculture even if emo isn't). --Cheeser1 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
As i wrote above, i personally wouldnt call it a subculture in the traditional sense, i don't think the beliefs are distinct at all, i couldnt even describe the beliefs, standards, morals, behavious etc. of someone claiming to be part of said subculture, i certainly believe that you would find a large variety and also a large part in common with mainstream pop culture. Culture itself and the way cultures and subcultures (if they can be said to still exist) are develeped is changing considerably since the onset of the 'communicateion age'. My overall views is that i have not seen enough evidence to back up claims of anything more than a stereotype. My belief is simply that the research doesnt exist. --Neon white 21:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The article cannot be considered to describe a subculture. At this stage it only mentions music and fashion. There are no mentions about any distinct religious or poltiical beliefs or similarities based on ethnicity, gender, race or sexuality that would be required for something to the be classed as a subculture. If such things exist they to go in the article before anything else. --Neon white 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article certainly needs more work to be a good Emo subculture article. Moving it would likely spur some of that work and so I have mixed feelings on this, but it is not unreasonable to expect to see more of it now. We have evidence that the phrase is used but have not put much of it in the article--e.g., the suicide concerns would be a possible criticism. JJL 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
"Evidence that the phrase is used" is exactly the conditions under which we create a redirect. It is not justification for a move. --Cheeser1 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, but if you think subculture has a non-sociological definition you better provide reliable sources to prove that. Otherwise all you're doing is citing Wikipedia, which is not valid. --Cheeser1 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser, this is creating a false dichotomy. "You can't prove me wrong, I mustbe right." Why does something being a scientific term disallow us from making assessments. "Animal" is a biological term, "Acid" a chemical term, "Archway" an architectural term. Dictionary "subculture" . I like this one

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
subculture
A group within a society that has its own shared set of customs, attitudes, and values, often accompanied by jargon or slang. A subculture can be organized around a common activity, occupation, age, status, ethnic background, race, religion, or any other unifying social condition, but the term is often used to describe deviant groups, such as thieves and drug users. (See counterculture.)
[Chapter:] Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology

You don't have to be an anthropologist to assess these criteria (common activity, age, status, unified by taste in music, fashion, mood - used to describe deviant groups). As pointed out, sociology is a very soft science.--ZayZayEM 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The claim that emo is a subculture is one of a sociological nature. Furthermore, it is an analytical claim, which requires not just a reliable source, but a reliable secondary source with analytical authority. This is the basics of WP:RS. Accuse me all you want of saying I'm right, but don't forget: You are arguing for inclusion, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove it isn't a subculture. I just have to point to the opinion that I and many other share: there are no reliable sources to support such a claim. Stop side-tracking the discussion by longwinded and irrelevant citations of the dictionary. I could pull out a dictionary and quote you "prime number" and then say "2157 is a prime number because lots of people would look at it and guess that it is," but it isn't. Even regular claims on Wikipedia require reliable sources - analytical ones, especially those that are contested and not supported by consensus, must have published, reliable, authoritative sources, not the Google cache of an unpublished paper or a conference abstract of a manuscript, neither text of which we even have access to. You can argue around in circles, and I'll continue to raise the same objections. Saying "you're wrong because it's obvious" or "you're wrong because we have a majority" or "you're wrong because we dislike you" is not going to get you anywhere, and is not how we build consensus. I contest any bold edits of this nature that have or will occur until I see reliable sources. I am not the only one. If you (and others) want to contribute constructively, maybe you can redirect your time into improving the article we have now (which is the status quo and thus is supported by consensus - it just needs better sources), instead of trying to introduce even more tenuous claims into it. --Cheeser1 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you free from burden of proof to show that "subculture" is a term that requires sociological verification. It doesn't. Anymore than I need a source to say "Ebola haemorrhagic fever is a disease".--ZayZayEM 02:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
If there was no reliable source to show that Ebola was a disease, then we wouldn't call it one. However, there are such sources. If something is not contested, a source may not be provided, but if it becomes contested, it must be. See also WP:CK, which I've already cited several times. Subculture is known to be a sociological term (if nothing else, according to the definition you provided). To make analytical claims about sociology, one requires a source, not simply what you conclude. That's WP:OR on its face. I don't have to "prove" a reliable source is needed - that's just a matter of policy. You disagree? Then there's a disagreement - that means no consensus for your changes. Once again, I am not the only one saying this. --Cheeser1 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Shared tastes in fashion and music amongst teen groups dont natively constitute a subculture. That would be class as popular culture. As of now we don't seem to have any evidence that there are any more shared beliefs, political, religious, ethnic or otherwise to link people who happen to enjoy the same music. --Neon white 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Now What?

