Talk:Emo/Archive 6

Split into Old Emo and Modern Emo
These are two separate genres that people often mix up because they have the same name. I think they should have two separate articles like R&B and Contemporary R&B do. This has already been suggested in the 'Straight Edge' section above. --Munci (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They are not seperate genres at all. All sources we have back this up . However there are no sources to back up your subjective view. -- neon white user page talk 22:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First source
 * It clearly splits emo into 3 distinct waves, as this article does.
 * It says that Fallout Boy are "allegedly emo" implying that they aren't really.
 * 'It’s around this time that emo started collecting multiple definitions' - Clearly says that there are
 * 'Originally associated with dense, caustic music and nontraditional song structure (no verse, chorus, verse), emocore stuck with its original definition while indie emo was defined by a more accessible pop sound as heard from bands such as Weezer, Jimmy Eat World, Promise Ring and The Get Up Kids. With accessibility came radio and MTV airplay. Now Emo belonged to the world.' This says that the original emo stayed underground while the indie emo bands with the altered sound such as Jimmy Eat World were the ones that inspired the modern bands.
 * Second source
 * It describes emo nowadays as being used based on fashion not what they actually sound like.
 * It also says of Weezer:Though, the peppy, power-pop they play(ed) was very different in sound than that of the aforementioned bands, Weezer was quickly lumped into the very vague "emo" genre.


 * This specifically states that a more appropriate genre for Weezer at the time would have power pop and that they sounded very different from what was previously called emo.
 * It also uses the phrase 'are considered to be "emo" by modern standards' which implies that there is a distinction between former and modern standards as to what emo is.
 * Third source
 * It uses the phrase 'In its original incarnation' which means that there is a significant difference between earlier forms and later ones.
 * Is this site really verifiable anyway? --Munci (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * All the sources desribe a subject evolving over time, this is not two seperate subjects so there is no justification for any article split. -- neon white user page talk 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree that the article should not be split. --ChrisB (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The LA Weekly article and Time magazine articles do in fact characterize EMO as something almsot completely discinct from the early EMO music scene and thi slatter day subcultre. IT IS a subculture. Time Magazine AND the LA WEEKLY cannot be wrong. They are two major sources. Sam --206.170.104.67 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is synthesis. -- neon white user page talk 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, it is NOT Synthesis. You would be correct, if you were referring to the Time Magazine and USA Today articles; but I didn't bring up the USA Today article. The LA WEEKLY article covers the story, but did it's own research. Do you know what the LA WEEKLY is? Look up their wiki page. It is time, not merely to split the articles, but create EMO (Subculture) page, period. The two articles come from to MAJOR sources. We can't ignore the facts anymore. --159.83.4.153 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Sam


 * Neither article sources anything you are claiming and the majority of sources counter it. This is why the idea is a non-starter. Both sources you mention define a fashion stereotype which is covered in this article. -- neon white  user page talk 19:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither article sources anything? What kind of statemetn is that? I mean, in one topic you state that this page can only go by what the media say by it.. and then you want be selective about articles, and then quibble about sources. If we do that, then all the early literature about EMO would virtually be disqualified, mainly because early EMO 80's music was so obscure. But now that the TIME Magazine article has come out, the most major publication to cover contemporary EMO, I want you to produce any articles recently that refute it's misconceptions or errors -- to back up your statement about errors. Facts are that, EMO today is different from the EMO music style of the 80's. The fashion steretypes are a recent thing. You can't produce me fotos of all these original 80's and 90's EMO bands with two more people in the audience who fit the descrptions. So, old EMO is not really the same as the new EMO. The EMO is mostly a fashion style, it is a subculture. Just read the LA WEEKLY article. I doubt you will find any. The resean is that people know what EMO is. THE LA WEEKLY is a source. I think the LA WEEKLY article is a source in itself. Time Magazine article just about blatantly asserts that this is a subculture. IT IS DEFINED THERE in the LA WEEKLY. Get over it. The jig is up. Just on the strength of those two articles, and all those other articles, which the editors on this page have been ignoring, which do not coincide with your agenda, of trying to asssociate the fashion style, but only to a limit, not recognizing the fact that it is the fashion style/subculture which is the whole basis contemporary EMO. I stress again, read the LA WEEKLY article in its entirety. The paper has been around for 30 years cover indie music, music scenes in general. Thanks --206.170.104.67 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC) Sam


 * It might be different now but that's doesn't mean it is two seperate distinct styles with two seperate devlopments which have no relation to each other. Please post your sources and which passages you are claiming supports your view because i cannot see any. As has been said many times, media sources are not reliable for sociological claims. However the fashion has been associated in reliable source and the media are a reliable source for fashions and trends. There is no evidence whatsoever of a subculture that has been provided here. Only evidence of a probably inaccurate stereotype. As you correctly state the LA WEEKLY is a good source for music but it is not a sociological journal, it reports music fashions well but it doesn't not do sociological studies. At this i would highly recommend reasin WP:SYNTH. Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion -- neon white user page talk 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) On Wikipedia's page on "Subculture," Punk is mentioned as one. The term subculture also is synonymous with the term "urban tribe"... LA WEEKLY, in its articles identifies, the Punks and Goths as Urban Tribes, with inferences towards EMO as a recent Urban Tribe. But I suppose, I shouldn't really labour the point about EMO being a subculture. The point is that EMO today is different from EMO from before. That would merit a split page in itself. But I think we should shoot for a different page all together. In the Time Magazine article Emo is identified, as the merely a popularization of the Punk and Goths of EARLIER years; in the LA WEEKLY article, Emos are criticized by the Punks, and Goths as poseurs. In the LA WEEKLY article, the explicit criticisms of EMO is that "they are copying our style." This is exactly in line with what Time magazine says, but not identical. This is reference to Fashion. Time Magazine, I agree has "errors" of a technical matter in its article; but the substance of the article runs fairly line with LA WEEKLY. The conclusion is that EMO is basically a fashion/music genre that only became popular within the last 3 to 4 years. The earlier incarnation of EMO did not have the fashion aspect. The fashion aspect comes out of Punk and Post-Punk Goth. EMO of 80's D.C. was a regional music thing, that was at best tenuous. New EMO is something defined by other criteria, fashion, having a presence on different continents. If you think that EMO today does not merit a split or a different page by these vastly different conceptions, then I have no idea how anyone could justify even creating an EMO page at all, splitting itself away from Hardcore Punk or American Hardcore. It's a flagrant double standard. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not evidence that there are too different subjects. I think common sense distates this is a single subject. Personal POVs arent going to change this. The most reliable sources in the article back this up To quote  Emo morphed into anything mopey and marketable.. It changed but it isn't a different subject. -- neon white  user page talk 23:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, I have a specific question... in both articles there IS CRITICISM made by Punks and Goths, testimoney collected and published by TIME Magazine and LA WEEKLY. The LA WEEKLY you have already conceeded is a reliable source for music. Why hasn't this criticism, i.e. that EMO's are seen as fashion posuers, stealing fashion styles from PUNKS and Goths not in the article? I think this critism is more germaine to the subject than the accusation of Emo as being sexist...


 * But you don't put that there. This is amazing. You cite the mob attacks in Mexico, but you do not go into WHY this happened. This is amazing. Time Magazine covers the story, but none of the reasons WHY is even included on Wikipedias article. At this point in time, I think your credibility or judgement is lacking. I ask anyone else here whether this omission is not a glaring one.


 * I bring up this point, because I see you are stone-walling with regard to this brand of criticism. The reason why is, because it directly contradicts the very other articles you cite, Deragotis, et al. Which, in no way goes against my point. In fact, it can only bolster my point that what EMO is about, is something so radically different in context, that it merits its own page, stressing the fashion aspect. Because, it truly does become a different subject on that point.


 * Also, I believe even the very section on "fashion" on this EMO page in itself is craftily obscured with regard to explicitly contrasting the early fashions with later developments and the chronology on these changes. The reason why is, it would show that there was a monumental shift within only the last 3 to 4 years... And considering the world-wide dimensions of this fashion fad, it departs so considerably from Deragotis' articles that they no longer can be seen as relevant on this subject, because it just about is a different thing all together. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This last posting was made almost a week ago; notice that Neonwhite always avoids the question as to why this EMO article does not include the criticism of EMO that was published in TIME Magazine and the LA WEEKLY. The critism, as well as one of the reasons for the Mexico mob attacks, is that EMOS are viewed as posers, accused of copying the fashion styles of Punk and Goth subcultures. But strange enough, this sort of criticism is totally ignored. Neonewhite,is this not being blatantly selective? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, let us split the article, simply put, it appears chrisb and neon white are being illogical and are stubborn Eweyewewe (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)eweyewewe


 * Even neonwhite's sources indicate that there is a big difference between old emo and new "emo." If the article isn't completely split, it should at least make more of a distinction between the two different genres. --Punkrockrunner (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)punkrockrunner

I guess I could agree with splitting it, people(who read wikipedia) should atleast find out the difference right away from the First Wave: Emotive Hardcore to the Third Wave: Pop-Rock infused contemporary Emo. Now I know people would look at this as POV or bias or something, but with topics like these(yes most of this is driven by sources), Wikipedia itself contributes to the stereotype, and would quickly judge(and at times discriminate) anything coming from emocore to this horrendous stereotype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.106.215 (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * oppose. I don't think there are enough sources that say that there are different genres called old emo and new emo. However, if you can find enough sources to write separate article about 1st wave, 2nd wave, 3rd wave, feel free to write such articles (a'la Third wave ska) and link them as sub-genres. --Netrat (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New subgenre: Emo-Pop
Hey, well I found this style on [www.allmusic.com], so it's good, because maybe we can separate and get better the definition of emo music... everybody confuse or find some band like no emo, even when they are it... for example panic at the disco's emo and at-drive in's emo .... and lyrically emo and emo-pop are quite different so here is the article... All Music Guide: Emo-Pop

''As emo became an increasingly marketable style during the early 2000s, many artists shifted away from the artsy, unconventional song structures that characterized the genre’s early days. While retaining emo’s confessional lyrics and cathartic energy, groups like Jimmy Eat World also embraced more pop-oriented influences, often simplifying their approach with concise songs and hood-laden choruses. This spin-off genre attracted a significantly younger audience, as its sound blended youthful angst with slick production and mainstream appeal. Jimmy Eat World officially launched the emo-pop movement in 2001 with Bleed American, whose flagship single “The Middle” became a top 5 hit. Weezer also delved into emo-pop, eschewing the dark ruminations of Pinkerton for the considerably brighter sounds of “The Green Album.” Emo-pop soon established itself as a genre that relied on high-pitched melodies, rhythmic guitars, and lyrics concerning adolescence, relationships, and heartbreak.

