Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 1

Why "21st Century Emo" not Emo
Main article should be emo. Better to expand the emo article rather than create a new article unless there are distinctive 21st century aspects. Use the template to reference back to emo. --Paul foord 11:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This was originally part of the main emo article, which is where I believe it belongs, but somebody deleted all this stuff, put a very subjective summary under the very subjective heading pop hardcore and so I had to salvage this from an earlier edit of the main emo page. I agree with you completely though. --80.4.224.6 03:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't make the change but I agree with it. Emo has a very specific path that I talk about in the emo discussion and this page has NOTHING to do with emo. Pop hardcore or popcore is an appropriate term. Listen to this modern emo band (www.hxcmp3.com/bands/1710) and try to tell me that Dashboard Confessional is anywhere near them stylistically. Emo stands for "emotional hardcore" not "emotional." Any band that lacks hardcore therefore is not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFelon204409 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation of title
Wikipedia suggests minimal capitalisation. Suggest moving to "Emo in the 21st century" as it scans better than "21st Century Emo" and also puts emphasis on Emo. --Paul foord 13:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheer Up Emo Kid
From what I've experienced, this is not a derisive remark but is merely a friendly jest. It's used within the emo culture to mock posers, not for irony - saying that it's supposed to be "ironic" implies that all emo kids need to cheer up.

Apart from the way this article appears to be dancing around the fact that emo as a culture and emos as individuals are mocked, I keep reading parts of it that look like they were written by someone who was trying to suppress the urge to make direct insults by being "objective". There are all sorts of vague implications, spurious links, and ambiguous suggestions littering the document which make it difficult to get any kind of useful information out of the article.

This whole thing also needs to be reworked to be less offensive to people within the Emo culture, and more accessible to those who just wish to find out WHY they or others they know are mocked. This article makes no attempt to explain this, and as I said earlier, just dances around the fact that emo is on the recieving end of a lot of hatred.

I personally do not know enough about the subject to make the necessary changes, but I ask that the people who do give it their best shot. --Badharlick 10:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

POV
What are these supposed to mean?: In fact, I will remove them now. For whoever wrote them, please see Neutral_Point_of_View. --Someone42 11:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "These obscenities are often used by 'purest' metal fans who are only into the screaming side of music"
 * "The reason for the hatred aimed at emo and its fans seems to be that many fans, especially newer ones, are perceived as having a limited knowledge of the bands which influenced the genre, while many of the most successful emo bands are seen as tailoring their music and appearance to maximize mainstream appeal."
 * "Another reason is that many "Emo girls" display a strong attraction towards gay or bisexual male activities."

The "sexist" section
This was in the sexist section:
 * Examples that have been cited of bitter break-up lyrics that have supposed sexist connotations include:
 * I hope the next boy that you kiss has something terribly contagious on his lips Brand New - Jude Law & A Semester Abroad
 * You can lead a whore to water and you can bet she'll drink and follow orders Glassjaw - Pretty Lush
 * Females are stereotypically "the root of all evil" in Emo lyrics. For example, the Taking Back Sunday song 'You're So Last Summer' includes the line "the truth is you could slit my throat, and with my one last gasping breath, I'd apologise for bleeding on your shirt".

This is just wrong, even if I like all the above songs/bands and song lyrics. Reasons are: I don't thing specific quotes are a good idea, but even if you want some in the article get some better, more appropriate, ones! --Halo 15:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * GlassJAw _not_ a "21st Century Emo" band.
 * The quote from You're So Last Summer is a metaphor - it doesn't say she's evil, just that the guy is obsessed with her. In the same song he says "Cause I'm a wishful thinker with the worst intentions" which might make the lyrics clearer.
 * He guy is angry with a specific girl who is going over to England and feels used. I don't think that's particularly sexist. He's not talking about all girls.


 * Not all emo lyrics say females are the root of all evil. They, to some degree, degrade them, but the line that says "I'd apologize for bleeding on your shirt" only says the writer cares for the girl but the feelings aren't returned by her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.162.142 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduction Paragraph
"...expresses emotions beyond traditional punks's limited emotional palette of alienation and rage."

POV! I would hardly argue that punk, even traditional punk, is limited in its emotional scope. If anything, I would argue that punk is more emotional than emo, because it is far more passionate than merely limiting its topics to suburban heartbreak...but that would be POV as well, so I will simply alter that line. :) --Inanechild 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Verify and OR templates
I originally added the verify and original research templates because, frankly, a lot of the information in this article seems unverifiable. As such, it appears to be original research. Of course, if it's verified, then it's clearly not original research, and if it's original research, there's no way to verify it. So, unless both of these conditions are shown to be false, I'm pretty sure the article should carry those tags.

Incidentally, ChrisB, I'm a big fan of the work you've been doing on the Emo (music) page. I hope we can come to a good conclusion with this. I won't re-add the tags until (or unless) we decide that's a good course of action here. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Honestly, the problem with this entire article is that it largely exists to keep this crap out of Emo (music) since it has practically nothing to do with Emo as a music genre (which long predates the use of the word "emo" in this way).  This article started as "21st Century Emo", but said nearly nothing about the music, largely focusing on (largely false) stereotypes.