It has been several days since this talk page has been edited, and yet there was no clear resolution to the name debate. Personally, I feel unsure of which way consensus went, although the fact that the discussion died out unresolved could mean that there was no consensus to move and it should be left be. So what do we do now? Do we leave it here until someone else opens this can of worms again? Do we try to conduct a straw poll? I am not trying to revive debate so much as see what the result of the debate was.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Because there is no clear consensus, the page should remain at the status quo. Editors involved should probably decide if they actually want to contribute to the article itself (which is what wikipedia is for), and then return to this discussion at a later date. This is not a consensus that "slang" is okay, but a lack of consensus for anything else.--ZayZayEM 01:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. If there is no consensus, we default to the previous consensus, which is the page as-is. There was consensus for how the page is, and that's more than we can say for any new proposals. --Cheeser1 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The best thing to do is to improve the article's content. Cedars 12:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. As i mentioned above, the stalling point is the lack of evidence that there are any shared beliefs, political, religious, ethnic or otherwise to warrent the tag 'sub-culture'. --Neon white 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After all that...

After all the discussion that has gone on here, i actually looked through the article with a fine toothed comb and found if you were to removed all the bad and unreliable sources, the OR and weasel words, we really arent going to be left with too much that isnt covered in Emo (music). The only section that is properly cited is the music history. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the whole article should be deleted unless someone is prepared to do alot of work on it. --Neon white 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that there aren't reliable sources writing about any of this. Even the superficial, non-analytical claims we want to make about this subject are barely sourced, if at all. --Cheeser1 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe we should just be rid of it all for now. Maybe someone will write a published source about it, but maybe we should open an AfD. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say give it a bit of time - people should have an opportunity to take note of the discussion here and contribute. If no progress is made in finding any sort of substantial coverage in a reliable source, then I can imagine we'd make steps to make the necessary changes without concern for someone being "out of the loop" or anything. --Cheeser1 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think an actual AfD would get more of a response, but I'm not in a rush. I have actually edited his article more than any other article. I have 67 to the actual article, and 80+ to the talk page. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that the AfD will get a response. I just meant wait like ... a day or two maybe. Give the people who regularly update this article to see what's been going on, so that they don't come back to find the thing halfway to deletion - that might make some heads spin. --Cheeser1 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it's been given more than enough time. This article contains very little verified substantiated information. It can't even really decide how to focus the topic. Contains some very very dodgy references (such as those that are based on other wikipedia articles). --ZayZayEM 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If others think it should be up for deletion, I would agree. If people want to AfD it now, that would be fine with me. I just didn't want this to catch people by surprise. --Cheeser1 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems unanimous. Go right ahead. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the options are either merge it with Emo (music), in which case most of it is redundant seen as it seems that article is the source for the info here. If the article is to center on the fashion elements which does have some verifiable sources even if they are reporting a stereotype, then the article should be recategorized as fashion or just delete it. I still believe there is a slang usage of the term but the article is not about that and it simply does not fit with any of the other words in the category. It seems to be an attempted to establish the term as a sub-culture, that either doesnt exist or is not documented enough to have an article, using nothing more than original research. The main problem, and this seems to be widespread in the slang category, is the lack of reliable sources that arent self-published. There are many slang dictionaries but most are SP. --Neon white 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The only thing with making it about fashion is that most of the verifiable sources are from news programs warning about how if your kid listens to emo music, he will kill himself, and the emo teenagers defending themselves and looking stupid for the adult-controlled, adult-targeted media. Power to the children! Ahem. Maybe it should just go. Few if any neutral reliable sources. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm always disappointed that journalism turns out to be so blatantly unreliable on so many topics. Sure, they can cover the war or the election or whatever, and maybe deep down there's some covering-up or bias, but this is just too obvious. "OMG UR KIDZ WILL COMIT SUISIDE! ... tonight at 9 on channel 3 news." sigh. --Cheeser1 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
That's what i meant by a stereotype, it's the only thing there is reliable sources for and maybe a stereotype is all the term actually is outside music. --Neon white 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah :) Well, maybe it should get put up then. Also, a few harsh words were exchanged during discussions here, and I was not always extremely civil, and I wanted (now that all the discussion will be for nothing) to apologize to any I have ever offended. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I too would support the deletion of this article as there is no useful content in this article at the moment. Merging with emo (music) would be unacceptable though. The whole point of this article was to get this rubbish out of the other article. Cedars 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the best step is deletion/merge to emo (music), develop a section in that article about related fashion/poetry/anti-cliques and media/political response to this and see if enough material can be spun out to need a seperate article.--ZayZayEM 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There would be no point in deleting it, it would just be re-created(but if you wait long enough it'll get salted) so it would be reasonable to created a protected redirect to emo (music) and merge the information. Oysterguitarist 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - redirecting this makes a lot of sense. I'm also in favor of a pseudo-merge. There are a few things here worth salvaging. --Cheeser1 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
As a precedent the Grunge music article has a section titled 'Presentation and fashion' which touches on the fashions associated with that particular music genre. --Neon white 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should redirect, but there is some info that can be moved to the music article. Emo (slang) as a title is too specific to be able to refer to an article about music. We might be able to move Emo (music) to Emo now that we don't have to differentiate. Maybe we don't even need to AfD. All the regular editors seem to agree on some form of removal. If we do decide to delete instead of redirect, we could just prod it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the plan as I see it taking shape (with progress updates):