''As the genre took hold, labels like Fueled By Ramen emerged as epicenters of the emo-pop movement, issuing platinum-selling albums by Fall Out Boy, Panic at the Disco, and Paramore. Emo-pop was a decidedly American phenomenon with particular strongholds in Florida (the home state of both Fueled by Ramen and Dashboard Confessional) and the Midwest. A native of Illinois, Fall Out Boy’s Pete Wentz was instrumental in strengthening the genre’s ties to the region, even launching his own vanity label, Decaydance, to help foster younger groups. While bands like My Chemical Romance retained a dark, neo-gothic edge, emo-pop was largely a bright, spirited genre that wielded more commercial influence than emo and screamo.'' --201.242.191.81 (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a poor piece with no author credited and not a mainstream view. --neon white talk 19:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We'd also only be able to use it to label bands which the article specifically described as such, which means it'd do nothing to help the majority of bands in question. --Aurum ore (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All the artists mentioned are more commonly referred to as simply 'emo' theres no real reliable evidence of any sub-generization. The article does, however need work on mainstream emo. --neon white talk 00:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Why There Can't be An Emo Subculture

 * 1) There are no definite sources that defines it as a subculture
 * 2) It is more of a Neologism when used as a "subculture"
 * 3) IT IS A MUSIC GENRE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.220.232 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * - We have a sociology professor using the term, a bachelor student and a phd. student. And a whole lot of journalists.
 * - No, it is not a neologism at this point at all, it has been in use for a long time. Also as "emo subculture".
 * - It can be a music genre and a subculture at the same time (cf. punk). --Lundse (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "There are no definite sources that defines it as a subculture" is the major point currently. Despite what the attempts to synthesize some. --neon white talk 17:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no attempt at syntheszing. I do not know if you do not understand this (that using a self-published source in accordance with an established policy is not synthesizing) or if you are deliberately obfuscating the issue. Until you answer my basic question about what is wrong with the source, it's status as selfpublished or the policy I simply cannot take your persistent strawmanning and repetition of your claims as though they were fact serious. --Lundse (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. There are no DEFINITE sources that defines it as a subculture.
 * If there are kindly show it, I expect it to be sourced on unreliable sites or the site itself branded the people as "emo". I doubt that there is even a nice and reliable article about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.221.127 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, is that so? So you're saying that there aren't any sources like MSNBC? USA Today? LA Times? Fox News? CNN? ...Yeah, you're probably right. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you just gave sources defining emo AS A GENRE, NOT A SUBCULTURE, you strengthened my claim, thank you very much ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.214.167 (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, it seems like the reporters have coined the word "emo" to people. They COINED the word "emo" for people, NOT DESCRIBED NOR EXPLAINED "emo" as a sub-culture. And "sources derived from news ARE NOT reliable sources" (read the guidelines please) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.214.167 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know what your definition of a 'definitive' source is, but this is the best thing we got
 * Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures.
 * It is a title and an abstract, making it clear that the authors think this word is unproblematic to use about emo. One of the authors is a professor of sociology. It has not been published, but was peer-reviewed and ostensibly good enough for the American Association of Sociology annual meeting.
 * It is not independently published, which is not a problem since the policy on this requirement also clearly states that a source is still "...acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"
 * We also have a Phd student using the word, and someone in a bachelor's thesis. Add to that the newspapers. No sources against this claim are better than those secondary sources. --Lundse (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, don't say that a "Phd student using the word, and someone in a bachelor's thesis" because THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to prove your claim. They said/used that word "emo" (which I think most probably that they used that term as a "subculture") because its THEIR point of view/opinion, NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. --Lonerguy_87 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you not notice the part where a sociology professor used the word subculture about the emo phenomenon, or did you just ignore it? --Lundse (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Like what I said, "a sociology professor used the word subculture about the emo phenomenon" THAT IS NOT ENOUGH to prove your claim. They said/used that word "emo" (which I think most probably that they used that term as a "subculture") because its THEIR point of view/opinion/idea, NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE. You can't base a source from something you heard from someone else. If you continue being blind to that reality so be it. You're wasting your time. --Lonerguy_87 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I see what you are saying Lonerguy: REASONABLE ARGUMENTS citing a WIDE RANGE OF VERIFIABLE SOURCES are NOT ENOUGH because they don't conform to your own PREJUDICES. Did I get that right? --Cedars (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that any source which a human being has written is not good enough because it is necessarily their opinion? Or what is your point? That you can somehow tell that this professor was only giving his opinion and not using his knowledge (when he submitted this to the American Sociological Association conference)?
 * "Using the specific case of “emo,” a youth-based musical subculture..."
 * This guy is a sociology professor! And quite clear! Who else will be a reliable source as to how we use the word subculture and about what? God has to appear before you? --Lundse (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been gone over a million times with the same conclusion. You cannot write an article based on random mentions/misuses of a term. Notability requires significant coverage. Without that an article cannot say anything without resorting to synthesis. Where are the studies? the conclusions? the defintions? Someone merely using a term gives us nothing. The fact that this page has been so difficult to source tell us that very little is being written on the subject. Most of it is still lacking in sources. What we do have however is considerable sources that claim that 'emo' is undefinable. All we really have is alot of differing views, contradictions and stereotypes. --neon white talk 22:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know if you would call it a conclusion, but a pattern has shown up. I ask what is wrong with the abstract source, you decline to answer and (most of the time) restate your claim. Or you strawman my position with stuff like: 'Someone merely using a term gives us nothing' - my claim is not that someone using the term subculture means that emo must be a subculture, my claim is that if a sociology professor uses the term about the phenomenon of emo in front of a lecture hall full of sociologists, then that does tell us that emo is indeed, to sociologists, a subculture. Go ahead, restate your claim... --Lundse (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

stereotypical relationship between punks and emos
Hi stereotypicly punks dont like emos i think this should be added somewhere. although it should be noted that this is not always the case. In the words of one punk rocker A.S"emos are cool too". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.176.225 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It's a stereotype (you did say so yourself), and can't be sourced. It's based on viewpoints, not sources and proof. -- Cailunet rawr 02:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69's edits
I have removed this text as i believe it makes an unpublished conclusion that doesnt appear in any of the sources contrary to WP:NOR policy ("Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research"). Also the lead paragraph is not the place to add new info. --neon white talk 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As i stated above, there is no doubt that we need something about modern bands but only things that have been reliably published. --neon white talk 16:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What's there now is now reliably published and can in no way constitute original research. Does this current wording work better for you? --Hoponpop69 (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesnt belong in the lead though it needs to go at the end of the history. --neon white talk 00:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Emotive or Emotional?
On the article, it states that emo is apparently "emotional hardcore" but I've seen it as "emotive hardcore'. Which one should be used? (And should I or somebody else change it back to "emotive hardcore"?) -- Cailunet rawr 02:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had a look through Google News for articles in reliable sources and the vast majority use "emotional hardcore". The only uses for "emotive harcore" I've found are five articles dating back to 2006, while there are 185 references to "emotional hardcore" dating back to 1998. So "emotional hardcore" is the usage that's more common and better supported by references. --Muchness (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008

