Talk:Emo/Archive 5

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


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


 * It may have been removed as original research because you not did copy the citation as well. in this case it is sourced from this article so it isn't original research but could easily have looked like vandalism if the text was added without the source. -- neon white  user page talk 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Apologists
I read the wikipedia article for "emo" several months ago, and found it to be much more accurate then than it is now. For one thing, this article has clearly been rewritten by a flood of what I'd call "emo apologists", and now completely disregards the original article's discussion on the quality of "emo" songwriting. For example, "emo" is not simply "emotional rock" or "emotive rock" or anything of the kind, because ALL music contains emotion! In reality, "Emo" is most readily distinguished from other musical forms by the extremely basic rhymes of its lyrics, often including cliche or implausibly emotional imagery, designed to appeal to a young (early teens) audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.117.37 (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's some interesting analysis. Unfortunately, your commentary is not a source of information for an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell is an "emo apologist". It's a music genre, what's it supposed to have done? -- neon white user page talk 00:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're confusing apologist with someone who apologizes. --Apofisu (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't change the fact that this is a nonsense accusation/rant by an IP user who doesn't seem to either understand the article's content nor its subject. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, i'm not confusing anything. An apologist is someone who apologizes for the actions of another. The phrase makes no sense whatsoever. -- neon white user page talk 02:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are. Try apologist: Apologists are authors, writers, editors of scientific logs or academic journals, and leaders known for taking on the points in arguments, conflicts or positions that are either placed under popular scrutinies or viewed under persecutory examinations.. The IP is ranting that we're taking some popular-opinion approach to things, rather than exposing emo for being what s/he thinks it is (some sort of cliché rhyming teenager music). --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is a misuse. Aplogist is one who apologizes. -- neon white user page talk 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's not, that is the definition of "apologist." Look, there's no reason for you to argue this - what the guy said was nonsense even though he used the term "apologist." Let's go to the OED, the most reliable dictionary I know:
 * Apologist - One who apologizes for, or defends by argument; a professed literary champion.
 * Apologizer - One who apologizes (in modern usage for a fault or offence; in early use = APOLOGIST).
 * As you can see, the first makes use of the Greek root apology to mean "a spoken defense" - it does not use the English "apology" as its root, and is not "one who apologizes." That is "apologizer." But like I said, there's no reason for you to argue about this. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you both please apologize (or at least offer an apologia) for this off-topic "horse hockey"? --99.147.219.154 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It's not off topic - it relates to a misunderstanding regarding a legitimate topic of discussion (although the initial comment by 68.51.117.37 may not be valid, it is germane). If you don't like the tangent we've gotten onto, why are you making it worse? --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what i said, you're just looking at it from a different perspective, an apologist is someone who apologizes for an action by someone or a belief etc. The english apology and the greek apology are the same root, if you argue in defence of something or someone you are apolgizing for it. See Apollonius the Apologist. The reason the comment was inane was that how can one apologize for a genre of music, it's not a religion or cause? -- neon white user page talk 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The English "apology" and "apologize" do not mean the same as the Greek "apology" or the English "apologism" anymore. (Again, per the OED.) His use of "apologist" was correct (although his assertion was ludicrous). --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Source for it is in Time Magazine; the lineage is more along the lines of aesthetics. Contemporary EMO is more in line with a subculture than this other definition of the term which loosely was based on Hardcore Punk music in D.C. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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


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

As I attempted to say before, there is a source for this and its in Time Magazine; contermporary EMO is a fashion/subclutre; once again, the sources are in LA Weekly and Time Magazine; and I am sure we can dredge up many others that are being regularly suppressed. Contemporary Emo is more about aesthetics and lifestyle; and has only tenuous roots with the Hardcore Punk scene of D.C. of the mid 80's. The subculture/fashion is so radically different. But one can see the similiarty or lineage in the fashion of the Post-Punk, New Wave, Goth, Indie styles. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * Oppose I agree with 13Tawaazun14, it's an absurd claim made with no reasons whatsoever. Even so, it should be the other way around as Emo started being as Post-hardcore and then it began to be called "Emo" (for the introspective lyrics) by the music press. There are various interviews out there with people like Guy Picciotto and Ian MacKaye (yes there is a video of Ian MacKaye with Embrace on YouTube calling Emo pure press BS), where they reject the term. Even so, Emo and Post-hardcore are not the same thing unless proved wrong (Allmusic guide even has Post-hardcore and Emo pages by theirselves in a separate way). --The-15th (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Post-hardcore would be a more general term like post-punk, it is essentially a term for a number of genres including emo, screamo etc in the same way that post-punk includes new wave, goth rock etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Melodic Hardcore
in the infobox it says that emos stylistic origan is from Hardcore punk and more specificly Melodic Hardcore... I'm not ging to debate whether or not it's from Hardcore Punk because that's a no brainer (we know it is and it's sourced), but may I see the source that says it's from Melodic Hardcore? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Emo has no roots
so i saw that alot of people say that emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk!!?? Ok maybe some people know this better then me but still i find this claim insulting to everything punk stands for!!! Punk is an anti-astablishment form of music that talks about the problems of the people (not like martin luther king but still...) on the other hand emo is more personal and talks about teenage issues of soe kid who is thinking about killing himselfe!!! il be honest with you i dont respect emo people or their music. now before you stic me on a cross listen to my thoughts. i feel like they are chooseing the easyer way out of their teenage problems! they have problems and they solve them by cutting their veins and not talking or when they talk they say things lik:"i hate this life" or "i wish i was dead"!!! OMG!!!!! people wake up and smell the joy of life and youth!!! And now to return to the topic at hand. emo is an insult to all music genres and when you compare it to punk u just make a fool out of your selfe!!! i hope that people dont get toooo ofended by this little tekst and if they do dont send f..k u messeges and dont expect an apology because im not apologizeing for saying what i think soo.... oh an btw sry about the spelling and grammar im not a native speaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.128.61 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Dude, i know you dont want the way you are and act like to be thinked of as a simple genre that has “gotten expanded on” or “was derived by” but you have to admit that it has vast similarities to goth,punk and and other variations of these genre's --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Evaunit: Correct this is not the place to bring it up. See WP:NOT. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Sheish: No he is correct. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Grimmjow: As has been stated, wikipedia is based on varifiable and reliable sources. Emo has it's roots in hardcore punk, however emo has evolved as most genres do, this is why it sounds very little like the original punk. Hell, modern emo bands sound little like Rites of Spring just like modern Pop punk bands sound very little like The Ramones. Genres evolve. Sources state that it's roots are in hardcore punk, thus it stays that way on wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * as above, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all --Sheish 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And you don't have a damn source to back up your claim do you? Read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. All sources say it is so as far as wikipedia is concerened, it is. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OH-KAY, what is your defination of a TRUE EMO? I can bet that your answer has no source or accuracy only it being your opinion in which it doesnt count according to the rules of wikipedia. Simply put you have no factual claim,no source and no truth to what you are saying only your opinions,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Who, me or him? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sheish and others that keep using that as a way to make simple discussions longer than it should be not you...... --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

other media
Is there any significant media related to emo other than music? For example, emo related movies? --herorev (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Time, LA Weekly Criticisms should be included
I was wondering why the 'criticisms' within the Time Magazine article were not included within the wiki criticism section for EMO? LA Weekly summarizes the criticisms itself, here: It makes the statement that this trend is mostly an Internet generated phenomena; and that it is something that which only has become known at all within the last 3 or 4 years; and that EMO as we know it today, especially in foreign countries is mostly a fashion fad. It also has criticism of pre-existing "subcultures", i.e. punk, goths, and their dislike for EMO for reasons mentioned above; and there's also the criticism, referencing a professor, that most of the EMOS, in Mexico in particular, come from the upper middle-class, etc. I linked to the LA Weekly article. So I would like the editors of the Wiki Emo page to take a look at it. I would summarize it myself, but no one is allowed to edit the Emo page anymore, it seems. LA Weekly has always been a hub for Indie music news, information; a very credible publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been a few days now and I'm wondering when there's going to be a response to the questions I posed above. The wiki criticism section on this EMO page is really, really short. It even cites a very obscure, esoteric reference to EMO being "sexist..." Shouldn't the criticisms within two major publications, one being Time Magazine itself and the other LA Weekly get actual mention with regard to EMO? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