  1. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgMove Emo to Emo (disambiguation).
  2. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgMove Emo (music) to Emo. - Thanks to Haemo for moving this, since it was move-protected.
  3. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgMerge any salvageable parts of this article into Emo.
  4. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgRedirect this article there (not move or delete). (Have we decided exactly what we want to do?)
  5. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgClean up mainspace links that point here.
  6. Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svgClean up mainspace links that point to Emo (music). - I've got all the redirects and templates fixed. If anyone thinks it necessary, you could go through all 600+ regular articles that link there.

If that sounds good to everybody, I suggest we get underway. I've dropped a note at Emo (music) too, so the move won't take them by surprise. --Cheeser1 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, but instead let's redirect this page to Emo (disambiguation), which is more ambiguous. Good idea putting the regulars over at Emo music on notice. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as i can see there is the music page and what we appear to have left is some fashion stereotypes. What is worth keeping from this page? --Neon white 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
if Emo (slang) is deleted then a redirect is unecessary, everything will just go to Emo (disambiguation). --Neon white 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a few fashion stereotypes are notable, but this page is unnecessary. I think we should delete. There's nothing here really warranting another article. J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so things are underway. Right now we need to merge whatever we want from here into Emo. We can also start on the last step, if we want, since the Emo (music)→Emo move is done. --Cheeser1 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I merged some stuff in this edit. Everything else is either music or criticism related, but merging some criticism points might create too large a criticism section, starting NPOV problems. J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What we have in the criticism section here seems pretty poorly referenced anyway. I've merged some more over here. I believe that's really all we need to move - if a few more people agree, then we can blank this page and redirect it to Emo. That would get us most of the way there. --Cheeser1 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