Emo as Fashion
This news report mentions that Emo was a form of music but also a way of clothing. So I guess we can't say we don't have a reference for that statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.191.126 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Related to Scene Fashion --Natticakes (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We have another SOURCE which says that Emo today is more of a fashion than a music style. The date of this broadcast was apparently July 5, 2006. It is sourced.  Isn't it cool? They even use the old Wiki symbol of the Emo kid drawing. Why did anyone take it down. So, Emo today is more of a fashion than a music genre, according this article. I think this SOURCED statement should be at least included within the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.182.6 (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I click on "watch video" and nothing happens :( --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sir Naval, if you click on the Youtube link above you will find the very video that is referred to on 3news. I was just linking to the 3news site just so no one could say that I manufactured this video, that is to say, that I travelled to New Zealand and staged the event. So, click on the Youtube link and you will listen to the report. It says that EMO nowadays is more closely associated to a FASHION. As I said, this should be included in the fashion section, or it should be the beginning to the article concerning the mythical 3rd wave of Emo that has NO SOURCES. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh, ok, I just watched it (lol@"do not confuse with emus"). What do you think of this . I had problems understanding the following sentences, so I couldn't add more. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * MCR has clearly stated that they're not emo, so... Guess they know what music they play better than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.149.69 (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Screamo an offshoot of new "emo"?
The article says "In a strange twist, screamo, a sub-genre of the new emo, has found greater popularity in recent years through bands such as Glassjaw." Um, anyone else have a problem with that? Bands like Orchid definitely are not a subgenre of the new "emo." I'm was going to take that sentence out, but I'll wait till others weigh in. -- Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 05:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you'd be justified in removing it. Screamo a subgenre of "new" emo? Man that sentence makes me want to scalp myself. Unless of course, it's, you know, sourced and everything. Regardless I think it's pretty inaccurate. --TheLetterM (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed there in fact is a source to that sentence, but it doesn't explicitly say screamo was an outgrowth of mainstream "emo." It was focusing on the second wave "screamo" bands (like the Used, Thursday, etc), but it even says in a little off-hand comment that the term has been used for years, with the only band they mention being John Henry West (who I don't know about as I don't listen to as much screamo as I'd like). I'm thinking there should in fact be a decent paragraph at least on screamo in this article, with clear attention payed to the difference between the old sound and the new sound (as the screamo article does well). I'm not really the person to write it though because, as I've said, my knowledge of screamo and emo is pretty shallow. I am going to go revise the current bit though because that's just bad. -- Ungovernable Force  Poll: Which religious text should I read? 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Math rock
isn't that pretty similar to REAL emo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.157.177 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Both genres do share a fair amount of ancestry, and there are bands like American Football which encompass both genres. That being said, they're mutually exclusive. --TheLetterM (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually a Subculture?
I've seen at least a couple arguments over whether or not "emo" is a discernible modern genre or subculture, of if it's merely a pejorative term, a sort of made-up scapegoat genre and subculture. Of course none of this come from credible sources. Do we have any? Has anyone else heard anything similar? --128.186.230.124 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't completely understand what you just said or asked, but yes we have sources that call it a subculture. Just not the "right" sources appairintly (sorry I spelled that wrong). --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Emo is a genre of music. Some sources lacking authority and/or reliability call it a "subculture" - but many of them also make some interesting claims (e.g. "Emos worship death" - certainly, such religious beliefs may help set them apart as a subculture, but this is of course totally untrue and nonsense). --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've only seen one source that has said they worship death, and that source was complete crap anyway. Second, some of the sources are certainly reliable they just lack authority which is what we need but also what we don't have so nothing can be done(boo bad sources). Oh, and Emo is a Subgenre of music (LOL, yeah, I know, I'm being needlesly picky about what Emo is and what Emo is not but still it is a Subgenre of music). IMO, Emo is a Subculture but my oppinion is completely worthless as far as wikipedia is concerned. I'm not a good source, none of us are (LOL). --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If they are known to misuse the word then that would make them unreliable. "Emos worship death" is just one of a number of contentious claims that leads unlearned sources to the false idea that it is any more than a genre of music. -- neon white user page talk 01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Course it would, but I would like to know how all of them misuse "Subculture." Yes I do reliase your alluding to the MSN source (at least that's how I see it) but I'd still like to know. Also, any source that says we worship death would probably be BS, no? So far that is the only contentious statement that I'm seeing. BTW, it is more than a form of music, we just don't have the sources that say it, so those of us who want it to be more on wikipedia can't do anything, oh well. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that it represents anything other than a genre of music that is why 'subculture' is misused. We can't have an article about a subculture that no-one has defined regardless of whether a media sources uses the term. It would be a one sentence article. -- neon white user page talk 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining that Neon white. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree with you we do need a more solid source perhaps we could browse well founded sites, we know they are in the media, and we know they exist we just need some sources. I will look for some soon... XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Its all been done before. -- neon white user page talk 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed it has, but that's not an excuse not to try. New information is always popping up, however it does tend to pop up rather slowly... still worth a shot... --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, it is. Decided "I want sources to support claim X" and then seeking sources to support your claim, when you know it is disputed, is not how Wikipedia is built. Research and inquiry, in this wonderful enlightened modern age, does not involve decided what you want to conclude ahead of time and then cobbling together what little evidence you might be able to find. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is correct, Unfortunately that's often how it's usually done and we should remember that consensus can change and to assume good faith although some users are pushing it with their apparant determination to push their personal view of this subject. It would be interesting to hear what resaerch has been done that has lead them to these conclusions. -- neon white user page talk 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's an important distinction. I'm not saying anyone is pushing their pre-determined opinions on the article, only that these pre-determined opinions are what they are considering adding before checking to see if it's verifiable/encyclopedic. It should be that one searches for such information without consideration for one's pre-determined opinions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was kinda referring more to previous discussions in the archives rather than the current one, there did seem to be some 'POV pushing' going on at certain times to the point of synthesising and willful misinterpretation of sources. -- neon white user page talk 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A recent article along these lines is here ("Subculture clash among Mexico youth" in USA Today). --JJL (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering if you all want me to find some cources that provide information on the emo subculture what would you like me to find? Like perhaps a criteria that explains the ideology, I have done my own research on the internet and really should have written down my resources... But what is it I need to help strengthen the proof that the subculture exist? I am very persistent as you can tell and I know they exist, however whe this article appears I suggest it be closely watched trust me. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In order to change consensus you would need a few sources written by some people with some authority in the feild of Sociology (Author must have a degree in it and whatnot). They must be published, accepted by the academic community, and also not from an undergrad like what someone tried to use the last time a split was proposed. So far the only sources I've seen are media sources, not acceptable for this, and primary sources, also not acceptable. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in) --72.81.226.247 (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out above deciding "I want sources to support claim X" and then seeking sources to support your claim is not a good way to go about writing an article. The fact that you seem to believe something, yet have no evidence to back it up suggests to me that you need to reacess that. -- neon white user page talk 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ideally someone would have to have performed a wide ranging research using test subjects from a large variety of locations worldwide, interviewing them and making conclusions based on this. In my opinion this is highly unlikely to ever happen and even more unlikely to proof any subculture exists when the very idea of subculture is largely thought to be obsolete and very few people indentify with a single 'culture'. Everything so far suggests the opposite. That it is a music genre and a stereotype only. -- neon white user page talk 00:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * - heres an article describing an unbaised view of emo
 * - The study of emo has already begun at many universitys and has been already recognized by sociologist
 * - A film about the music and supposably the subculture is coming out soon so its pretty safe to assume that it exist no?
 * Yes I am very stuborn --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The student newspaper is interesting, although I believe that for an article as contested as this one, it probably won't do. However, we do have this:
 * Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures.
 * It is a title and an abstract, making it clear that the authors think this word is unproblematic to use about emo. One of the authors is a professor of sociology. It has not been published, but was peer-reviewed and ostensibly good enough for the American Association of Sociology annual meeting.
 * It is not independently published, which is not a problem since the policy on this requirement also clearly states that a source is still "...acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".
 * I have not seen anyone dispute these points, nor tell me how they fail to make the source acceptable. --Lundse (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Again all those sources blatently misuse the term. They are quite obviously talking about popular culture and quite clearly reports the misuse of the term The media has suggested that emo is a popular subculture that includes being emotional, shy and full of angst, but this isn't the case with all those who associate themselves with the emo culture. and says that it is only a stereotype as is the consensus here. -- neon white  user page talk 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That's wrong Neon. The source says "this is the stereotype often attributed to the emo subculture by the media" not "emo is only a stereotype." Might want to read the whole source. Sociologists are in agreement that emo is a subculture and have refered to it as such, however they are still studying it so there won't be a good source that defines it for sometime. As such consensus stays the same. As far as wikipedia is concerened, it's just a stereotype for now. Wait til the study is finished and published, then try to change consensus. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in) --72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neon: "all those sources"? What does that mean? I was referring to one specific source (the title and abstract). How is that source misusing the terms "subculture" and "emo" (other than claiming something you do not agree with)?
 * Are you saying now that we discount the source because of your gut feeling that it "misuses terms" or your decision that it is only "talking about pop-culture"? Please be more concise about why you believe this specific source is not good enough. --Lundse (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Tawaazun: Sorry but that is rubbish, it's your personal opinion that is not backed up by any sources whatsoever. That article is clearly stating that it's a stereotype and not a subculture. -- neon white user page talk 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Lundse: We never discount sources but look for better authoratative sources when its quite obvious that they are making the a common mistake and misusing a term. We canit have an article which clearly describes an element of popular culture, that so far is only a fashion and sterotype, masquerading as a subculture. Whilst the popular media might like to misrepresent a popular stereotype as a subculture without basis an encyclopedia cannot. Emo fashion can be compared to Grunge_music in nature, neither can be called a subculture. I think the obvious misunderstanding here is that whilst fashion and appearance can be an indicator of a subculture it isn't the defining factor of one. It's clear, if you read the important works on the subject, that there needs to be alot more than that. -- neon white user page talk 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not rubbish at all but what you said certainly is. Again you need to read the source. The source clearly states that emo is a subculture and as well as what the media's stereotype of the emo subculture is. Here is an idea. Read the whole thing, not just what suits you, both pages. And yes here in the USA there are sociology studies going on in different universaties by hmm, sociologists on the emo subculture. of course I can't previde a source for this. Hence why I havn't used it to try and change consensus. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in) --71.179.8.102 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's highly speculative and reflects pre-publication academic work that may never be accepted in its field. Such claims require acceptance in the field, not existence (especially in such a prenatal sort of condition). --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lundse, you still don't get the fact that a fresh-out-of-grad-school PhD and one of his grad-student friends can make a presentation at a conference and still have it not be publication-level work. They are not established experts and their claims are dubious and nowhere-repeated or cited. The fact that you can't find any published verification for your claim should be a HUGE RED FLAG. Scraping the bottom of the academic-sources-barrel for conference talk abstracts (which are explicitly excluded by WP:RS subpages/guidelines) is kind of sad. We've been over this before. Many times. This source is not enough. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the above, I'm completly aware of that and that's why I'm not using it to try and change consensus. It can't be used. They exist, although I can't varify that, but that's not acceptence. If (and I say if because they may never be) they are published and accepted then I will use them. Until then, I won't because I can't. Didn't I state that already? Could've have sworn I did. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Neon white: So you are saying that because you disagree with the source, we cannot use it? And why are you taking about popular media all of a sudden, please adress the source I mentioned and don't try to make this about the media. You are claiming the source is not good enough. Why? It "makes a common mistake"? I could say that about any source I want, does that mean I get to decide which sources we can include in wikipedia. Now, if you had a source that was as good or better than this one, saying that usage of the term "subculture" with regard to emo is a common misconceptino even within academia, _then_ your criticism of this source would be worth something. Right now it is just you claiming it is wrong... --Lundse (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Cheeser: Please stop assuming things about what I get and do not. Please stop the personal attacks. Please stop misrepresenting me.
 * First, he is an associate professor of sociology. He is an established, independently published expert in the field. Did you not follow the link I gave you to his CV and publications, have you selectively forgotten it or are you simply lying?
 * You have two constructive criticisms, which I have adressed before but which you seem to have forgotten about.
 * You say that this source is "nowhere-repeated" etc. This is regrettable, true, but it does not do the argumentative work for you which you imagine. If we had a number of sociologists talking about the emo phenomenon and none of them used the term subculture, then your criticism would be apt and I would gladly concede your point that sociologists do not talk about emo in these terms. However, we have very few sociological sources on emo - we have a student, a professor (whose paper we unfortunately do not have) and a Phd. teachers blog. (Please let me know if you are aware of other sources). All of these use the term subculture about emo. The fact that there are not a lot of sources do not tip the scales in any direction. However, it is important that there be at least one source which is 'good enough'.