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


 * I will sign up later on when I have more time behind a computer. I just want to point out that the "editors" of the Emo page are responding to other topics on this discussion page while ignoring this particular thread. And I notice that other posters here are continually butting heads with them over precisely the points confirmed in the sources I scite above. I said, Time Magazine is undoubtedly the most important publication to do on article on Emo, and the article actually contains valid criticisms; the same applies to the LA Weekly article. --206.170.104.56 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Sam


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

Well, I just edited the page Neonwhite, the references are contained in the Time Magazine article already cited on the Emo page. I also added the quotes from Panic at the Disco, and Gerard Way. Both of those quotes are sourced on those band's respective pages. I don't know how to format the page to include the quotes, I hope our team of editors can assist me there; or correct my grammar. Thank You so much in advance. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the major problem with this article
the biggest problem i can see with this article is that it completly ignores all emo music made since 1994 in favour of indie rock music and adding bands such as dashboard confessional and weezer (who aesthetically have nothing in common with emo) based on the sake of a few articles by lazy medai types. let us not forget that this page is about emo the music, not the subculture based on the word. this is the problem!

on the subject of emo fashion, what the hell is this doing here? this is supposed to be about music, the fashion stuff belongs elsewhere. also the criticism. if this is a music page then why isn't the criticism about music?

let us start a vote please, if the page protectors want to keep in stuff like dashboard confessional, then fine do so on an Emo (subculture) page. let's keep this place about a music style that is miles away from choruses and easyily audible lyrics. please guys?

conclusion: this is a music page, if anyone can show me the musical lineage between dashboard confessional and indian summer, then fine keep it.

chris b and neon white: you are essentially acting like bullies here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly wikipedia is not a democracy, we dont do things by votes, secondly content is based on verifiable sources whether you agree with them or not. The article is about anything emo, music, fashion, hair anything as long as it is sourced. Please stop the disruptive editing and personal attacks or warnings will follow. There is no evidence of a subculture existing. -- neon white talk 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey Neonwhite, Why doesn't this article mention the Emo Rangers TV show in England? I mean, couldn't even that be put on SOMEWHERE on that page? Btw, Neonwhite is right, wiki is not a Democracy... In reality, if one simply takes control of the page, he can shape along any lines he wants, so long as there's a reference, (even if those reference are contradicted or superceeded by other references, and vice versa). And, as you notice, even though I have tried not to edit the page myself, I have gone down here to try to reason with Neonwhite, but he doesn't budge. I will now for the first time ever try to edit or add a part on this criticism section. We'll see how that turns out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy the Dressmaker (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea, obviously no-one has put it in the article, if you have sources then there is nothing stopping you adding it. -- neon white talk 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


 * When the heck was emo ever a fashion? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GENRE OF MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.68.171 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

hardcore punk?
emo is not a style of hardcore punk. embrace is not hardcore punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.75.172 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, yes it is.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We all should know by now that Emo derived from the early hardcore punk movement. Which doesn't make sense as to why bands like Dashboard Confessional are in the emo article. These bands are not emo, in the least bit. Emo, Emoviolence, Screamo, etc. are all forms of extremely chaotic music, with roots straight from hardcore punk. It's not a fashion, and it has nothing to do with cutting your self. Wikipedia is an unreliable and misinforming site, as to find the true meaning of emo. What are true modern emo bands? Hiretsuken. Envy. Circle Takes the Square. I Would Set Myself On Fire For You. Funeral Diner. Gospel. Etc. It's not hard to look that up, and see that screamo/emo bands are still around, and still play chaotic music, that should be appropriately called "emotive hardcore". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.71.184 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know, but emotiove hardcore is so different to that fashion called "emo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.71.75 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The time is long overdue. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Why is there a page for Rivetheads on WIKIPEDIA, Neonwhite? I repeat the question: Why is there a page for Rivetheads, who are fans of Industrial/EBM music and yet there is no page for EMOS... EMOS have more sources, more notoriety then do Rivetheads. According to your logic, there should be no page for Rivetheads at all, BUT THERE IS ON WIKIPEDIA. Can you square that one for me, please? You do have an agenda, and so do I. Your agenda is to monopolize the term EMO. My agenda is simply to point to the documented evidence that contemporary EMO has a separate influence or development apart from old EMO. I have pointed out two immediate, large print media sources: the LA WEEKLY and TIME Magazine. I am simply asking why these sources are not being used. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Chriscore, the term EMO Kid is a GREAT suggestion for the title of the page. There is abundant print and internet sources which refer to the this subculture as such. Btw, in Mexico, Emo Kids are simply referred to as Emos, that's because the letter E in the spanish equivelant 'emocional' is a soft vowel.
 * As far as what JJ refers to, I certainly am not technically competent to re-create or create the page; others can do that. I personally will have no part in the construction part of it, only the constructive element ;) --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * Neonwhite, I have no idea how the facts can stare you in the face and yet you can deny them repeatedly. And I also consider it rather hypocritical that everyone is locked out from editing the page for months on end, and yet here you say that we are free to edit the fashon section. How about we open the entire page open to editing? I have been trying to get someone's attention as to the criticisms had in the LA WEEKLY article but to no avail. But that's not really my point this time around; your answer that the Rivethead page is irrelevant to the discussion is a rather poor one inded. In fact, it flies right in the face of your logic, doesn't it? I thought Wikis rules applied universally; that is to say: they are one way for every page. But that's fine. I will go to the Wikipage for Rivethead in the next few days and asked them on what their take is and perahps get a second opinion.


