Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Let's do it, already! 2 Did a three year old put this article together? 3 How to be: Emo 4 See Also 5 Automatic bias 6 Spelling Error 7 Emo vs Goth 8 Tickle Me Emo 9 "Don't Be Emo"? 10 emo - what does it mean? 11 Emo 12 Neologism 13 Heavy Metal 14 Picture. 15 eye liner and sex boundarys 16 Language Use 17 Not related to gothic rock or punk rock 18 Edit Grammatical usage of "Emo" 19 the 'emo debate' 20 Borderline PD and Emo? 21 Emo Culture? 22 The Beatles - "Emotionally Hardcore" -- errr, WTF???? 23 Poor Article 24 The Quizzical "Subculture" Label 25 I must say! 26 big clean up 27 Request for Comment: Reversion of clean-up 28 Check this 29 Grammar note 30 Requested move 30.1 Survey 30.2 Discussion 31 Insufficient context? 32 Come on 33 Emo or Scene? 34 Emosexuality 35 gallery?? 36 gallery revisited 37 Move to Emo subculture

[edit] Let's do it, already!

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

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

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

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

[edit] Did a three year old put this article together?

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

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

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

[edit] How to be: Emo

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

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

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

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

[edit] See Also

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

[edit] Automatic bias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liar. :P

Listen, mate - I'm not the one throwing the tantrum here. Since you arrived here you've been aggressive in your activity, which (again) consists solely of removing any negative view of emo, or even mention thereof. Your first comment here was a sarcastic attack, and you've kept the attitude up. Me personally, I think most bands cast into the "emo" stereotype - My Chemical Romance et al - are the worst music fad I've ever seen, but I know those bands aren't really emo, and I hate the stupid anti-emo push at least as much. My only interest in this article is that I'm more or less objective, and I want to see it as comprehensive and accurate as possible with the limited soures available. Speaking of which, I found another,[1] but it's just another stupid anti-emo rant, and worse than the ones in the article now. Op-ed pieces like this are about the limit of our resources. Requiring academic papers is all well and good for the maths articles you normally work on, but this is a different field entirely. We simply don't have tha kind of research at our disposal. I know of one academic paper that has been written, and it may have been published. If it has, I'll use it as a source for the article. I've contacted the researcher, asking them about it. But as far as serious, reliable studies go, that's the only one I know of or can find, and I wouldn't place too large a bet on its usefulness. ~Switch ^{t c g} 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Two words: Chill. Pill.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Spelling Error

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

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

[edit] Emo vs Goth

I think it might be worth explaining the differences between goth and emo; although it may seem obvious to a lot of people, it is pretty hard express or to put down in print. I have searched the internet and I cannot find any decent explainations that are agreed upon mutually. Newcomers to the phrase would benefit from this much more than you or I- well, that is the point of looking stuff up on wikipedia, 'cos you don't know much about it. Cheers!

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

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

Emos hate themselves Goths hate everyone Emos want to kill themselves Goths want to kll everyone

In regards to the post above true goths are a peaceful and artistic culture. Mature people with mature views of the world. Emos tend to be teenagers going through a phase.

[edit] Tickle Me Emo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Don't Be Emo"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your sources are unreliable...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] emo - what does it mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheeser 1, asking for a definition of the article is not totally irrelevant and while it is not directly related to improving the article per se, it is a fair question.

"i don't want the encyclopedia definition" makes it pretty clear that this is the wrong place for this, as it is actually the opposite of "asking for a definition of the article." And the nonsense that ensued was just as irrelevant. Cheeser1 23:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right you are, sorry I didn't really look at the topic sentence as thoroughly as the topic title. You are 100% correct.

regardless of whether it's relevant or not , no one 'chooses' to be emo. They just are. They live life 'normally' and one day realize that they are emo and always have been. (this recently happened to me) No one would choose to be emo because being emo sucks. People rag on you and you are pretty much glum all the time because you see the downside of everything, be it politics or you love-life. If one 'chooses' to be emo, one is a poseur, and should be hit with a shovel, because they mess up the true 'stereotype' (crying jags, talking about cutting ALL THE TIME, etc.) with their trying-to-hard. They are not emo, they are just insecure.4.244.147.241 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)anewlydiscoveredemo

Please note the banner at the top of this discussion page, where it clearly and firmly states This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Cheeser1 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emo