DONE - I've finished cleaning up mainspace links to this article, and I think we've merged as much as we're going to get out of here. I've set up the redirect. NOTE: if you want to merge more or anything like that, feel free. This isn't an absolute "we are now done forever" - just look through the history of the page, pick out what you think needs to be merged to Emo and put it there. Best to all. --Cheeser1 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit - Okay, right as I went to create the redirect, I noticed this: Have we decided exactly what we want to do? Have we? I was under the impression that a redirect made the most sense. This is a relatively popular article, and is referenced many places outside of Wikipedia. It's better, based on how I read this, to leave it in place not just for Wikipedia's sake but for the rest of the Internet. Regardless, there's alot of history here that is helpful. It includes alot on the talk page, etc. The alternative (deletion) leaves us with none of the revision history - which may prove helpful at some point - and more importantly none of the talk page, which would be a problem: alot of issues have been resolved here, and if we delete it, we'll loose all that consensus building. I'm going to be bold and assume that a redirect is better than deleting the article. If someone disagrees, feel free to suggest deletion. A redirect existing in the meantime won't hurt anything, will it? --Cheeser1 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ok. I thought it would have been awkward to redirect a page with a title that seemed very specific, but seeing it in action, it works fine. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies for by revert of your good decision

Sorry about my revert. I saw the earlier delete discussion. I then saw the later one and attempted to undo what I did, but Cheeser1 beat me to it. I watch several pages on the psyhology of emotion, which is how I got to this page. There DOES seem to be a sociological phenomenon, but not much by way of reliable sources. You've probably made the best decision, though I would have liked to find out about a youth culture phenomenon like that. DCDuring 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to apologize, it was an honest mistake. --Cheeser1 01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Now that all this page is is a redirect, do we really need to have the templates at the top? J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need the fashion one - I've removed it. The others seem worthwhile - deletion records and talkpage archives are helpful, and the one about "this is a talk page, please follow the rules" could stay or go - I don't think it's necessary but it couldn't hurt (this is still a talk page, after all). --Cheeser1 15:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it mentions that this is for discussing improvements to Emo (slang), but we can't really improve it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't it be revived if someone actually found some good secondary articles on the cultural phenomenon? There's something out there, just not encyclopedic yet - and maybe not ever. DCDuring 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In theory, yes. Until then, it's a redirect. J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could it be?

I seem to have stumbled upon a published, reliable source. This would certainly warrant bringing back an article, if we deem it acceptable. Thoughts? J-ſtanTalkContribs 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This source has already been discussed at length above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we cannot use that source as it is not academic enough. Never mind that it is among the best sources we have, and that we have zero sources contradicting the claim that emo is a subculture. Also, to hell with the guidelines saying we can use non-academic sources and even self-published ones in these cases. Lundse (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Laying the sarcasm on a little thick eh? This discussion is so over that this entire article was deleted without objection weeks ago. Let it go. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Compare the "Now What?" section above with the one following it. After agreeing to leave the page "as is" (per your own comments there), less than one week later a few editors decided to delete it despite the lack of consensus to do so and the clearly stated consensus to leave it as is. There was no objection because it was apparent that the process had broken down and it would be pointless to argue with someone who was ignoring the consensus that "the page should remain at the status quo" (to which you had responded, "Exactly"). So, your declaring victory seems a bit silly now.JJL (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah it does, even though I wasn't accepting any victory :) That discussion was what, like three months ago? I can't remember what I said yesterday, much less three months ago :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, wait sorry, not directed at me. Guess my problem isn't remembering what I said a few months ago, it's whether I said anything at all :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am "laying on the sarcasm" because I think it is relevant mentioning that although the source has been discussed, noone ever tried answering the points raised about what way the sources as a whole pointed, nor what the policies said. The discussion being over, what you think the outcome was and what happened next is pretty irrelevant.
I have "let it go" as consensus has been effectively blocked at this point. I am done arguing for now, as I do not think it will do any good - but I am going to inform people that there was an argument and that certain viewpoints prevailed (ie. those I mentioned above). I am also going to check in on this page to see what excuses will be marshaled when the next source pops up... Lundse (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus blocked? Several people objected to the references and to the claims you were drawing from them. Until you convince us to agree on these sources, you are the one working against consensus. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, that would be me working against majority - which is something else. Consensus has connotations of everyone agreeing, and certainly of everyone having formed an informed opinion. Not responding to the policies I brought up which showed clearly that we could use those sources is blocking consensus, as it means the discussion stalls. Lundse (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please take any new discussion

Please take any new discussion to the Emo page please. Discussion on *dead* pages may be hidden from interested editors.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)