 * Chriscore, the Time Magazine and LA WEEKLY articles are sources enough to open a page on EMO KIDS. But I won't labour the point for the time being since my time is limited here. Just be sure that Neonwhite is way wrong here. Does anyone else find this bizarre, that Rivet-heads have a page on Wikipedia but EMO Kids don't? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Neonwhite, I don't care about EMO kids being mopey, or sad. My own POV is that they're simply trendy kids. Plain and simple; they are a pardoy of a parody in a sense. But I think you're right that the Rivethead page is really badly written. But here's a newsflash: the EMO (Music) page is badly written itself. Don't get me wrong, it's not as badly written as Rivethead, but I have a challenge for you: why don't you go into the discussion page of the Rivethead page and clear up the mess -- since it is so obviously topsy turvy? But I have anotehr newsflash: the guy who runs Rivethead is similar to yourself, and can control the debate and frustrate any criticism whether founded or unfounded. Why? Because he controls the page. As to what you say about the fashion of EMO. Read the LA WEEKLY article. The byline clearly states in Bold Black letters how EMO is a fashion decision! How do you square that for me? But there will come a day when someone finally pulls the rug out from under you, and everyone else well say: "Ah, yeah... EMO, that was the dominant fashion trend of the middle 2000's." And it will be endorsed by an article on Wikipedia, the way you endorse the Deragotis history of the music style that everyone acknowledges died before the 2000's hit. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There have been tons of sources posted saying that emo is a subculture; some even separate it from emo music (the msn article). I cannot see how this isn't a justification for a subculture article. There's reliable sources, it's "verifiable," and it's notable, considering some of these major publications have articles about it. --Punkrockrunner (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner

Pitchfork and Drive Like Jehu
Pitchfork (formed 1986) and Drive Like Jehu (formed 1990)  (both featuring John Reis/Speedo from Rocket from the Crypt and Hot Snakes) were both from San Diego and huge influences on 1990s emo--should someone add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.170 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources: "It's often easy to forget that DLJ were considered emo in their day" (Pitchfork.com)

"Posthumously, Drive Like Jehu's music has been cited as a catalyst for the reemergence of emocore and for the prolific San Diego music scene of the 1990s." (Wikipedia, ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.170 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but as with many things, Pitchfork is totally clueless in this regard. DLJ were never considered to be emo in their day. If pressed, Pitchfork couldn't cite that statement. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * Agreed. This source is pretty weak and somewhat subjective. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording Concern
I think this article does a great job explaining the history of the genre and the way the usage of the term changed following the popularity of Dashboard Confessional and Jimmy Eat World. However, I think some extremely important wording is poor:

"As a result, the term 'emo' became a vaguely defined identifier rather than a specific genre of music."

A term can't be a genre of music, it is used to describe a genre of music. Also, using "defined" and "identifier" so close together is both redundant and confusing. I would suggest a rewrite such as:

As a result, the term "emo" found common usage, yet became increasingly vaguer in meaning. --216.49.149.39 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)JML


 * I totally agree, because when i read the original which is currently in the page, i could not get my head around what it meant, but now that i have read this user's rewrite, i understand the sentence. Not everyone who reads wikipedia are clever enough to understand such complex vocabulary. --Speighticus (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Restrictions on Russia
Emo is supposedly going to have restrictions on it in Russia. Can someone add this to the wikipage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the correct link for Emo to be banned in Russia. It comes from NME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.59 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't anyone included the gist of this NME article? I'm busy enough dealing with the Roundtable translations, which will be coming soon, my friends. All sourced. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

OR
Last month I went through and added citation needed tags where there were possible instances of original research, hoping that this would spur editors to find sources for the statements. However, since that hasn't happened I'm going to add an OR tag to the article. Maybe there's OR in this article and maybe there's not, but with so much of the material unsourced its really impossible to tell. Hopefully this will finally convince editors (including myself) to find and cite the necessary sources to help improve this article. --Aurum ore (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing this. I noticed this quite recently as well. I know that Neonwhite or Cheeser1 were the probably collaboraters of this mythical "Third Wave" of Emo which has absolutely little documentation. In fact, 80 percent of that whole section are all unsourced statements! It's all conjecture, it's all personal opinion then, isnt' it(???) It's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no(????) I smell a double standard. I say, going by Neonwhites strict enforcement of sourced statements, that the whole Third Wave be deleted. I was amazed by this irony since Neonwhite constatly puts down any suggestion that Emo is a subculture or that we should never bring up Emo/Scene. There was also an article done by NME about Emo in Russia. EMO is called a subculture by NME!!! NME is reference nearly half dozen times by this Wiki Emo page. Isn't it time we do a subculture or fashion page, my friends? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a subculture of sorts and not just music. For a rather sarcastic view see:  --WonderWheeler (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Was there a re-write?
This article used to be nice, long, and informative, but it seems to be only a tenth as long as it used to be. Plus, Jimmy Eat World's song "The Middle" (and their whole Bleed American album) is not what I would call emo... This stuff about "Modern Emo" is crap really, Emo died around 2000, now everyone left in the genre is either scattered or is with Deep Elm :P. --98.26.61.168 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links Broken
The following external link brings up a 403 error: International Emo Community - May I suggest altering this to another popular online emo community such as  --91.84.74.148 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Emo Roundtable Discussion on Mexican TV
In the link below the Mexican cable television channel Telehit broadcast a TWO-HOUR debate where Kristoff debated Emo fans about What is EMO.

I know the editors of this page should be curious, I mean, since we're on an Emo wiki page, I thought that the video footage, here on youtube, divided in 12 parts should be of SOME interest this is a boon for us all. In the coming weeks, I hope to translate some of the key parts. Since Kristoff has been "made" by Time magazine, I suppose we can pick up quotes by him on any subsequent discussion having to do with Emo. And of course, here we have fans of Emo themselves, in the flesh. Since this wiki page has associated Emo with the fashion or fans of Emo, this opens the doors for us harvest more data here from a verifiable source! Meaning, (1) what is EMO? (2) Who are the fans or "subculture" that is identified by EMO? (3) And why was there such hatred for this fad or culture, not limited to Mexico? -- Because, in this program there are references to anti-Emo propaganda originated from the US and Worldwide.

The link

This is the stations official website: --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We cant link to copyrighted material. -- neon white talk 18:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean we can't link to copyrighted material? Since when? If we can't then we should remove every link to every corporate website and, for example, we couldn't reference to any news article from any news agency. --Witty Lama 05:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He means that we can't link to material that violates copyright laws. In this case, recording a TV program and uploading to youtube is infringing on the copyright of the TV channel. That doesn't mean that you can't link at all to that sort of videos.
 * If it was a very short fragment, then you could proably claim fair use, but not on the case of a half an hour long program. In particular, I have seen occasionally links to short videos of news reports or to videos of short interviews done inside a news program (for example, on the last source of this section). --Enric Naval (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here you go, everyone! Emo kids and their haters speak via Mexico's Telehit! And I invite anyone to correct any mistakes in translation; or someone can add something that I missed.


 * [Somemone please collapse this thread, this is long]


 * Btw, the order of the videos, of which there are 12, are numbered 00 to 11 for some reason. The link to the collection is posted in the link above.

Video 00

What makes an Emo? A reporter asks Emo kids on the street. (06:35)

Emo Girl 1 (06:40): "no se; differente lo de mas, pero no puedo explicar lo" In Eenglish: "I don't know, to be different from everyone else, but I can't explain it."

Emo Girl 2 (06:44): "To think like one wants."

Emo Girl 3: "To dress like one wants."

Emo Boy 1 (06:49): "We are outsiders."

Emo Girl 3 (again): "It is a matter of how one dresses."

Emo Girl 4 (07:02): "I am one who listens to music that expresses what I feel."

Video 01

02:49

A person who thinks differently from the majority; we (Emo kids) live a lifestyle that is more uncomforrmist.