 * In your second point, you adress this, which is refreshing. You claim that it fails WP:RS, which is not. I have already pointed out that the relevant section of RS is a subsection under "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" - to which sociology does not belong. You are applying the policy to the wrong subject!
 * However, I have already given you that the source is not of perfect quality, while you claim it is useless because it fails to live up to a standard it is not supposed to live up to. I have submitted it as a "self-published" source (which is fitting in that the abstract and title is presumaby not censored by any editorial control, nor necessarily accepted by those who published it). I have shown you the relevant policy which says such sources are acceptable when the author is published in the relevant field.
 * Now, I ask you to stop claiming that this abstract falls within "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine" and/or stop using that subjects policies for it. And to stop claiming it was written by anybody else than a published associate professor of sociology. The facts are these: the abstract was written by an expert in the field, we have policy that says that statements by such experts are acceptable (even when they are not independently published). How is the source not acceptable? --Lundse (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right. Let's read all of the sentence you're quoting: However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. That's pretty plain and clear. You've got a non-published, non-accepted theory that may have been written by someone who is now an associate professor, but when this conference talk was given, he was fresh out of grad school. That's not an expert. Get over it. Why are you arguing this, still, months and months after everybody else let it go? Don't forget that we generally require multiple reliable independent sources. You can't couple this unpublished paper's abstract with the other junk you've scraped up (a "thesis" by a bachelor's candidate about Weezer? honestly?) to substantiate this claim. --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it's quite as simple as "everybody else let it go" and I do feel a re-examination is quite reasonable. --JJL (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. the caveat about using such sources: Yes, it is plain and clear. It states that we prefer other sources and that if they are not there, we should be careful. Does this mean we can never use such a source? The policy is actually quite lucid on this point: the expert is trusted, but we prefer his published material. And "if it is worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" - but in this case we have almost no reporting from the relevant field (sociology)! So we do not have a case were we can rely on "someone else". So lets rely on what we have - expert opinion (an associate professors, a PhD. and a BA student).
 * Then you claim that the guy is not an expert. When the talk was given (2003, Aug), he had held a PhD. in sociology for 3 damn years! I think he had the credentials for being an associate professor at that point, if he did not already hold that position. What would you require of someone in order for him to be an expert? Doctorate? Nobel prize? (I would also love to hear what you believe would be a subculture, BTW).
 * And last, a plea to common sense: We have sources of varying quality and various origin (laymen, press, within sociology) using the word subculture about the emo phenomenon. We have no sources saying it is not a subculture, or anything inconsistent with being one. But go ahead, tell me again how the professor is not an expert or how the RS policy really means to say that we can never use unpublished sources... --Lundse (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here is another assistant professor using the term in passing. And a masters thesis . Maybe the reason there is no doctorate thesis explicitly making the case that "emo" is a "subculture" is because it is simply too obvious to mention to these guys? --Lundse (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * the article clearly describes why it isnt a subculture and merely a media stereotype. -- neon white user page talk 01:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not exist to push personal views on a subject that have no real basis in fact. It's a collection of knowledge, it's not a place to push a personal agenda. It's been said before, you don't make conclusions and then try to scrape together enough bits of sources to try and get it included. This is a poor way to edit and is indicatative of POV pushing. It's all been dealt with before. Puff pieces and school newspaper article are not reliable sources. The problem here is still the gross misuse of the term and lack of understanding. The fact is it is still proving difficult to find sources for a common fashion. It's far too divergent to ever be called a subculture all we can source are media stereotype. -- neon white user page talk 01:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Here we go again with this "why don't you prove it's not a subculture" nonsense. Fine. I claim emo is a type of fruit. Until you find a source explicitly stating "emo is not a type of fruit" I will complain about it. lol. Now, an expert is what we say it is - a well-respected, established researcher in a field. Someone with a fresh PhD making a claim that is nowhere else verifiable hardly qualifies. And please don't ever kid yourself into thinking an undergraduate paper is a reliable source. That's just ludicrous, and reflects the desperation with which you pursue this issue. You have already decided your conclusion, and scrape up every last source you can find to push it - that is not how one does research. Please move past that 12th century paradigm. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Neon white: No, it doesn't. It refers to it as a subculture or culture several times but if your not going to read it, whatever, it's not a good enough source anyway so it doesn't matter. --71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Lundse: Lundse the sources you have provided are NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You've got a book that refers to it in passing but does not describe it. NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! You've got papers that are not published or accepted, SAME THERE!!! If you can't previde a propper source for your claim get off it. And Neon white, while I agree with the consensus that emo is just a stereotype, "lack of understanding" and "It's far too divergent to ever be called a subculture," are only your opinions. *If* a well known expert in Sociology comes out and releases a study saying it's a subculture and the study is published and accepted by the accademic community then emo is a subculture as far as wikipedia is concerned. Of course this is only a hypothetical and it's completly possible that this will never happen. --71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Cheeser: No, we don't go there again. And we never did, that was never my argument. Please reread my post(s) until you understand them. Please stop strawmanning me.
 * My argument was that we have very few sources overall. And that this discounts your argument that we cannot use the part of the policy which says we can use sources like this one (self-published, but from an expert). Not because you have to prove you negative statement (I am surprised how you can read that in there, is it the same way you try to apply the "Physical sciences" policy to sociology?)
 * I also see that to you, three years is a "fresh" PhD. Interesting. I also notice that you have not answered me clearly on what constitutes an expert (except to say 'certainly not this one'). Will you, or should I, go through all of wikipedia and remove all text based on sources from people who hold a lesser degree or has not had a PhD. longer than this?
 * Last, you mention something about research paradigms. I don't know which theoretical stance you are tying to embrace here, but it seems like you are advocating a positivistic stance, whereas mine is clear fallibilistic (that would be ca. 16. century science and 20. century, respectively. I don't which 12th century paradigm you are refering to, but it sounds fascinating. And for the record, I am not doing research, I am trying to find sources! Those are two different things. Accusing me of being a bad scientists for trying to find a source which supports my view is hardly constructive. I would love it for you to try to find a source! And I won't call you names for it, promise.
 * But never mind. Lets get back to the critique of the source we do have. Were you saying an associate professor who had held a PhD. for three years and is published in the field, is not a sufficiently 'expert' source on sociology when he is writing abstracts? Or do you want to go back to misrepresenting policies again? --Lundse (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ 71.179.8.102: We will never get a study with the conclusion "emo is a subculture". That would be ludicrous, a subject only fitted for grade school (it would amount to applying a dictionary definition, something which certain people around here believe is heretical within wikipedia server space, although we have policies saying otherwise and this would mean we could never write stuff like "11 is a number"). So we have to look at how sociologists use the word within their articles, interviews and (best of all) papers which touch on the subject. The book is just fine for this, it gives us a look at how sociologists use the word and that is what we need. Actually, I would be fine with the mass of press material, as I do not buy the whole "subculture is _only_ a very specific scientific term"-theory (which noone has argued for, but never mind).
 * I have explained above why the abstract is a source in itself. Just like a blog post or similar self-published source by an expert in the field can be used (when there are no other sources mentioning the matter either way), we can also use an abstract from a paper (in fact, I would argue that it is probably more precisely worded and thought through than a blog post). Please read Cheesers comments and my answers before engaging in this argument, so we do not have to go over the same ground at 10th time --Lundse (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "we do not have to go over the same ground at 10th time" - take your own advice. Your claim of "dictionary definition" are ludicrous, and your "11 is a number example" is still completely wrong, not to mention irrelevant. That fact is expounded in numerous foundations-of-math texts and other mathematical publications, whereas "emo is a subculture" is a substantial, unproven sociological claim. Get a grip. We've been over this ground, and you have not met the burden of WP:RS. Once again, you harken to publications in journalism that are extremely dubious ("emos worship death"? really? that's a source you trust?) and unpublished papers, abstracts, and other nonreliable sources, mostly by people with no credentials. Only a single PhD whose work was not published. Why do you insist on such tendentious agenda-pushing? --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing WP:TEND is off-base and inflammatory. No one is editing the article page at this point--people are discussing it on Talk. That is entirely appropriate. There is clearly disagreement about this but there are several people with opinions on both sides. You may not care to discuss this, but please don't attempt to bully others into not doing so. --JJL (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you've got a published and accepted (I think) book. FINE. The Book calls emo a subculture in passing. FAIR ENOUGH. But then it hits us with it doesn't define the emo subculture. NO, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH! So far here is what Emo subculture would look like (at least in my head)...
 * Emo (Subculture)
 * Emo is a subculture.
 * That doesn't seem right to me. I'm all for a split if we have the sources for it though. So far we don't. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Cheeser: I can see you still do not understand my number analogy. If you want, I can explain it again, but only if you are willing to throw out you present conception of it. I have tried it before, and you kept misinterpreting me.
 * Then, for some odd reason, you begin to talk of the "emos worship death"-source - but that is not the source I am arguing for! Please reread that sentence. And please stop misrepresenting me, strawmanning me, etc. etc.
 * The only agenda I am trying to push is that one should not be able to bully around people by citing irrelevant policies, neglect to argue their case and how said policies apply. And that you and noeonwhite stop misrepresenting this matter as out-debated, in order for it to be so, you will need to enter the debate properly. For example arguing against 'my points' and not just your preferable reading of them. That you stop misrepresenting what I am saying. And that you address my points directly. Such as telling me whether you actually believe that some who has held a PhD. in a field for three years is not to be trusted in using the basic vocabulary of it properly. Start telling me about the position you actually hold, elucidating it, going into detail. Instead of just attacking me. --Lundse (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Tawaazun: Please stop shouting. I do not really get your point, I am afraid. I am not arguing for splitting the article, but merely for including and accepting the fact that emo is a subculture. Whether that merits an entirely new article, a section or whatever is another matter (which I will not go into). It seems your critique of the book as a source is based on the fact that it does not define emo subculture, and hence cannot be used to establish that emo is a subculture. This is just wrong - the book functions just fine as an example of sociologists using "subculture" about "emo". --Lundse (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ 71.179.8.102: It's incredibly unlikely, unless of course future developments occur but going on the past that's not likely. -- neon white user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Cheeser: Actually subculture is a scientific term it was coined by sociologists (possibly David Riesman), and is widely misused by the popular media to refer to things that do not fit the criteria defined in the major studies. -- neon white user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ JJL, Re: WP:TEND: It applies to talk pages as well. Talk:Waterboarding which was place on probation by the arbitration commitee for a similar thing. There is a point where it becomes Refusal to get the point It is clear here that conclusions have been drawn before the sources exist and evidence is being synthesised to further a personal POV. -- neon white user page talk 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Lundse: The problem is that it's not generally accepted or accepted by any authorative source, there is no evidence that it is. It doesnt fit the general criteria and all the sources available so far point to a stereotype that may have little basis in reality. The book is a poor source, in fact it's utterly useless for this debate. Firstly the piece is not about emo at all, it has one mention in passing of a subject that he initially associated with an alternative music subculture. It's not clear what he's is referring to. It's just far too ambiguous to be of any use. The interesting thing about this source from the point of view of this discussion is that it emphasises the difference between 'Straight Edge', a clear and non disputed subculture and emo which has none of the subcultural elements apparent in 'Straight Edge'. -- neon white user page talk 23:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is incredibly clear what he is referring to and how he is classifying emo - as one of a number of subculture; "part of an alternative music subculture. And just to make it completely open and shut he mentions emo alongside other known subcultures. That the piece is not about emos directly is irrelevant and this has been pointed out before. The book is just fine, and about as good a source we can get in this area, as I have also mentioned before. Your claims that "the book is ... utterly useless" need to be substantiated - I am afraid you do not get to decide right or wrong without arguing your points. --Lundse (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And another thing noticed as well is that Neonwhite has been claiming personal views get in our way repidedly as far as I am concerned this is not true we have provided sources and validations n' whatnot, I am tired of hearing it, I personally believe neonwhite as you claim we have personal views blocking us it is you that has personal views unallowing us to make a split article. Now that my rant is over, I agree for a split thread and with what you just said Lundse XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not clear at all, its a fragment of a sentence that just happens to contain both terms, what exactly he is referring to as a subculture, if anything, is ambiguous. Simply mentioning it when discussing subcultures is not a source. To make assumptions that the author is intending the refer to emo as a subculture constitutes synthesis. It is completely relevant that the subject of the piece is not about emo. See Significant coverage in notability guidelines for further info. It doesnt have to be the exclusive topic of a piece but an unclear half sentence is useless. If you believe that this is the best source you can find then it's probably time to quit this POV quest. I have made no claims that anything is 'right or wrong', i have merely commented that that particular source has little or no worth in this debate and cannot be used to substantiate what you are claiming. -- neon white user page talk 00:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's perfectly clear to anyone reading this talk page that you have already made a decision about what you would like wikipedia to say before any sources have been found that substantiate your conclusions. I have expressed no personal views whatsoever in this discussion. You have simply failed to provided sources of any use that back up what are obviously personal views on the subject. This has been going on for a long time and is becoming increasing desperate and scraping the bottom of the barrel with regard to sources maybe it's time to concede that the sources do not exist at the current time and revive the discussion if they should be published in the future. -- neon white user page talk 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Please assume good faith and stop calling this a "POV quest" or similar. I am trying to discuss whether we can use certain sources (the book and the abstract) - you can believe whatever you want about my motives, but please do not try to avoid arguing your points (in the same argument) by namecalling and trying to paint me as somehow 'already wrong'.