Being emo seems to to be another clique. However, why assume that middle and upper class children don't have problems? Does having money save one from having problems? Can money fix a broken heart? Personally, I find emos less offensive than ignorant, happy people. I find that too much in this society, we deny our emotions and use drugs, both prescription and illegal, alcohol, religion and other sources to mask emotional issues. No, I don't agree with cutting, but also do not agree with what I mentioned above. Maybe if someone listened to these kids and told them it is okay to feel the way they do, it wouldn't become a lifestyle. I think too often, we forget what that time period of life was like. Is there anyone who wasn't crushed by their first love? If you remember correctly, it felt like hell and like no one else could understand what it was like to go through. It is apart of being a teen or a young adult. Society shys away from emotions, forgetting that we are emotional, physical, mental, and spiritual beings. Another thing that gets forgotten is a teen's need to express themselves. Empathy, people, is what it is all about. Look at the criticism that any subculture gets; hippies, punks, Goths....we can't all be the same, how boring would that be. It is another excuse to ridicule and critize what is different. Human beings are infamous for this. Just some food for thought. 70.77.36.136 17:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Samantha Farrow, April 9, 2007

General musing on the topic of emo (or anything else) isn't really what goes into Wikipedia. What you've presented isn't substantiated, and would qualify as original research if included in the article. Please note the banner at the top of this discussion page, where it clearly and firmly states This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Cheeser1 02:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Regardless of all of the previous people (no offense meant to them) 'emo' isn't a clique, and it's not just a musical style. It's more of a lifestyle than anything. Most 'emos' are middle class kids, and don't have much to be depressed about, but that is exactly it. They understand that life after teenager-hood is boring and monotonous. Everyone expects something from them, and there's not much in the way of dealing with the pressure. One does not 'become' emo, one discovers that one has been 'emo' all along. Normally it's teens who are slightly inteligent and/or pay attention to what life actually entails (ie: NOT shopping, tanning, getting drunk, etc.). The emo poetry and self-harm are just ways to deal with stress without hurting anyone else, which is important to an emo. Most of the people the general stereotype is based off of (crying all the time, only shopping at Hot Topic, wearing completely black, listening to too much screamo, being on MySpace all the time, talking about cutting, etc.) are actually emo-wannabe's who are doing it for friends. For them/us it's not just about love, it's understanding that no one is perfect, no one ever will be, life sucks a lot, and things almost never change.4.244.147.241 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)anewlydiscoveredemo

Please note the banner at the top of this discussion page, where it clearly and firmly states This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Cheeser1 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

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

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

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

[edit] Heavy Metal

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

Things to include:

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

How cool would that page be? Jay316 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Picture.

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

[edit] eye liner and sex boundarys

some times emos wear eye liner Im emo and i wear eyeliner . Its a way of going against the sex boundarys whitch emos see as pointless whitch is why many emos are femanine

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

Indeed. The eye liner should be added and researched. It's a large trend now. ~Von

Emos enjoy being slightly androgynous (all of them), and emo-girls think that boys wearing eyeliner is pretty. Wearing it also gives the world a big 'f-you' in terms of normalcy. Emos are not normal or like everyone else, and they want to express it. It's rebelling against the system, rebelling against boring parents, and getting girls to like them all at the same time. 4.244.147.241 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)anewlydiscoveredemo

[edit] Language Use

Noun: That person is such an emo.

I have never heard the term used as a noun. Perhaps that should be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Not related to gothic rock or punk rock

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

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

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

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

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

Or we could discuss the facts in comparison to all the other articles on Wikipedia so this one doesn't contradict the encyclopedia... the only reason there are sources that say otherwise is because of misinformation originally printed on Wikipedia which they have used as a source. The older heading is standard from earlier in the year and far more representative of the truth.

If you'd like to try and explain how gothic rock influenced this then try, there are also no sources where emo kids are stating "we dress like this because of Daniel Ash and Andrew Eldritch", skater clothing has nothing to do with gothic rock. The misinformation doesn't belong, and having it on the Wikipedia only spreads the misinformation wider. - The Daddy 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Non of this is related to gothic rock or its subculture and I'm yet to see any evidence that is is. Where are the emo kids stating that their dress is influenced by Steve Severin, or in terms of punk rock Joe Strummer? They're not, wearing black isn't somehow trademarked to goths, metalheads wear black too. An argument could be made for relation to skate punks associated culture due to the Warped connection though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That aside, the arguments you offer are logical fallacies:

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

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

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

Says you. This is just more OR.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edit Grammatical usage of "Emo"

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

66.165.31.200 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC) Holly 05/12/07 8:18 pm

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

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

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

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

[edit] the 'emo debate'

emo is fine as a genre of music should be defined by the people that follow it!