The term Emo comes from the term "Emotional"

03:30

Kristoff cited an opinion by Unam which stated that while forty percent of Emo kids claim to have suicidal tendencies, this is in fact merely superficial and that they vast majority of Emo kids are simply conforming to a fad.

03:35

Paula attempts to fix the definition of what Emo is...

04:45

The Emo kids and supporters in the studio all said it is not a fashion style.

04:30

Sugos said: Emo is a style which comes out of Hardcore; however, Emo is more of an idealogy that is based upon expressing personal emotions. Sugos also said To have a fringe does not make an Emo, to wear skinny jeans does not make an Emo.

05:20

Emo Girl on the street said: “I have never seen an Emo kid crying or cutting himself; all I see are Emo kids who laugh, and have a good time.”

06:30

An Emo girl Valeria, 15 who had been Emo for 8 months was asked what she liked about Emo (that made her want to be Emo).

"I like how they do their hair."

07:50

Kristoff: "...the only thing that we are clear about is that seemingly no two Emo kids can be found who are in agreement about what defines an Emo or what it is about Emo which inspired them to become Emo."

Kristoff then says once more: “…no one can give a consistent explanation of what is Emo.”

Paula the host of the program at 09:10 says It's a heterogenous group.

Video 02

There is a debate as to whether Emo constitutes an Urban Tribe or whether this specific Emo phenomenon could possibly reinvent what defines an Urban Tribe.

The first two minutes of Video3

Video 03

02:04

Hector Quijada of the Mexican band La Lupita (which formed in the early 90’s) commented that Emo kids fashion is based not on any Punk model but on Post-Punk of the 80’s, blended with a little Glam.

04:30

Dr. Hector Castillo Berthier a Sociologist of Unam phoned in and said that the typical Emo kid is in fact very normal. [Dr. Berthier expressed general support for the Emo kids].

Video 05

The sociologist from the Unam was quoted once again by Kristoff.

Here is the quote translated by Daniel Hernandez from the LA Weekly on his own personal blog:

http://danielhernandez.typepad.com/daniel_hernandez/2008/03/unam-study-emos.html

The specialist in urban groups Héctor Castillo Berthier indicated that to consider the emos an urban tribe is incorrect, as they do not adhere to the characteristics necessary to be one, and they only represent a fad. [...] The phenomenon, he said, simply obeys market interests and does not have any social sense, let alone a political one, for which it only represents a trend that [emos] will leave behind once they work or change their interests. "These showy adolescents will simply stop being emos," he said.

Video 07

0:25-0:30

The program host Paula showed her frustration, wishing to to find what was it that truly defined Emo outside of what the mere origin of the term itself, [ this would imply that the word itself is not the essence of what Emo is but merely the name...]

100 a caller brings up the Myspace forum which defined Emo to mean Emotional; and more specifically Emotional Hardcore.

02:30

The host of the program Paula surveyed the table's guests about whether Emo kids were social misfits. All assented to the fact that most Emo kids are in fact socially well integrated or and do not come from a radically dysfunctional background. 03:45

05:30

136,000 Videos on Youtube with the term "EMO". The majority of these videos make fun of Emo. 7:00

Video 08

Kristoff likened the Emo fashion to a Frankenstein Monster. Emo Kids copy other genres by combining different elements. A characteristic of Emo is that the fashion combines elements from other genres; and yet not one Emo kid is an agreemant with another about what defines Emo. 1:00-3:00

Kristoff has even questioned the widely held assumption that today's Emo comes out of the Hardcore scene of the 1980's. He said that, "if Emo comes out of the 80's there would be be peoplewho are 35 or 36 years old who were Emo, but there are none." 4:00

Video 09

1:00 -- The program recieved approximately 60 emails per minute.

7:20 -- If they were truly Emotional they would not form a clique but remain reclusive as opposed to joining a popular fad.

Video 11

7:00 -- Hector from La Lupita [who is sympathetic to the Emo kids] says that there's more serious matters in the world than to worry about what is Emo or what isn't or who is Punk or Emo or Goth.


 * --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Why I changed it
This article seems to have focused more on the indie rock scene of the same name that is VAGUELY connected to the music present-day emo kids listen to. To hipsters who were really into scene this article might be good, but to 99% of the population, emo is a CURRENT TREND, and that's what this article should focus on. The old article makes it seem like emo has been a popular genre for the past 20+ years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article contains all elements of emo and does not focus on any particular period. This is part of neutrality policy. Any rewrite of the article needs to be discussed first and based on sources not personal views. -- neon white talk 08:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, the article should focus more on the 2000's, since the sources identifiying emo are lopsidedly of the last 5 years. The attention on Emo in the last 5 years is so vastly disproportionate that this article should reflect that considering that it is comrised of SOURCES. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The trend of today(2003+), and the trends of the 90's are so different it's almost like a whole different genre. When SDRE was around, I don't think anybody associated "Emo" with, black clothes, straight hair, depression, and all this stuff that seems to be it nowadays.  People who are fans of the 90's movement (myself probably included) think this newer stuff just doesn't quite make it.  Listen to some Sunny Day Real Estate, and compare it with Falloutboy.  There is a HUGE difference.  I think people should try to separate these two movements as much as possible, so people who sit here and say emo sucks don't shun a completely different style which may be to their tastes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samushi101 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encylclopedia it's not the place to voice your opinions on the subject. A blog is the place for that. -- neon white talk 08:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, doesn't the unsourced material on the "Third Wave" constitute material unfit for an encyclopedia? I will be waiting a few weeks before I take that down. By the way, I hope you read through the Emo "roundtable" debate on Jexico's Telehit. IT IS SOURCED. It will soon be supplanting the fairy tale of the Third Wave of Emo which, as a New Zealand Newscast suggested, Emo as we now know it today is tied more to a fad based on FASHION. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More criticism comments to be added
Slash of Guns n' Roses has weighed in on Emo: “Rock ’n’ roll is so diluted in this millennium, you just don’t hear good solos. And I hate Emo.” That's the link. So has Danni Filth of the Cradle of Filth: "...it's terrible, I think the (bands) spend more time on their hairstyles than on their music." "These fucking Emo bands and stuff like that... its fucking horrible, fucking horrible." Should we add these to the criticism section, boys and girls? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would disagree to adding it here - there's no need to add every comment that anyone's made about emo. Slash may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every opinion he has on a topic is notable for inclusion in that topic. If anything, it should go on his article entry - it's his musical tastes we're talking about after all. Clearly, if we were talking about any other topic that a person had an opinion on, be it religion, homosexuality or whatever else, we'd put it on the person's article entry, and not the entry of the topic. The only exceptions are if the person is notable for being related to that topic (e.g., someone who campaigns for or against the topic, or someone who is known for having opinions on the topic). I don't believe that Slash is known for being a critic of emo.