You mention "significant coverage", it is about notability - we are discussing whether to use certain sources to make a certain claim. If you want to discuss whether emo music, the subculture or the "social group"/stereotype/whatever-word-you-use-to-avoid-"subculture" should be in wikipedia at all, please start a thread specifically for that.

And you are repeating that the books sentence mentioning emo is not clear, and you try to paint it as merely "mentioning it when discussing subcultures". The full quote is: "I immediately pegged her as part of an _alternative music subculture_ - probably _emo/indie rock_, maybe punk and possibly hardcore."

If the sentence had been: "I immediately pegged it as a _type of car_ - probably a _sedan_, maybe stationcar and possibly sportscar." Does it then become clearer that the sentence implies that a _sedan_ is a _type of car_? I cannot see how you can read that sentence in any other way. Please let me know how the sentence makes sense if the speaker (an Assistant Professor of Sociology) does not believe emo/indie rock to be a subculture. How can he write that sentence and not believe it? Can you construct a sentence along the lines of my car example, where the examples are not part of the type _he is explicitly exemplifying_? The sentence would become nonsense...

Regarding splitting the article, I have not considered it. Currently, I believe we should start out with a mention of the subculture as a phenomenon in itself, maybe expand that to a section and if it keeps growing, make the split. --Lundse (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith only applies until there is evidence to the contrary. In this case there is. The attempt to push this POV has been going on for some time and many seperate tactics have been used. It's obvious that certain editors are trying to get their personal views included in wikipedia at all costs. If you are proposing an article for something that hasn't been proven to exist then notability is the policy that would result in it being deleted. Note the word probably, there is nothing definitive there whatsoever. It's speculative not assertive. The book covers little, if anything to do with the emo subculture. If a paper was published that came to the conclusion that emo might be a subculutre might be a subculture then that wouldnt be enough for an article either. We have nothing at all to add to the article yet you are still arguing for it. -- neon white user page talk 15:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the outdent, but this was getting out of hand :-) - this is a response to Neonwhite's post which as of this writing is directly above this post.
 * Regarding good faith, then I just do not see the evidence. I am arguing about sources and inclusion of facts. You can disagree, counter my points, bring your own sources - but you cannot dismiss me, my arguments or the sources I bring by reference to your assumptions of bad faith!
 * You also seem to be labouring under the further assumption that I want to split the article and create an "Emo subculture" page in itself. I have twice stated that this is not my errand, I am at a loss as to why you continue to believe this. For the record, I believe you are 100% right that this book is in no way enough to merit an article on emo subculture, as you succintly said: it would contain nothing but that claim.
 * What I am arguing is this (please take note): the book is a source for the _fact_ that emo is a subculture. Whether we need an article on it is another matter, and one which should be taken up when we see whether we have a sentence, a paragraph or a section with relevant material (I do believe we could flesh it out a ways from other sources, once we have established that emo is a subculture - but that is still to be seen).
 * My interest here is simply a stubborn refusal to have my arguments misrepresented. I have argued that emo is a subculture and I believe we have sources for it and that it should go in the article. Regarding names: as long as we have one article on emo-related phenomena, lets just call it emo. If we get enough material to warrant a split, I would imagine it would be along the lines of "music genre" and "subculture", but that is speculation about the future of the article.
 * Now, are there any arguments left against the two sources (book and abstract) which claim that emo is a subculture, which have not been addressed? --Lundse (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neonwhite, why aren't you responding to the Time Magazine "discusssion" below? Isn't the article and the LA Weekly articles not only enhance but alter what currently in the criticism section? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.67 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Fact"? The only "Fact" I note is that it may be /called/ a subculture. Of course, one could /call/ Science a cult–that doesn't make it /fact/. Popular Journalism is a poor source at best–we need a sociologic study demonstrating that there is a subculture, specifically different in lifestyle, beliefs, and with something resembling uniformity, which is called "Emo". I have never seen this in my years either in a paper or in person. Provide factual, scientific evidence, or the discussion will remain at loggerheads. Perhaps you could provide the defining characteristics of this subculture? If you cannot and cannot provide your source, there is no further discussion needed. --24.168.94.97 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)KaT Adams, 15:14, 2 May 2008 (-5 GMT)