Quikxote 20:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borderline PD and Emo?

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

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

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

I actually find it quite insulting how emos often act as if they have BPD. I have seen people with this kind of condition be labelled emo simply because of the stigma the emo culture has created.

[edit] Emo Culture?

Emo may be considered a slang term, but this article is not about the term it is about the culture. I recommend that the name is changed to "Emo (culture)".

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

[edit] The Beatles - "Emotionally Hardcore" -- errr, WTF????

The current article has this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Poor Article

Badly sourced and written, confusing to read. Should be locked

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

[edit] The Quizzical "Subculture" Label

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

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

I suggest that research be performed on the roots of the emo culture, and how--if it is--any different from today's emo fashion trend. Krj3550 00:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)KRJ3550

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] I must say!

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

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

[edit] big clean up

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

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

[edit] Request for Comment: Reversion of clean-up

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Check this

I didn't read the whole discussion, so this might have already been mentioned, but there's an error here. The "Suicide pact" in Australia was more of a murder pact. The two girls murdered one of their friends. I'm pretty sure it happened in Mandurah. Anyway, just thought you should check it out. Peace. Eli - 3 June 2005

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

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

[edit] Grammar note

As editing is fucked disabled, I put this here - the second "adjective" in the grammar bit is an ADVERB. This needa be changed - anyone authorised?

No, it is an adjective. Compare:

I am happy.

I feel happy.

I am stupid.

I feel stupid.

I am emo.

I feel emo.

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

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

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

[edit] Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insufficient context?

There is an insufficient context on the page now, added here with an edit summary of: "Marked intro with {context}. The only clue on the subject came to me at the bottom of the article". I was under the impression that when such tags are added, one is supposed to fully explain the problem on a new (or preexisting) section in the talk page. I have no idea what the bottom of the page (nor "clues" to this editor) has to do with the introduction and the context it provides. I see no rationale for including this tag - perhaps I am wrong, but I see no context issues. The {context} tag is for articles like this or this or this. I don't see a problem with our introduction - perhaps it is a bit too brief, but the article itself isn't very long, and we need not be redundant. Any thoughts? --Cheeser1 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the intro seems fine to me. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Come on

this article looks like a seventh grader put it together in two days. I mean realy theres barely any history or discription and plus it intirly bland i mean realy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Emo or Scene?

Isnt emo being lifestyle and actions and scence the look? just wondering

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

I think its:Emo - Music Genre, Scene - The Fashion thats associated with it. As quoted here, "First, lets get to understand emo, if only a bit. Emo is the convergence of melody and hardcore punk. First recognized in tha bands (Now Pay attention): Dag Nasty, Sleeptime Trio, Moss Icon, Indian Summer, and Rites of Spring. Emo is a music genre and nothing more. It's short for Emotively Charged Hardcore. Emo is not a fashion, the fashion is called scene." Source: http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/showthread.php?t=1869923966

[edit] Emosexuality

I am pretty surprised that nothing has been said about Emo's Pansexual attidude towards life. Should it be added??

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

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

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

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

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

There are absolutely no reliable sources, as of yet, explaining or discerning any sort of sexuality related to or correlated to emo fashion. Furthermore, sex, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed categories that do, in fact depend on the social groups in which one finds oneself. The role that emo music, fashion, etc. might play in one's sexuality is highly dubious, and varied. Further, the idea of sexual category (especially when associating a particular social group with a sexual category) is extraordinarily dubious, because both such categories are poorly defined, locally defined, and dynamic.
This is me speaking from the perspective of someone who has studied human sexuality and social interaction in a great deal of depth (anonymous internet credentials aside, I think my point is still clear). And J-Stan, nice palindrome observation, I saw it too. How bizarre! I guess that makes the case that some emos go both ways. Bad puns all around! --Cheeser1 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] gallery??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] gallery revisited