 * To turn it the other way round - I'm sure there are loads of people who dislike GnR or CoF, but I don't see a big criticism section to collect all such comments on their articles. --Mdwh (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You make good points. But I certainly wouldn't have a problem if any artist made a criticism against Slash or Danni Filth. I certainly would upload the criticism on their respective pages. But as to their criticism of Emo, that they would advance an opinion on any musical genre in a negative light is notable enough. However, we don't have to quote slash or Danni Filth, we could simply could include their names as contemporary rock musicians who are critical of the genre. That is, if we added a new paragraph with a summary of such musicians that you describe, as not being notable as being anti-Emo but critical of Emo in passing remarks. What do you think of that idea? I'm sure we can dig up sourced quotes from other such artists. I put forward two not solely one on this occasion. In fact, before I finished with this post, I just found this link to Brandon Flowers, frontman of the Killers, who says he thinks Emo is junk as well. Here's the link: So now we have THREE so far to add to your paragraph. In fact, I would simply use your very wording. --[User:Tommy the Dressmaker|Tommy the Dressmaker]] (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly think people will do research on the genre when all this stereotype "cut yourself" stuff is circulating around? These people are talking about Falloutboy, and Panic! at the disco, not jimmy eat world, mineral, saves the day, texas is the reason... ect. Nobody can guarantee that these people actually KNEW anything about REAL "Emo" before they made these comments, right? --Samushi101 (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Samushi, I understand your point. And I respect it, because you're basing it on assumptions which I believe are more authentic. But let us look at what Neonwhite said, he said that this article does not focus on any particular era, but is distributed fairly. Consequently, I have to assume that he thinks Emo is a consistent 'concept' from the beginning; that's what one must assume from that. So, if Slash criticizes Emo, by this Wiki pages standards, we must assume that Slash is referring to the Emo of 1986 as much as the Emo of 2004. Well, obviously that would be a disingenious position, but I am trying to read Neonwhites mind. Aside from that, I have another person who says that EMO IS BULLSHIT. It's none other than Ian Mckaye!!!!  I would like one of our trusted contributors to transcribe Ian's rant on stage. And perhaps we can add it to the page. What do you think of that, Mdwh? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 00:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "I must say one thing. I must say EMOcore must be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard in my entire life. But just in case you are wondering, I read in my Thrasher the other day, that in fact, what my band [Embrace] along with other bands in this city (Washington DC) are playing is emocore. I'm thinking Emo Phillips, the comedian, emocore? Emotional hardcore?? As if hardcore wasn't emotional to begin with. Anyway, it's caca (Bullshit). I hate to say it but you can only hold your silence for too long about this stupid shit."


 * The fellow who posted the video already transcribed it. Neonwhite, what do you think about this BOMBSHELL of a statement. Don't you think this should have been including anywhere on this page, considering that Embrace is mentioned here? Who is going to add this statement to the page? I can't do all the work here. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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

Actually bullet for my valentine is fairly mainstream and does recieve a lot of media attention/radio play. Problem is, they are metalcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.218.238 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance is not emo!
My Chemical Romance is not emo in the song Famous Last Words it says "I am not afraid to keep on living, I am not afraid to walk this world alone." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.254.156 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whatever meaning you explicate out of the band's lyrics, that doesn't mean at all that the band is emo/not emo. Multiple reliable sources describe the band as emo, and fact-checking on Wikipedia is predicated on reliable sources, not original research. --TheLetterM (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused as to how a random song lyric has any relevance? -- neon white talk 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * how my chemical romance is emo,but not, That has to accept what he said gerard way is not emo and that it classified as emo does not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockero34 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Emo Kid (Subculture) page
Alright. This is my second time writing this. I think we have enough references to include an Emo kid section in this article or simply to re-name the "fashion and stereotype" section and perhaps even title it the Emo Kid Subculture. The Guardian has spoken. Emo is a Subculure. Now we have several news sources which describe Emo as a subculture. NME \ The Guardian \ Time Magazine \ LA Weekly. Emo is also included in Wiki's index of subcultures here: And here we have three sources which cite it as a subculture which are not even the four news sources I cite above. This would be enough to create an Emo Subculture page. In fact, this is long over due. But if Neonwhite wants to play this game and keep all these distinctions within the Wiki music page, I suppose we can play along with that. Even though I say there should be an EMo Kid page separate from this page.

I understand this page here that I am writing in is a discussion page. I posted Ian Mackay's comment on Emo. No one has uploaded to the main article or even debated whether it was legitimite. Who is Ian Mackaye? Well, he was the lead singer of Minor Threat, Embrace and Fugazi. Well,I would say that's a rather noteworthy inclusion there. But no one has touched it, much less commented on it.

I posted a minimal translation of the noteworthy comments on the two hour debate on Tehehit's Emo special. As I said, I understand this page that is a discussion page; and yet, no one has posted one response to what I translated. On Tehehit, Emo was called simply a teenage fad. In contemporary terms it wasn't even identified as a musical style; it was called a fashion, an idealogy, it was identified with simply expressing EMO-tions. People can watch the program for themselves. This was a two hour dsicussion, a benchmark in the history of "EMO" where in Mexico it has been a sensation.

So we are at an impasse here. Neonwhite wants everything connected to the EMO term to be included in the music page: however, he desires this provided that it is in comformity with Jim Deragotis' history of the genre. (By the way, why hasn't Jim Deragotis not written about EMO recently? That's strange. He's the "aficionado" or great expert on Emo, but he has written nothing on Emo in the last 5 years. I looked at his page, this is a guy who is reviewing Miley Cyrus' CD's. But no word on Emo. There are protests in England, Russia and Mexico having to do with EMO but Deragotis is silent.) AMAZING

But I suppose if we go along with Neonwhite, we should play along and keep on adding to the history of Emo according to Deragotis. Fine. Let's play along.

The trouble is, as I have mentioned, the editors of this page are blatantly ignoring sources which tell us that Emo is something else MORE than what Deragotis spoke of. In the Guardian article above, it says this: "Emo music emerged from Washington, DC in the mid-1980s, offering an "emotional" take on hardcore punk. The genre saw a rebirth in the late 1990s and 2000s, adopting elements of glam and goth culture, and integrating a stronger pop influence."

So that's one source. Another source is the Telehit program on Emo that I partially translated. There, in the third segment (on Youtube)at the 02:04 minute mark, Hector Quijada of the Mexican band La Lupita commented that Emo kids fashion of today is based not on any Punk model but on Post-Punk of the 80’s, blended with a little Glam."

Two SOURCES. Amazing!!!!! Anyone should look at the top of this discussion page; there someone made a comment that modern Emo is more closely tied to Post-Punk as a style, but Neonwhite said there were no sources for this. I provide three sources: Time Magazine, Telehit, The Guardian (Goth being Post-punk). But Neonwhite has not included this fact thus far. I WONDER WHY?

I went on for weeks, perhaps months never editing the page myself but always bringing sources, but NO ONE added anything. Everyone says we should bring anything new to the discussion page: I did this. But no one uploaded anything. I told people that we should have integrated the actual content of the Time Magazine article the Mexican Emo riots, and not solely that they reported on "the riots in Mexico," but no one moved on this. STRANGE.

Well, what I proved here with my participation is that this Emo wiki page is a farce. It is a joke. What I prove is that Wikipedia is itself unfit to be even be called an Encyclopedia, where it's stringent policies do not prevent the distortion of the subjects they wish to protect. Emo is probably one of the more popular Wiki pages, and yet it's been the private fiefdom of Neonwhite all this time who has permitted a narrow and biased narrative of the subject while he cherry picks references to today's Emo kid subculture. My postings here prove this. So much for Wiki's Emo page! So much for the bulletproof Wiki policy!