 * This is pretty much my opinion. -- neon white user page talk 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As true as this is, the fact is that it is a book PUBLISHED as far as I know saying that it is a subculture it has as much attention as punk, goth, etc. You may not agree but as far as I am concernec we have provided all the sources we need and you comeup with non relevent claims to try and back you up or you change the subject all the way instead of trying to disprove the source, why because you cant, you dont except the paper on emo cause he was a young sociologist, as far as I am concerned a sociologist no matter how old has experience if they have a phd etc(If I recall correctly you didnt reply to this as per above cant remember). We have provided solid sources and you say they are not solid, they all have support, etc. So they are valid and will work.(I will add more to this later) --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re. facts: So a sociologist calling a it a subculture is not enough? We need a specific study, the specific goal of which is to prove that emo is a subculture? If we give your argument any weight, then no source will ever be good enough. No source will ever be able to claim P, because someone can always come along and say the source on claims that "one can say P". Please provide a counterexample to this, if you believe me wrong - one example of a source which your critique would not defeat, no matter how good. --Lundse (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The paper wasn't published so it's as useless as anybody's self published personal opinion. As i have said no adequate sources have been provided yet that would allow any comment in any article. -- neon white user page talk 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop this POV pushing it is becoming disuptive. No sources have been provided that supported this position yet you are still arguing the same points based on nothing but a personal view. -- neon white user page talk 14:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to evade arguments by dismissing it as "a personal view" - anyone could say that about anyone, the proof is in the sources, policies and arguments. Please stop the personal attacks.
 * I have argued extensively for the abstract and shortly for the book source. No problems have been mentioned with the abstract source, which I have not addressed and rebuked. Please let me know what problems you think remain with that source, or if you have any new criticisms. That way, we can have a discussion and we will not have to just call each other "POV-pushers". --Lundse (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not POV-pushing. Your claims of such are just a tactic. Please stop bullying those trying to discuss sources, as happened last time when the page was merged away during an alleged detente. There are enough sources that say "Emo is a subculture" or "the emo subculture" in just so many words to make the matter arguable, and there are enough people on either side to make it clear it isn't just one person's POV (despite your efforts to portray it as such). Why not ask for (informal) mediation or the like? --JJL (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It clearly is a personal view and one look at the archives for this page and the previous page shows that you have held these strong views long before any attempts to source it were made. This is in no way a personal attack. Simply put it isnt anywhere near a good enough source for what you claim. It's an arbitrary remark only. -- neon white user page talk 12:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is POV pushing in the most obvious sense by a number of editors (one of which does little else on wikipedia other than push this view to the point of bordering on being a SPA) with personal views that have no basis in reality as can be seen by the lack of sources. We can easily find it going on for some time (since at least september 2007 ). It was rejected on exactly the same grounds as it is being rejected now, that it cannot be reliably sourced that such a subculture exists. There is simply nothing available to construct an article with, there isnt even enough to source a small line in this article. The general rule is that if your views were at all relevant someone would have written about them, as it is they haven't. There are no adequate sources been provided that even come close to sourcing the views you claim. The matter may once have been arguable but now it is refusing to 'get the point'. If more sources become available in the future then the debate can continue but currently it is exactly the same poor arguements about the same unreliable sources that were being made 6 months ago. -- neon white user page talk 13:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the discussion is the same (except for the book source, but never mind that for now). And that it has come to the same standstill. Back then, it also ended with you not wanting to address my criticisms and points - same as what you are doing now. I have a really hard time seeing any argumentation in what you write, you only seem to repeat your beliefs - may I recommend doing that in a text file on your own computer, we know what it is you believe and find the repetitions boring, let's hear some arguments. The only thing resembling one, which I could find, is:
 * "It's an arbitrary remark only." - what does this mean?
 * "There is simply nothing available to construct an article with..." - which I fail to see the relevance of, since we are discussing whether a source is sufficient for a claim. I told you this to or three times rather specifically...
 * And than you call my arguments "poor". I would love to hear you (or anyone) tell me what is wrong with them. I am really not interested in you personal attacks and claims that I am POV pushing, nor in hearing your restate your beliefs. Just tell me this: why are my arguments "poor"? --Lundse (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is what I am trying to push here as I agree with you Lundse he(she?) has been disregarding your statments and hasn't proven otherwise that emo isn't a subculture as said we have provided sources yet he disregards them. I would provide some sources but I believe we have provided enough. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, if you guy's have good/better sources just put them up. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean arbitrary as in subject to individual will or judgment rather than a judicial decision, meaning it's an unspecific opinion. It's not really scientific. I find the arguments poor, firstly because they have failed to gain any kind of consensus since they were started and secondly they don't seem to be based on any sources which is why you'll find people considering it to be a personal POV which pre-dates your attempts to source it. "There is simply nothing available to construct an article with...". It is certainly relevant that there is not enough info to create an article. Correct me if i am wrong but you are proposing creating an article for a supposed 'emo subculture' that we can neither source the existance of to any acceptable degree nor describe the attributes of in any way. I just fail to see how that article would be any more than a single line at this stage? Perhaps creating the page in user space would help develop it. Wikipedia requires that we prove positives not negatives. -- neon white user page talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the the Hippie subculture article for instance you can immediately see that this article can source a common ethos such as politics, attitude towards drug use, gender, sex etc. We cannot source any such commonality for this. -- neon white user page talk 04:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: arbitrary. So you are saying that the line from the book which we are suggesting to use as a source is "unscientific". I already told you that you do not get to make that call and just write off whatever source's claim you disagree with. Find a source saying it is unscientific, otherwise, we go with the PhD in sociology to make tat call.
 * Re: poor arguments. That they have not convinced anyone is not a measure of their worth - whether anyone has been able to counterargue, point out problems, and generally take up a discussion and disagree from there is the real test. Noone seems to want to do this... You, for instance, when asked specifically whether the argument regarding the inclusion of a given source, say they "don't seem to be based on any sources". They are _about_ a source, for crying out loud. This claim simply makes no sense!
 * And then you argue about "not enough to make an article". ow many times do I have to tell you that this is another issue? Should I write it 100 times on your talk page? I have told you time and again that I am arguing for the use of a source to make a specific claim - how the article evolves from there is another matter.
 * And thanks for the support here, Criscore. Although Neonwhite does not have to "prove" or provide sources that emo is not a subculture to keep that statement out of the article, he will have to provide a compelling argument against the sources we have if he does not want them accepted. I am not holding my breath... --Lundse (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What about these internal links on youth subculture and a list of them that encludes emo? Would it ease tension in the group to let the article be disambiguated as a youth subculture rather than a generic subculture? The latin root sub- in "subculture" denotes "below" or "under", but there is no implied notion of the degree to which it signifies "below" or "under". Where the "sub" divides a term is arbitrary. As such, this discussion is about "culture" rather than the word "subculture." With that in mind, the definition of culture is wide enough to include the effect that a genre of music naturally has on the individuals who listen to it and embody what they listen to. Kroeber and Cluckhoen once compiled a list of 164 definitions of "culture as referenced here. The question of references for possible content is different from the question of references for why this article should be disambiguated. I have given references as to why this should not be a controversial disambiguation. As for possible content references, a quick search came up with results of varying quality: you might notice this book on Amazon, this article on JSTOR regarding previous (although questionable) academic work done on an association between Country music and suicide, or this article from ABC 4 news. The possible sources for content I've found with a quick search need to be enumerated upon, improved in quality and quantity, but the question here definitely should not be about any one person's subjective, connotative definition of "subculture" since the denotation of the word "subculture" already allows for "emo" to be considered as such. Moreover, the length of this discussion should imply that there is also a connotative definition of "emo" as a "subculture." The question we are looking at is the availability and quality of sources to provide content on the subject. I hope folks continue seeking out sources as more is written on this emerging subculture. --Sviebrock (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With that in mind, the definition of culture is wide enough to include the effect that a genre of music naturally has on the individuals who listen to it - Simply put, this is wrong, it isn't. Common taste in music does not equal a subculture. A book on amazon that is clearly satirical is not a relaible source, in fact it contradicts itself in it's own description by saying emo is actually 'pop culture'. Emo has not been defined as a subculture and there is no evidence of any commonalities at all by any source good enough for an encyclopia which is why it will likely remain as a stereotype only for the foreseeable future. -- neon white user page talk 00:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All editors look at sources and decide whether they are relaible enough for an encyclopedia. The source is poor. full stop. No-one is going to call that a good source. It isnt an authorative statement. it's merely speculative. The fact that you have no sources at all after 9 months of pushing this view suggests quite clearly that an article is pointless as it will be blank. Anything that goes in wikipedia needs to be verfiable, this is policy and it is up to the person adding the material to find the sources, that is the only obligation, if they can't do it then it probably means that the views are either, their view only, or simply too fringe for anybody to have written about them other than in school newspapers. In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.-- neon white user page talk 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your claims about the source (poor, speculative) are not enough to discredit it. You have to argue from policy. Please try to do so. I ask again: what (policy-guided) lines of critique remain against this source?
 * What will it take for you to understand that I am not arguing that we should split the article? Please let me know as I am getting tired of repeating it.
 * Re. fringe theory, etc. - this looks like an attempt at an argument, so I will address it as such. It is, quite simply, not a fringe theory. It is the _only_ "theory" on the matter we have heard from the sociologists. A fringe theory goes against the commonly held view in a given scientific field - the only indications we have from this field are (from good and "bad" sources)... that emo is a subculture. --Lundse (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If Goth is a subculture and Punk is a subculture and each have articles on Wikipedia as such, why doesn't Emo have its own subculture page? I know the argument is that there is no scientific study saying it is a subculture, but then gain neither, to my knowledge, has Punk or Goth have any scientific study stating that each is a subculture, but the articles are here on Wikipedia regardless. Time magazine calls it a subculture. That in itself is as reputable a source as any that is referenced here. I also noticed that the editors of this Emo (music) page have backtracked on other positions, such as identifying Emo with a clothing style, which had nothing to do with the original Emo music genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this EVEN WIKIPEDIA'S index on SUBCULTURES cites EMO as a SUBCULTURE! That's VERY, VERY, VERY, STRANGE. And here we have been apparently debating whether or not it is a subculture with Neonwhite, for nothing! --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The term Emo has its roots in the musical genre of that name. But the word now transcends its orgins, refering also to the subculture that, rightly or wrongly, is associated with it.  (The perception being that emo kids are somewhat akin to the "vampire" kids on the recent South Park episode.)  It's also become a general-purpose slur, as in "that college is full of emo rich kids". (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.121.39 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you read what I said, you'll note that you did not understand or properly reply to my argument, outside of saying "this is wrong", which is not an argument but rather an opinion. The line of mine that you quoted and responded to had the word "culture" in it, and you responded with the word "subculture." Where are *your* sources for *your* position on the matter? The problem seems to be your understanding of the word "culture", and your grandiose, stubborn, power-tripping grip on where the line is drawn between a culture and a subculture. Actually, I'd reckon that you didn't quite respond to my argument at all. In which case, I'd say that you are spreading your opinion all over the place without taking to responsible argument. There are many people responding affirmatively to this dissection of emo as a subculture, which should signal to you that the problem is not whether it is a subculture or not - the problem is finding the appropriate sources to say that it is (you also completely ignored the other sources that I cited as well). If you'd like to moderate by stating that sources are inadequate, please do so, but there's no need to spread flames over your own personal opinion and agenda. --Sviebrock (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