EMC - the removal of the gallery was objected to. There was no consensus for removing it. You did not cite valid policy (as one user pointed out, one was never a policy, and the other no longer a policy). That means there is neither consensus for removing the gallery, nor policy to support it. Removing the gallery before consensus is reached violates WP:BRD, and as I've pointed out, that means things stay put until something better is agreed upon. As I see it, this removal is entirely inappropriate, and the fact that everyone got so frustrated that you were the only one left paying attention to this page is not consensus. I've still had it on my watchlist, and I've watched others who were not involved in this discussion previously (see above) revert your removal of the gallery at least twice now. I suggest you stop, because neither policy nor consensus are on your side, and there is no justification for removing the images, except that you (subjectively) consider them to be "substandard" and that you wish there were photographs to replace them. Until there is a policy that lets your personal critique of picture quality justify cutting content from articles, or until you find photographs to use in this article instead, the gallery stays. If you remove it one more time, I will request that an administrator intervene. I will not pick apart policy with you, as there is none in question. I will not debate image quality with you - it is irrelevant. Your argument has no merit. I've laid it out for you. It could not be clearer, and I will not waste my time frustrating myself and everyone else trying to haggle with you about things you want to unnecessarily cut from the article. Sometimes compromise makes sense, but what am I supposed to say, "please, let's just cut half the gallery"? --Cheeser1 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Keep your trivial gallery. I no longer care. And on a personal level, I think you're an incredibly rude person. Not because we disagree on the gallery; that I can tolerate. It's your abrasive attitude to other editors that irritates me. Here's my policy for removing the gallery. Wikipedia is not all about policy you dumb asshole. Some things are common sense, and for you to even bring policy into this is utter stupidity on your part, but apparently you're just another editor who wants Wikipedia to be more like a bureaucracy. Sorry if I don't have policy to justify my edits which were based on good faith and made to better the article. As I've pointed out, the images in that gallery are of questionable quality to me, and that is how we do things on Wikipedia. But, as you've stated, you don't care about my opinion, and neither does Wikipedia. So you and your little gallery can go rub eachother raw in a corner. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Assuming good faith and trying to be constructive has gone out the window. What is wrong with you? WP:IGNORE does not justify whatever you want. Don't try to make this me being a "rude person" or an "asshole" or a terrible "bureaucrat." Anywhere, anytime, in any article, if you want to remove content, you must have a reason and you must have consensus to remove it. Usually, when there's no reason to remove content, we call it vandalism. That's how Wikipedia works. Excuse me for asking you to cite policy. I always assumed good faith, but carefully and precisely explained to you over and over and over that you must cite policy to remove content. I kept waiting for you to cite policy or build consensus, but neither happened, and that means you can't remove it. That's how things work. And I'll thank you not to take my comments out of context - I made it clear that your input is important to Wikipedia, but it must be an opinion about policy, not just "I don't like this part of the article so I'm deleting it." That kind of opinion is not helpful, and I made that distinction perfectly clear.

Now, if all this makes you break down to the point of highly uncivil comments like above, fine. If you think the images are "questionable" then question them. When others disagree, as is the case, then you don't have consensus, and you'll have to deal with it. That means don't be a whiny baby, stomping around because I'm such a big meanie. Good day, sir. --Cheeser1 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser appears to be the only one supporting the inclusion of the gallery (others please show me wrong). You cannot come up with a good reason as to why they should remain.

1. They do not illustrate any particular part of the article. Yes, they are remotely associated with the article topic. But in the light of:
2. Poor quality. They all appear to DIY jobs of attempts to illustrate emo subculture. Its a bit tacky considering...
3. They reinforce a POV bias as to what emo subculture is. They are unreferenced. Nobody says all pictures need to be referenced, noone is going to argue that this [2] is not a tiger. But calling this a typical emo hairstyle, or stereotypical emo or a common emo fashion motif, requires some sort of back up. If Chuck Taylor Allstars are so common, why aren't they mentioned in the main text _{(please consider WP:DISRUPT) in your next action}...

A final note, removal of the gallery doesnot violate WP:BRD, it is the Bold step in that process. Hopefully you will abide by consensus once this discussion is complete. WP:IGNORE is fine to cite here by EMC. Edits you do not like are not vandalism.--ZayZayEM 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of the gallery, when neither consensus nor policy support the removal, does violate BRD. Please read the entire policy carefully, as it clearly points out that you cannot "revert the revert" until consensus is reached to instate your changes. And although I never called it vandalism, I did point out that in other contexts, unjustified removal of perfectly good content is considered such. Do not misquote me or misrepresent what I say, it is offensive and highly inappropriate. The gallery does illustrate the fashion section (it is not useless), and if the use of the word "typical" bothers you, take it out. That's an issue with the caption, not the image, which still provides illustration for that section just fine. And honestly, all they do is illustrate part of a fashion section in an article that is not the best-referenced ever. The only thing we can do is illustrate the "average" or "typical." That's what this article is about, that section is about emo fashion in general. Obviously it will illustrate what is typical or average. If you have a different idea of what is typical or average, get some sources, work on rewriting that section, and if the images become too out-of-place, we'll work on it then.