By the way, everything I included in the article is sourced, I provided the citations on this discussion page; even if it says there that it needs a citation. I said here that I don't know how to format such things, that someone else should do it. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been over for some time. People are tired, no-one is listening anymore. The page is based on the good reliable sources available (not the popular press' misconceptions or a youtube video). If you dont like wikipedia policies dont edit it. -- neon white talk 10:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And the discussion ended with Neonwhite not responding to a couple of sources and their validity according to policy. We have sources saying it is a subculture, if anyone wants to dispute that claim, they should offer a critique of the sources and/or the policies which enable them - we do not have to listen to someone who just says "no" and refuses to engage in discussion on the matter. --Lundse (talk) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Single line headlines, misuses and flippant editorial comment by journalists in the popular press aren't source of any real worth or use. Articles in the popular press may be ok for music but if you want to add a section about sociology scholarly sources are a must. This has been thoroughly discussion for at least 2 years and yet again it comes back to editors personal essays and trying to push a personal POV that is not backed up by any decent sources. -- neon white talk 13:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, did you not earlier state on some other post that Wiki articles can only be based on published articles, from credible news sources? By that standard, we should include these latest ones. And if you (Neonwhite) dispute the article's content, that is one thing, but to not include them, when there is a shared tendency within this articles, that to my mind is "original research" by means of exclusion. I have said it before: I would have no problem with your article if it stops at the late 90's. It is when you include the 2000's in the Wiki page that we have a problem. Are you telling me the Guardian article is wrong? Are you kidding me!? They said that the EMO (the term) had a resurgence in the 2000's by mixing in Goth and Glam in the fashion. Is that a misconception? I mean, is the measure in the Russian parlimant meant to prohibit musical styles OR fashion styles? Are they trying to ban Rites of Spring OR fringe haircuts and black clothes?


 * Kristoff on the Telehit debate says that today's Emo kid style has no AUTHENTIC connection with the Hardcore scene or Emocore sub-category. He says this. This should be included in the article. I would upload it, but I'm waiting for others to take a bite. I despise the perpetuation of falsehood as authenticity or masked as objective scholarship and editing. That's why I set my sights on this page. You have not proven me wrong in anything. You wanted sources. I gave it to you in spades. By the way if you move to ban me, that is fine. In fact, I will remove my posts and all my contributions by November 1. And I will not post on this page again before that. And that is that. I just want for the next 30 days for my SOURCED information to be seen by everyone.


 * One last thing, my final edit of the wiki page is a minor one, it will include the information that Telehit provided on it's debate on Emo. It said that (as of 2008) that there are 136,000 Videos on Youtube with the term "EMO". The majority of these videos make fun of Emo. It is sourced statement because it is not made by me, but Telehit's host Paula. If you want confirmation of the statement, just look at the section of the Telehit page to reference it. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lundse's recollection of these events is correct. We were actually interested in what emo was and writing an article about it. But in the end we were blocked by Cheeser1 and neonwhite, not because they were able to frame a more convincing argument on the matter but simply because they were willing to invest way more time than us in pushing their point of view. Some highlights of the farce (you can read it here) included Cheeser1 rejecting more than 10 articles from a wide range of sources that discuss emo as a subculture and Cheeser1 using an ABC snippet in the article lead that also referred to emo as a subculture. Fortunately, Cheeser1 has now left Wikipedia but thanks to his legacy we now have an article that cites sources such as The Daily Mail and states that "fans of emo are also often presumed by others to be homosexual or bisexual." --Cedars (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it came down to a sociologists self-published claim that there was a emo subculture. I made the case clear for why this source is good enough, according to policy, and you have failed to address those arguments entirely.
 * You cannot expect to have your opinion respected if you are not willing to engage in discussion. No matter how many times you try to paint this as a case of headlines and popular press articles, the fact still remains that we have a good source - focusing on the numerous sources of less than good quality is silly and seems like you are obfuscating the subject. Luckily, you can quiet my fears, and those of any others, by simply addressing the policies, arguments, etc. in favor of the sociologist source. --Lundse (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Lundse: The sources don't exist and they never have done. Your refusal to 'get the point' is not an excuse to carry on this discussion. It's been discussion to the point of ridiculousness and the problems still exist. -- neon white talk 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Tommy: Policy is 'reliable sources', this means second party sources at least. News sources are only reliable for subjects they are known for and have a reputation for this does not include specialist sciences, these require academic sources. This has always been policy. What you need to comprehend is that when you move from discussing popular music, popular culture, fashion, trends etc to discussing a human science subject like subculture, the idea of what can be considered a reliable source changes. For example take a look at the standard of sources in the article Subcultural theory or Strain theory (sociology) they aren't from the popular press. The majority of sources do not back up your view of this subject, if this ever changes, you might be taken seriously but until then pushing a minority view (i.e. your own personal view) because you dislike or disagree with the majority view is not acceptable to this or any other wikipedia article. Kristoff views are fine to add as an opinion but a number of source disagree so we have to avoid bias and maintain neutrality, it's not up to us to decide what is correct, this is soley down to subjective opinions. -- neon white talk 15:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I really have to rovide you with the link again? Tell you once again that this is a self-published source by an expert in the field and show you the relevant policy? Point out that the policy you guys trotted out against it only addresses math, medicine and similar sciences?
 * Please address one of these points (existence of the source, the policy I quoted or the policy you believed was applicable). I will gladly 'get the point', provided you have one - why don't you tell me what was wrong with my argument, instead of just badmouthing me? --Lundse (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources which claim emo is not a subculture are in a pitiful minority, if they are even acceptable sources. And I see you completely fail to address the bachelor student, phd. student and published professor, _all in sociology_ who use the term subculture about emo, completely unproblematically. Why is that? --Lundse (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No such sources have been provided other than one extremely poorly written self published essay by an undergrads. There has been no peer reviewed work provided so far in any discussion that has concluded the existance of a subculture. We don't decide what we want an article to say and then try to force and synthesise sources until they fit our personal views, this is utterly the wrong attitude to editing and why it's going nowhere. -- neon white talk 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that we do not have a sociologist professor's self-published abstract using the word 'subculture' about emo? Or that he is not a published expert on the field? Or that we do not have a policy which says that we can use sources from independently published experts, when the source itself is independently published? Sorry for only responding to your first sentence, but the remainder is simply irrelevant and/or a feeble attempt at strawmanning. Please let me know which of the three premises mentioned you disgree with... --Lundse (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