'Scene' - nowhere on Wikipedia
I noticed there is no information on Wikipedia about "scene" and "scene kids". As a member of WikiProject Punk Music, I think that given the widespread scope of the 'scene' phenomena, and the fact that it is also kind of old, there should be something in the emo page or a seperate article entirely. In the end, it probably won't be created because there are few verifiable sources about 'scene kids' and there is always sensitive and sizeable opposition to exposing anything about emo kids. --Tim010987 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's mentioned on hipster. --Zazaban (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There were several attempts to create a separate article on "scene culture" but none of them were successful, owing to a lack of verifiable sources, not to mention the nebulousness of the term that will ensure that the article will deteriorate into a messy edit war over what constitutes "scene" (the same kind of mess that oftentimes screws with articles like Emo and Post hardcore). If there was an attempt at making an article that covered the subject while addressing the concerns I've listed, I would support the page, but it's not happening anytime soon. --TheLetterM (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. But a hipster is a world away from a 'scene kid'. Ah well. --Tim010987 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Scene article was removed because of lacks of sources at Articles_for_deletion/Scene_(subculture) and Articles_for_deletion/Scene_(youth_subculture). You will find some content at 2000s_in_fashion --Enric Naval (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Automated archiving
I hope no one minds, but I've been bold and set up automated archiving for this talk page, since it is so long and many topics are outdated. This uses the Mizsabot, which automatically moves threads that have been inactive for a predetermined amount of time into the latest archive page. I've set it up to automatically archive any thread that has been inactive for 30 days or more. When an archive reaches 130K in size, a new archive page is automatically created. These numbers (# of days to wait before archiving and size of archives) can be easily adjusted by changing the code near the top of the talk page in the edit window. Automated archiving is a very efficient method for high-use talk pages like this one, and eliminates the need to manually go through every thread trying to determine which are outdated. I've also moved all of the previous archives that were under "Emo (music)" to be just under "Emo", since that is the new name for the article and it makes the archives appear properly in the talkheader. Finally, I removed the archive box as the archives now appear automatically in the talk header. I do not have this page on my watchlist, so if you have any questions please feel free to ask on my talk page. The bot will begin automatically filing things away within a few days. It may archive a lot at first as there are so many topics, many of which are past the 30 day mark of inactivity, but it will slow down as fewer threads over 30 days inactive are left. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies. Apparently when I set the bot up I did not set the counter correctly and thus many threads were placed in incorrect archives. I am going to undo the bot moves and fix some things, then the bot should do it again correctly. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, after several weeks of work I've finished cleaning up & reorganizing all of the archive pages. This included going edit-by-edit through the entire history of this talk page, autosigning unsigned comments, refactoring discombobulated threads, and arranging topics chronologically in the archives in the order in which they finished. As Lucius Fox would say, "I just wanted you to know how hard it was." As a result we have much cleaner, better-organized archives that are easy to reference. For example see archive 1 before and after. Yes, this was tedious and probably a fat waste of time. But from here on out the bot should be able to handle pretty much everything. I would, however, like to ask a few simple favors of everyone:
 * Always sign your posts. The easiest way is to click on the signature button above the edit window (the one between the "no W" and the horizontal line). Alternatively, you can simply type 4 tildes:.
 * Always put new text under old text. Start new topics at the bottom of the page, and try not to respond in the middle of discussions. In other words, if someone has said something further up in a discussion and you want to address their point directly, don't insert your reponse between existing comments. Instead, put your comment at the bottom of the thread and either quote the person or simply make reference to them (for example, "Re:_____" or "In response to ____"). This keeps comments organized in the order they were made, and helps keep threads on-topic. Using the "new topic" tab at the top of the page will automatically start the new topic at the bottom.
 * Indent your responses by typing colons . Always indent your comments one level further than those above. For example, in this thread I did not indent the initial comment, but when I made the second comment I indented once by typing a single colon . For this response I indented one level further by typing 2 colons . Once a thread has reached 10 indents, do not indent the next response. Instead, put (outdent) at the beginning of the response. This helps keep threads from intending too far over.
 * Do your best to follow all of the talk page guidelines listed at the top of the page.
 * I know most people already know these things, but there are plenty of people who don't. I will try to monitor this page and keep things organized as best I can. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like this idea of someone (who I don't think every posted on this page to have moved the older postings somewhere else). However, I have no interest in pursuing any debate as such on this latest alteration of the discussion page. That said, I am going to remove my postings and their content from those areas where my handle appears wherever they archived. I repeat: I am going to remove my postings and their content (not any other person's content -- by mine alone). Consequently, I want no one to interfere with my *own* posts in how I choose to manage them -- including their complete deletion. Thank You --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't think the fact that I've never contributed to this talk page prevents me from cleaning it up. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all. And I'm sorry, but you actually don't have the right to remove all of your previous comments from this talk page and its archives. You will notice just above the edit summary bar in the edit window that "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL." This includes your comments on talk pages; once you click save, the text no longer belongs to you. This of course does not prevent you from modifying it to a reasonable extent (ie. correcting spelling, adding additional comments) but it does mean that you cannot unilaterally remove your comments from article talk pages; this makes old conversations impossible to follow and impedes other editors' ability to understand them, thus inhibiting the consensus process. I'm sorry, but if you continue to remove your old comments I will have to treat it as vandalism and request a block. If you have decided that you wish to leave Wikipedia entirely, you may find the page WP:VANISH helpful. But I'm afraid that all of your old contributions, to both articles and talk pages, will be preserved because these are the terms of the GFDL. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, If you say that I can "modify" to a reasonable extent then I suppose I will begin to "modify" my posts. I am not leaving the wikipedia community at all. But that is beside the point. I had said in late Septer or early October that I was going to remove my posts. And I certainly do not in any way "concede" to any policy which says that wiki "owns" my intellectual property. But if that is the case, then I suppose NO ONE can EDIT anything at all. Consequently, everyone should simply make an "addition" to the posting and not "edit" anything at all (I refer to the discussion page).


 * If everyone removed their posts on the talk page, that would not bother me in the least.


 * Am I correct. By the way, why are you concerned about whether or not I remove my posts? Why does it concern you? And who is to decide how I modify them? Believe me, I will take the time to "modify" my posts.


 * I have another question. Don't you think it extremely bold to make such a radical step as to removing the page as it was formatted considering you never posted on here at all? That's even more in the spirit of vandalism by way "concealing" the archives themselves. I never even saw any "vote" taken on any of this. Not that "votes" matter; but even Neonwhite had presided over these tallies on how to guide decisions. And yet, here you are changing things without any feedback from anyone.


 * Considering the BOLD move (that you even characterized as such) to summarily reform the discussion page, I think it's no less BOLD for me to edit or remove any and all of my posts.


 * I would like to add a rather humorous post-script to what IllaZilla stated here: this person said: "This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, after all." IllaZilla also said: "(...)I'm afraid that all of your old contributions, to both articles and talk pages, will be preserved because these are the terms of the GFDL." That's interesting that you mention that point, because the very little that I did add to the article (which was minuscule to what I actually posted in the discussion pages -- was all but removed in it's entirety ANYWAY! Where were you, IllaZilla when those contributions were erased? and mind you, I have never sought to re-insert those statements when they were removed. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether you concede to it or not, by contributing to Wikipedia you irrevocably release your contributions under the terms of the GFDL. This does not mean that no one can edit anything at all; it merely means that once you make those edits, the text is no longer yours. It is not "your" intellectual property per se. As far as this discussion page, the point is that by removing your previous comments you make the discussions that those comments were a part of impossible to follow. While your edits are still preserved in the page history, per the GFDL, removing the text from the discussion page is a sign of bad faith because it makes old discussion threads unintelligible. You may also note the talk page guidelines, which explain that "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." If "modifying" your original posts significantly alters them in such a way that it changes their meaning or obfuscates the preserved discussion, then I and other editors have the right to revert them to their original form. Whether you remove your posts concerns me because I have been interested in following discussions on this talk page, and your removal of your posts makes those threads impossible to understand.