So now your only concern, like EMC, is is that they are of "poor quality." How do you assess that? You don't like them? They are properly licensed, they are of relatively good resolution, they are not distorted, marred, or otherwise damaged. What are your criteria, because at this point, it looks like a couple of you have beef with images that they don't happen to like. Until you find better replacements, they are contributive parts of this article and you cannot remove them without citing policy (real policy, not outdated policy or guidelines that don't really even apply) or until you've built consensus. Other editors have reverted the removal of the gallery, eg [3], and even if they hadn't, that isn't to say they wouldn't have if I hadn't taken the lead on keeping this perfectly good content in this article.

You can't pretend like you're the voting commission, put it to a vote, and if people who agree with me don't pipe up in time, you do what you want anyway. Wikipedia is not a vote-on-every-issue democracy, and consensus is not built by finding one person who agrees with you or accusing the "other side" of not having "enough" support. I've offered to compromise from the start, and would gladly accept any number of compromises so long as the content is not simply cut wholesale from the article. That's how you work towards consensus - consensus is when everybody agrees on a compromise, or at least a middle-of-the-road course of action. Until consensus is reached, the article is not supposed to be changed per BRD. There is no burden on me to prove that images that clearly illustrate part of our article must be kept in. It's up to you to either build a much more solid consensus otherwise or to find policy that necessitates their removal.

And please don't come here after someone has already ruled that EMC has completely misused IGNORE and tell me that it's okay. I'm not stupid. You aren't an administrator. They already made it clear on the ANI that his use of IGNORE was totally inappropriate (as was his conduct at that point). -- Cheeser1 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing WP:IGNORE is fine here. Please do not wikilawyer. There is zero consensus to keep the gallery either. More than one independent editor has questioned its use and appropriateness.--ZayZayEM 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, per administrator comments on ANI and also per WP:WIARM. Please stop antagonizing me over what is clearly stated in policy and has been further delineated on the ANI. And like I've said 100 times, if content is perfectly good, then it doesn't need any other reason to stay put in the article. Removing it requires consensus or policy. Don't pick apart a "no consensus" situation as if that justifies bold edits, as we all know that is not the case. Unless there is consensus to remove, it stays (regardless of if there is no consensus, or if there is consensus to keep). --Cheeser1 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the ANI. I do not see anything akin to your vision. WP:IGNORE. WP:BRD is greater part of WP:consensus, wikipedia does not have clear rules, the main rule here is consensus - there is no consensus to keep the gallery, there have been several independent editors who have questioned its encyclopedic value. It's time to go.--ZayZayEM 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the verdict down at the ANI was pretty clear. In case you missed it, look again. Use of WP:IGNORE is completely inappropriate, and WP:BRD is very clear. Bold changes (eg gutting portions of an article) require consensus or policy. If people object, per the BRD cycle, then you cannot simlpy insist that they need to "prove" consensus. Consensus is not required to leave things as they are. Consensus is required for changes, especially bold ones. I've reverted your bold edit. I have reported you to the ANI. I will not edit war with you, but I will see to it that policy is followed. The fact that several people have "questioned" the encyclopedic value of particular content does not amount to consensus, nor is there any objective reason or policy cited. You just don't like them. That's nice. But it's not how we do things in an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in here, I think the gallery template where it is now disrupts flow of the article. I've attempted to make a compromise edit that preserves 2 out of the 3 images. Neitherday 05:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the style of how you've placed the images, however, I don't see how deleting part of the content addresses the fact that there's no reason (be it policy or consensus) to remove any of it. I'm not big on stylistic elements of pages, so I'm not sure if I could do it, but if you could add the other image back into the page (hopefully in its section), I would consider the style change to be a very positive contribution to the article. I would however appreciate it very much of you added the content in question back to the article, even if you rearrange it. According to the BRD process, compromises on contested bold edits should have consensus before being integrated into the article. According to this, we shouldn't start removing the content in question until we've formed consensus on if/how to do so (that is, assuming the BRD process is in play like it is here, as opposed to content removal based on policy). One thing you could do is set up a sandbox and show us your ideas there. --Cheeser1 05:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like my latest edit less than what I proposed earlier, but it does address you concern in keeping all three images. What do you think? Neitherday 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it does well to keep the article from being split up by the images. I still think it's a positive improvement, and perhaps continued work on the article will find an even smoother way to integrate the images. --Cheeser1 10:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser please view WP:OWN. Wikipedian editors are free to make any bold changes they feel necessary. If you wish to use WP:CONSENSUS to keep a gallery, please show consensus for keeping something, not lack of consensus against. Also keep in mind consensus may be wrong especially amongst small and biased editorial cliques.--ZayZayEM 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Right. A small and biased group of editors whose editorial opinion is not based on policy. Sounds like we have three of them right here: you, EMC, and OysterGuitarist (although his conduct has been perfectly reasonable). You three don't like the images. This is not a statement about policy or an objective evaluation of the pictures' encyclopedic worth. It's just a statement of personal preference, and I (and at least one other editor, who also reverted this bold change) do not agree. You are free to make a bold change once, but when it is reverted, and then you are supposed to stop making that bold change until consensus or compromise is reached. Who are you to say that your personal opinion of the images is more important, or that because there are three of you, that you have claim to some overwhelming consensus? WP:BRD is an explanation of consensus guidelines with regard to bold edits, and it makes it clear that until consensus is reached to either include your bold changes or to include some compromise, you do not revert the revert - you do not add your changes back in. EMC did it once or twice, and you've reverted the revert yourself now. How many more times would you like to preempt consensus by instituting your changes, when people have raised objections and no policy supports what you're doing? BRD and the consensus building process make it plain and clear: When you make a bold change and it is reverted, you leave the article as is (with regard to the content in question) until either your bold edits are accepted or a compromise (be it temporary or permanent) is agreed upon. I've agreed to accept changes to the image line-up, since real-life photographs or other new images could easily be an improvement, but I strongly object to the outright removal of that entire portion of this article because a few users don't happen to like it. That's not how we judge content, your personal opinion of the images is not objective or universal.