←I do support the creation of this page, however why is it not eing created it looks to me like 4/5 people want this page and the only opposition is Neon White, they have legidimate sources, each are big enough. And it is a majority vote, I do believe this is enough to have this page created. --A7xTheRev12 (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You need something you can make an article out of that isnt original research and the personal views of editors. These type of fanciful articles are have frequently been deleted because they are nothing but personal essays. This would have the added 'nail in the coffin' that it would be a very obvious POV fork. As i am sure i have already mentioned wikipedia is not a blog to publish your point of views. Remember to remain civil. This article (and many other articles on wikipedia) has much you could be working on to improve it, i suggest this would be a better use of time. Also, read Straw man, you misuse the term. -- neon white talk 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works by consensus, i have already thoroughly addressed the problems here and no solutions have been forthcoming as of yet. -- neon white talk 22:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Painting me as wanting to 'decide what we want an article to say and then try to force...' is strawmanning. Claiming no sources exist except ('...one extremely poorly written self published essay by an undergrads...') while we are actively discussing a source from a sociology professor is strawmanning and/or lying (and it is certainly bad form not asnwering my question re. whether you believe this source to exist, or why it is irrelevant).
 * Please respond to my question, instead of simply restating your belief. Does the professor's abstract not exist, is it not self-published or do we not have a policy which allows the use of self-pulished sources by standing authorities in the field? Which is it? --Lundse (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Except you never answered my question - we have a source, it is selfpublished and we have a policy which allows us to use such a source. Which of these three claims do you dispute? Lundse (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What really defines emo now?(2000 - and on..)
basically I noticed that most of the rock bands that are united with the "emo tag" have only one thing in common, the fact that they have depressed/suicidal/heartbroken lyrical content, even despite the fact that bands play on an alternative rock, new wave, power pop style, they are still labeled as emo because of the lyrical content. If a whole genre is mostly defined by the lyrics rather than the  different aesthetics that these bands have, then so help me grunge would fall in the technical definition of metal, or nu metal would technically just fall into place with whatever topics they usual fall on, anyway does anyone get my point? I'm looking for serious answers so don't just pathetically troll around on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.98.243 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In response... I agree. But I think it should be said that people often forget that Emo means "emotional," which all good music should be.  Anything however, that stands out as Emo, is now usually EXTREMELY emotional.  And then you get into the human psyche analysis...why does depression seem to be the most extreme emotion?  Everyone will always have their own definition.  Personally I consider all music Emo to some degree, the question is: HOW Emo is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.96.173 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * i agree as well, as a music major and a big fan of emotive hardcore, it is more then a little disturbing to me to see what is called "emo" nowadays. and by the way, "emo" is shorthand for emotive hardcore, it does not mean "emotion" . that was a base misassumption of 2000's music listeners which has in my opinion caused the mislabelling of today's music as emo. emotive hardcore is a dead genre, it hasnt been around in a long time, with the notable exception of fugazi. the pop rock and pop punk scene nowadays that is referred to as emo has been labelled so because of it's music listeners alone, not because of any musical influence or musical/lyrical content. i have never editted or given input to wikipedia before, and i am doing so now in the hopes that this article will REMOVE new age "emo" from it's list of related music as it is simply NOT TRUE. teenage angst alone does NOT make music emo... being sad does NOT make music emo. and most of emo has a politic base for lyrical content, something that is wholly missing from today's mislabelled emo. for christ sake man... emo stemmed from political influences and the "counter punk" sociopolitical scene of 80's washington dc. anyways thanks for listening to my "anti-emo" diatribe, hopefully i might have enlightened someone enough to change this very very wrong article. also, as an addendum, i like pop-punk and pop-rock quite a bit, i am not biased against them at all.. indeed my favorite band currently is Taking Back Sunday.. but i do not want to see real emotive hardcore become a forgotten and abhorred leper of a new age sound. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.157.193 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

the major problem with this page
the big problem with this whole thing is that this is supposed to be a music article, yet the page protectors seem to want to add any band that some lazy journalist has tagged as emo. this article is also misleadign as it gives the impression that the aestheic emo simply died away after 1994, while we all know (sources or not) that if anything it grew much much bigger. to sum, this is a music page and should be about "emo" as a musical genre, not a word bandied about in alternative circles. there is really no aesthetical similarities between Indian Summer and dashboard confessional (well apart from the strained voice :)) so please lets stop all arguments and split this articles into emo (scene) (where, you can whack all your major media refs and the whole article post 1994) and emo (music) where the aesthetic genre known as emo can be properly catalogued.

all those who agree to a vote on this please don't write anything but "agreed" and sign your name --Eweyewewe (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)eweyewewe


 * Agreed. --Kmaster (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If there are problems with the article, those problems should be fixed, not shoved off to another new page. Note that there used to be Emo (music) and Emo (slang), but there was a consensus to merge them to here. --Mdwh (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is about the term 'emo' and whatever it is attributed to in reliable sources. Attmepts to create a POV fork by people trying to force their interpretation of it have been dismissed countless times. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources whether you agree with them or not, it's not a soapbox for personal views. -- neon white [User_talk:Neon white|talk] 23:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the gist of what you say, every new band with dyed black hair is tagged as emo it seems. The article should be split, but the problem is how should it be split. I have maintained that this mythical "third wave" of emo is not a result of the music, but the "slang" word of emo itself which came to identify not merely an "emotional" stereotype, but the indie fashion style that was combined with it; and of course the feeding frenzy of bands that naturally dye their hair black, etc, etc. As far as what Emo was in the early 90's or the 80's, I personally have little interest in that mediocre music genre, simply because, today's ridiculous Emo (Scene) fashion has almost nothing do with it, except in name. What are the sources? There are plenty of them, I am about to open a new can of worms below that delves into the supposed mystery of what is Emo TODAY. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree that it should be split into two articles, or possibly even more, but i also disagree. Firstly, this article is VERY broad. It does seem to dictate what current emo fashion is, as well as music, and how some percieve it, and therefore should be split into something along the lines of Emo (Fashion), Emo (Music) and Emo (Criticism). However, i am discontented with the fact that this is an article concerning the history of Emo, and there is a severe lack of the history of Emo fashion. Also, the current Emo scene consists mostly of many different genres (screamo, metalcore, techno metal to name but a few), and the solid musical genre of Emo music makes up a very small percentage of Emo cultural music. Bands tagged as solid Emo such as Lostprophets, The Used, My Chemical Romance, 30 Seconds To Mars, seem to have few albums before dying out completely, making Emo a rapidly changing genre and culture. Next, i ask you to ask yourself something. Please forgive my stereotypical and possibly prejudiced approach to this. How often do you see a chav that listens to any kind of rock? How often do you see an indie person listen to Cradle of Filth? Not very often is it? Thats because "Chavs", "Indies" and other such musical/fashion titles more than often listen to a large percentage of the music that belongs to their subculture. How many Emos do you know that listen to Hiphop, Rap, R&B, Rock, Emo, Metal, Rave, Dance, Folk, Punk etc? For me, it's a hell of a lot. The reason why Emo is under so much debate, is mostly because they don't listen to their own damn music. You do get Emo music, but its not what 'Emo's listen to all the time. That is also the reasoning (long winded though it may be) behind why i agree that this article should be separated into the articles i mentioned earlier. However, a much simpler solution (which i bet you wish i said first after the length of my first argument) which would please all in this discussion, would be to shorten this article, and rename it Emo (Subculture). Then you could include a small "See also: Emo (Music)" before the Music section. This section would then consist of one, possibly two or three, paragraphs, and have the proposed link to the main article on Emo (Music). Do the same for fashion and criticism, make sure the main articles include how they evolved from date of emergence to present date, and bang! you have the separated articles that this guy above me desires, and you haven't upset others who think that this article says it all. --Speighticus (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

hello! this is an excellent point, one that i have made several times to several people without much success... "emo" (emotive hardcore) as a musical genre is extinct. whereas "emo" (fashion/scene) is a new age trend. unforetunately, along with this trend came the mislabelling of certain bands as "emo" (music genre) .. these bands actually are comprised of (for the majority) pop-punk and pop-rock, although there are certainly screamo and post-hardcore bands that get labelled as emo as well along with quite a few other genres to a lesser extent. we CANNOT allow -especially in a encyclopedia which influences knowledge and culture in this day in age- for bands of a very distinct genre to be mislabelled as another genre simply because people of a certain fashion group like them. that is truely the ONLY thing that "new age emo" has in common. as a form of proof for my claims, i would like to point out that most of emotive hardcore was politically driven, some of it was about personal turmoil, and very very little of it had anything whatsoever to do with romance, suicide, masochism (in the form of "cutting", or any of the other things that people within the new age emo scene consider to be prerequisites for being "emo".

please note that the genre Hardcore is a DIRECT offshoot of the original pure punk rock. and that emotive hardcore is a subgenre of hardcore. new age pop rock has nothing to do with the punk rock genre at all, from lyrical content to musical influences, they have nothing in common whatsover. so for the love of god, please split this article into Emo(Music genre) and Emo(Fashion/Culture), and let us be done with the horrendous injustice that has been done to emotive hardcore music.