 * In response to some of your other points, how have I "remov[ed] the page as it was formatted"? I did not remove anything. I corrected some formatting issues, such as missing thread headers and discussions which were discombobulated by lack of indentation or comments inserted in the middle of other comments, but I did not remove anything. And how have I "conceal[ed] the archives themselves"? The archives are plainly visible and are listed right in the talk page header. There was no "vote" on this: as you can see, I set up the automated archiving bot and asked for comments/objections/opinions. It has been over a month and no one has objected. During that month I have dedicated much time and effort to cleaning up the archives to fix numerous formatting issues, unsigned comments, etc. to make them readable, so that they can actually be used to refer to past discussions. This is merely housekeeping, nothing more, and everything I have done has been within the talk page guidelines. As for being bold, there is improving the encyclopedia and then there is disrupting it. I think it's pretty clear that doing this           falls under the latter category.


 * As to your final statement, contributing to Wikipedia means that you release your contributions under the GFDL. This means that anyone else has the right to edit them; thus your changes to the article which were either modified or removed. Your contributions, however, are preserved in the article history, which is what the GFDL requires. By the same token, if you were to remove content from an article, other editors would have the right to restore it. Thus, when you remove your comments from this talk page, it is within my rights to restore them. Oftentimes comments are removed, such as cases of vandalism, personal attacks, etc., and that is OK because those contributions are still preserved in the edit history. However, removing legitimate comments from significant discussion threads robs those threads of their original contexts and makes the discussions impossible to follow. This is not OK. --IllaZilla (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will modify and/or remove comments that I see fit which I have posted. If certain posts may alter the content of certain topics -- I will modify them so as preserve said content. You say anyone can edit these pages (including the comments).


 * I will do so. I also suspect that you are a puppet arm of Neonwhite or one of his proxies. The reason why I say you are "concealing" the sections of the discussion board is that: not every new viewer of the wiki discussion page will know that there was such a archive page. They will only assume that what is currently present is the only relevant side of the discussion board because it is easily accessible; whereas someone like myself had no idea how to access the former archives at first glance. And I point the accusation about "removing" the former threads because so much of it was counter to Neonwhites viewpoint. Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am neither a "puppet arm" nor a "proxy". I've been active on Wikipedia for over 2 and a half years (which you can see by looking at my userpage and contribution history), and I've only interacted with NeonWhite on a couple of occasions, usually on music-related project pages. I fail to see how you or anyone could feel that the archives are "concealed" in any way: you may notice that the talk page header, which is the very first thing at the top of this page, has row that in bold blue letters says "Archives" and then lists them all. How is that any less accessible than having the exact same thing in a little box off to the right? You can't get rid of the one in the header, it's automatic, so it's redundant to have the little box to the side as well since it just says the exact same thing.


 * I can't imagine how you could modify your previous comments without significantly altering their content or meaning. And if you do, or if you outright remove them, rest assured that I will restore them. Remember that once you click "save page" you are irrevocably releasing that text: it is no longer your intellectual property, and is not yours to remove at whim. The rest of us have the right to restore it, since we want to keep these discussions intelligible and in proper context. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IllaZilla or CHEESER1, whichever you prefer.


 * I have several things to say, but number one I'd like to say that you're just wasting my time, my friend.


 * It's shocking that you basically admit that you are a proxy of Neonwhite. For example, you decide to unilaterally archive and re-format the discussion page and yet YOU NEVER ASKED HIM... But you did, according to your statements, touch upon some innocuous topics about music, BUT NOT ON ALTERING THE DISCUSSION PAGE of the very Emo article which he is the apparent custodian. That proves that you two are in collusion or that you not being forthcoming, if nothing else.


 * I would never had said anything if someone like Lundsee had volunteered to alter the page. But that's the point, someone like Lundsee whose main concern is getting to the heart of the matter is not concerned with such petty technical issues. Whereas people like yourself are all about control from first to last.


 * I also find it amazing that you care about the "look" of the discussion page, yet you don't even bother to re-insert some omissions within the article ITSELF.


 * Case in point, I made an addition where I took it upon myself to include a quote by Kristoff of Telehit that was within the very TIME magazine article that has been referenced here for almost a year. Someone edited out the part where Kristoff said: "Emo was fucking Bullshit..." whilesimply keeping the set up which is as follows:"In 2008, Time Magazine reported that "anti-emo" groups attacked teenagers in Mexico City, Querétaro, and Tijuana.[31][32] One of Mexico's foremost critics of emo was Kristoff, a music presenter on the popular TV channel Telehit[...]"


 * I find it amazing that the very thing that put Kristoff on the map was his emphatic statement that "Emo was Bullshit" was left out entirely when it was uploaded by myself. But guess what? Did I put up a stink about that? Nope. I never really worried so much about it because it was very much in keeping with the tendency of those in charge.


 * WIth that said, considering that you gentlemen essentially are holding this page captive I think it's within my rights to remove or alter MY posts (on the discussion pages) as I see fit. Your whole mantra about some GFDL "agreement" is meaningless because it's relative to WHO ENFORCES IT.


 * I come on here to expose the clique (led by Neonwhite) who ignores the fact that publication and after publication states that Emo is a subculture. Just below this thread you continue to deny the facts by making a ludicrous statement that some consensus agrees that Emo is not two subject but merely one. I find this quite ironic. Why do I say it's ironic? I say it because Neonwhite himself has stated that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Consequently, WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY CONSENSUS EVEN MATTER WITH THE REGARD TO THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE?


 * Try that hat on for size, CHEESER1 or whover you are...


 * You and Neonwhite will use any argument at your disposal even if they happen to contradict each other. As I said, you're wasting my time. But you also can be rest assured, I will go about "handle" MY posts as I see fit. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the final time, I am not Neon White, I am not Cheeser, and I am not in "collusion" with either of those persons. You are welcome to check my contribution history or either of theirs, or to request a checkuser of me, but you will find that I am only myself and not in collusion with anyone. I have never conversed with anyone else about this article or this discussion page. As you can see from the history of this page, my first edit to it was the first comment I made in this thread. I have never spoken to anyone else about anything to do with this article or this talk page. Your accusations are all completely unfounded and without merit. If you are accusing me of sockpuppetry or of being part of some cabal, then you are welcome to take such accusations through official channels, but I'm afraid you will be disappointed: I am who I say I am, and I am not in cahoots with anyone else. Simply because I haven't been active on this particular article or talk page before, you assume I'm part of some huge conspiracy against you. I advise you to drop the attitude now and cease such accusations.


 * I don't have to "ask" anyone for permission to clean up the talk page or its archives. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I came to this talk page via other Wikiprojects and found that it was very disorganized and there were many discussions still on the page that were quite outdated. So I set about cleaning it up, and in the process I cleaned up the even more disorganized archives. For you to insinuate that this is all somehow in bad faith on my part is, again, totally baseless and unfounded.


 * "WHAT THE HELL DOES ANY CONSENSUS EVEN MATTER WITH THE REGARD TO THIS PAGE?" - A lot, as it turns out.


 * "Your whole mantra about some GFDL 'agreement' is meaningless because it's relative to WHO ENFORCES IT." - You could say the same about traffic laws, but you'll still be punished for breaking them. Like it or not, by editing Wikipedia you're bound by the terms of the GFDL. And guess what? I'm going to enforce it.


 * Do you even have a legitimate reason for wanting to pull all of your posts? Or are you just trying to prove a point? Because so far you haven't said anything that's persuaded me that "yes, this guy really ought to be allowed to just remove all his comments from the talk page & archives." All you've shown me instead is that "this guy is mostly interested in arguing and flinging incivil accusations at people he's never met." Frankly, I couldn't possibly care less about your conflicts with other editors. You've got problems with Neon White or Cheeser? Here's a phone, call someone who cares. Otherwise you're just wasting your own and everyone else's time with all this hot air-blowing. So rest assured, if you try pulling all of your posts again without a very legitimate reason, I will restore them and report you. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hannah Bond
I can't believe everyone's flaunting this story all across wikipedia just because a 'coroner' 'thinks' she did it because of emo music. I mean, don't get me wrong, I don't listen to emo music and I'm not emo. I'm just asking you to read this story again and think about it in an unbiased way. It's just bizzare how such a statement got out into the press. A coroner does not and CAN not determine cause of death through going through a kid's music selection. --74.37.134.153 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this. It seems that the Hannah Bond subject is given undue weight in this article because it's not notable enough for its own article. You don't see things like this in Heavy metal music or Punk rock, both FAs about genres that have had plenty of suicides & other deaths attached to them in some way, many well-covered in the media. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That whole affair just serves to push the term "emo" along the path of pejoration.Fuzzform (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Trend in use of the word "emo"
"Emo" used to be a simple descriptive term referring to the sub-genre of punk music. Now that there's been a so-called "backlash", the term has taken on negative connotations (cf. euphemism treadmill), to the point where bands object to being labeled as such. The fans of such bands object even more so (see also: denial). This fact is entirely absent from the current article on "Emo". And moreover, the vast majority of articles about bands belonging to this genre refrain from using the term "emo" simply because it has become a faux pas. Fuzzform (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)