Furthermore, the content in question is not the issue at hand - your bold edits are. Those are the edits that require consensus. I could decide to object to chunks of content, and blank entire sections. So long as an administrator or an overwhelming majority do not object, it would appear that my "side" has as much support in the no-consensus situation as anyone who wants to keep the article as-is. Does that mean there is no consensus to keep the content, thus I'm allowed to continue blanking sections? Absolutely not. You're misinterpreting consensus policy. Bold changes require consensus. The other two possibilities (consensus against bold changes, and no consensus either way) err on the side of previous consensus - leaving the article as-is. This is how consensus policy works, as explained in that policy and as further expounded in the BRD guidelines. I've explained it myself more times than I care to. If you want to hijack this article and cut content for which there is neither policy nor consensus to remove, fine. I'm not here to waste my time dealing with that. BRD also makes it clear that If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. I'm getting frustrated by the continued reversion of my revert, and the unwillingness to generate alternatives or work for compromise - it's all or nothing, it seems, either we remove it all or you'll remove it all yourself, continuing to revert the revert in violation of BRD/Consensus policy.

But I still would like to assume that you want to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with policy (despite your blatant disregard for proper application of WP:IGNORE above). I would ask that you abide by the consensus policy and try to work for a compromise. I've made it clear from the start that I'm willing to compromise, if those of you wishing to make bold changes would simply do anything besides eliminating the content altogether, with no replacement or supplement to take its place. And yet you continue to remove the content, reverting my revert, in violation of BRD, working against consensus-building, as if reverting the revert enough times amounts to a reason or consensus to remove the content. This is not the case. Frustrating the objecting editor(s) into leaving the discussion is not the same thing as consensus. They even took the time to spell that out in BRD. Well congratulations, because you've succeeded on that front. I'm sick and tired of explaining consensus-policy to you. Even though I know that my giving up does not amount to consensus, I might guess you'd happily take it as such, so feel free to continue to violate policy. My objection stands, as does the policy behind it, but I won't participate in an edit war with the two of you, and I'm not going to continue to explain policy to you. You aren't a 5-year-old, you should get it by now, and I'm not going to continue to suffer delusions that I'm supposed to hold your hand and read policy aloud to you until you get it. If to you, WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE look like carte blanche to remove content from Wikipedia whenever you don't personally like it, then maybe it's a lost cause for me to help by citing the correct and applicable policies. --Cheeser1 10:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Emo subculture

c.f. Punk subculture, Goth subculture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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