Emo(music genre) is exactly that, a music genre. Emo(fashion/culture) is a new age scene that is comprised of over 10 different genres. i mean, if you can call Blue October "Emo", then by all rights you should call The Ramones "pop". if anyone disagrees with anything i have said here, then feel free to say so and i will happily debate the issue and cite sources and examples as much as needed to get my point across. i have been a music major for my entire adult life, and in the past 3 or 4 years i have become increasingly disturbed at what is called "emo" and i feel it is time for this to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.157.193 (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The above statement is narrow-minded (the one called: major problem etc.)
As with every musical style, there comes a stage where the style generates it's own views and attitude and perception. It has happened in all major musical movements, from romanticism to rock, so how can it be 'just a music page'. What the above person appears to be saying is that there should be a section on how emo is percieved by everyone else, and a section for people who know know what their talking about and so wouldn't look on it anyway.

So, in the above person's pathetic attempt, it seems, to stand up for 'emos' he is in fact condemning them to more ridicule because anyone who wants to know what to think about emos is going to look for support and a common opinion will find, well, the common opinion, and we all know what that is. So please do not listen to the earlier person.

P.S. I am baffled by the person's bizarre lack of capital letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.87.181 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * a note to whomever wrote this flame... you seem to have something valuable to add to this discussion, but due to the fact that you are being quite rude and making personal attacks on someone else, your views are being obscured by your angst. feel free to rewrite what you have to say in a more copecetic fashion.
 * p.s. yes, i did not use any capitol letters. and yes i have been in college for the past 6 years. clearly stating your point is by far more important then using proper grammer, proper english, or proper connotation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.157.193 (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, No More Opinions!
This article, and also partly the discussion, is becoming opinionated dribble. People arguing which bands are emo, which aren't, people changing the actual article countless times so that their idea of how emo a band is fits in, and to be quite frank, it is p*****g me off. Everyone has their own opinion on their favorite music and the music they dislike. This is probably the most debated article in the entire of Wikipedia. This is probably the most difficult term to define. This is probably the most difficult article to source. That's why it's semi protected. So that it can still be changed by the knowledgeable, and can't become what it slowly is - opinion rather than fact. I have personally disagreed with the "Emoness" of some of the bands mentioned in the article, such as Jimmy Eat World. I have also included some bands in an earlier post on the discussion page which i consider Emo, and others may not. Therefore, i believe that we should correctly define and source the current definition of Emo as a musical genre before any bands are so much as mentioned. I also advise to remove (also on a temporary and source based basis) the inclusion of what other genres it has evolved from and includes elements of, as you cannot do so without naming bands which are Emo and include elements of these genres, which returns to my point that Emo music should be defined and sourced before all bands and advisably all associated genres are included, for example, i would say that Enter Shikari are Emo, but incorporate elements of Emo, Metal and Techno into their music, meaning Enter Shikari should be included in this article and that Metal and Techno should be too. However, this is my opinion and is not sourced, so this cannot be included. This demonstrates the predicament. Correctly define Emo music and source it before including bands and associated genres, and even then make sure that they are sourced. Sorry for going on for so long and repeating myself, but at least you all get the message. Oh and sorry if i'm just paraphrasing someone else here, it's a very long discussion to read and its 1 AM. --Speighticus (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an opinion to share here, even though you don't want any: EMO music died in the late 90's. Even though the genre was a bit tenuous at best. EMO in the 2000's is primarily a fashion thing having nothing to do with Emo Hardcore music except in name. In fact, Emo Phillips the commedian is perhaps even closer to moden Emo than the Hardcore Emo, since the comedian had an "Indie" look going for himself. My absolute statement here is that this page should be split from the music page, creating one dealing with the fashion. I've said it before. I'll say it again. When you say that this is the most disputed page on Wiki, I wouldn't doubt it. But I don't give a damn about the music side. I don't post on any Fugazi or Rites of Spring page. I don't post on any Hardcore or Post-Hardcore pages. I don't care about that shit. What the problem is, is the fashion side or this Emo subculture which is a different subject all together. Just my opinion. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Emo fashion was adopted from Gothic and Punk rock fashion, but the fashion style has now since entered the mainstream, I could remember back like 3-4 years ago, kids we're trying to dress like gangstas and rappers, with basketball jersies and "bling-blings", right now its the mainstream trend and a lot of people are trying to dress up like that, and its probably most annoying when you see boybands and pop artists dressing up like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.109.74 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Emo sub-culture creates a dismissive attitude for people with real mental illness
As a diagnosed Avoidant (AvPD) I've noticed that the artistic agnst of the emo sub-culture creates a dismissive attitude for people with genuine depression, Personality Disorders ect amongst mainstream society. I am not alone in this opionion I can assure you. I strongly believe this should be stated in the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.247.12 (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you cite any source for the dismissive attitude? Some article or something. I looked at a pair of AvPD websites, and I couldn't find any mention of "emo" on them.
 * Is that dismissive attitude a very spread phenomena? Searching "emo" on a support group mailing list I can find a couple references, I can't find complaints about dismissive attitude caused by emo. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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


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


 * Never mind, one coming up. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


 * It's not our job to prove you otherwise - you're the one making an assertion/claim. You've provided us with "emobucket" (a webforum!) and a primary-source book with no sociological authority (at least, not as far as I can tell). Here's an excerpt from the book (which I will assert, for legal reasons, is being used here for critical commentary):
 * Core Emo Values
 * Depression: More dramatic than simply being sad, depression is the foundation of the entire emo ethos. Depression serves as a bonding mechanism for those with a similar outlook on life and love. Like magnets, depressed people attract one another because moping alone is, well, pathetic. But throwing yourself a pity party? That's emo.
 * Effort(lessness): Being emo is all about trying really hard to look like you don't really care. Being indifferent isn't as easy as it looks. It requires effort. Why spend two hours slathering your hair with pomade, taking a straightening iron to the bangs and the back, then shaking the whole mess out and matting it to your forehead to look like you just took a nap, haphazardly slept on your 'do, suddenly rolled out of bed, and bolted out the door? Because merely sleeping on your coif would be too easy and wouldn't look natural enough. When you're emo, you're constantly looking to invent unnecessary obstacles so that you can overcome them.
 * Sounds like satire to me. Those are not the actual values of any actual culture. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


 * we should have separate articles on music genre (emo) and subculture (emo kids) --Netrat (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)