 * To be honest, I wish this article didn't exist. I'm not particularly comfortable with the word "emo" being used as it is.  (I was active in the Emo scene of the late 90s, and "emo" was never used like this back then.)


 * The problem is that it's definitely out there. If this article didn't exist, someone would create it to express their vision of what "emo" is, and it wouldn't be pretty (or accurate).  (That's basically what "21st Century Emo" was.)  And, in essence, it would be even more on the side of "original research", granted that journalism doesn't cover how "emo" is "gay", is for "people who slit their wrists", and "sucks".


 * The truth is, unlike terms like "fashioncore" and "mallcore", "emo" describes something that actually exists. The former terms are entirely derogative: nobody gets dressed, looks in the mirror, and says, "Man, I'm so awesomely fashioncore."  If someone dresses "fashioncore", they're doing it for an entirely different reason - somebody's just calling them fashioncore because they don't see any value in it.  "Emo" is being used in that manner as well - the major difference being that some folks intentionally dress "emo" and refer to themselves that way.


 * It's arguable as to whether this article counts as original research, but I think most of the elements of the article have been discussed in the music press. Admittedly, I recoiled when I saw the template tags, given the absolute disaster of an article that 21st Century Emo was.  This article is readily more verifiable and even-handed than that one ever was.  (That article was largely written by a handful of specific people who conceded that they were simply writing their observations of the folks they knew who fit their description of "emo".)


 * Is there a specific part that reads like original research or that needs to be cited? Admittedly, it's tough to find specific articles that go into detail about "emo" as it pertains to fashion and attitude, given that nobody with any journalistic integrity is going to touch the subject.  But I feel like most of it is at least relatively confirmable via media outlets like MTV, Rolling Stone, and Spin.  (Even if, half the time, they don't know what they're talking about.)


 * My concern is that even if the article could count as "original research", labelling it that way automatically casts it as biased or untrue. And I think that opens the door to more vandalism, or, at least, to more ricidulous and unfounded stereotypes.


 * I feel the focus shouldn't be to cast the article one way or the other - it should be to improve it to describe the popular perception of "emo" as closely as possible without diving into negativity. --ChrisB 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, I totally understand your points. I agree that "emo" as a term has this weird recent connotation that seemed to have come out of nowhere, and anyone who's followed the timeline of the emo label can see that a couple of years ago, it took some sharp turn into very new territory.


 * At the same time, I'm inclined to think that, and this is idealistic, I know, but as much as Wikipedia needs to fill the void left by the obvious existence of the term emo and the lack of information available, original research is pretty much unacceptable. It does seem like the lesser of two evils, though.  I agree with that.


 * Ultimately, I think the best solution would be to find an article or two describing what is now known as emo, in some back issue of Rolling Stone or something. I believe they'll exist, and I'll start looking if you do too, because a source would totally calm my concerns.  Frankly, though a topic like "emo" decidedly merits inclusion here, it is only borderline encyclopedic, and suffers from an unfortunate conundrum; either the article comes off like one man's opinion (which, I think, is the side it's leaning towards here- the lesser of two evils) or it reads like some overwrought Britannica entry and doesn't really inform the reader about the actual topic at hand.


 * I have no issue with the content here. In spite of being, perhaps, original research, it is all, as near as I can tell, true.  So, one or two credible sources, and we have our-self a genuine article.  I'm not going to re-add the templates (I agree it makes the article seem wrong) but let's find those references. --ParkerHiggins  ( talk contribs ) 10:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay! I'll keep poking around to see if I can find solid sources.  Which may be harder than it sounds.  So far, I've got this.  ;)  --ChrisB 10:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should be at least rewritten and at worst deleted
The last half of the article is absolutely unacceptable by a number of Wiki rules. Seriously, it would be the equivalent of having half the article about Conservatism demean it, trash it, and call its followers "conservative fags".

"When attacking "Emo," its detractors often refer to wrist-slitting." - What?

Did I miss the giant article called "criticism of goth"? "People say" a lot of the same things about goth kids, too. They don't deserve this kind of treatment, and neither do the people who actively follow emo trends.

Plus, a number of the "facts" included in the article aren't even accurate. The Refused weren't an emo band (they were considered alternative metal), and "New Noise" only received airplay on MTV's 120 Minutes. It was certainly not popular enough to influence an entire trend. (For the record, kids were wearing that haircut in the "emo" scene before the Refused released the video.)

It's fair to include a paragraph mentioning the widespread disparaging of emo, but spending half an article on it, particularly including such clearly derogatory language, is completely unacceptable. --ChrisB 21:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Emo has attracted a huge amount of criticism however. Compare the instances of vandalism of the main emo page to how often this happens with articles like nu metal or garage rock or other genres with have been popular in recent times. Most people I know who listen to emo use the term as a pejorative anyway, and when it's used self-referentially, it's almost always done as self-depreciating humour. --80.4.224.6 23:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Create article called Anti-Emo maybe? It does seem to have a reality of its own. --Paul foord 00:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This article doesn't count as "self-deprecating humor". It's simply insulting, period. "Emo fashion" is basically the "nerd" look from fifteen years ago, before metrosexuality existed. People wore it because they liked it. There is no link between it and "gay culture" save for the association made by people who enjoy making fun of "nerds". Essentially, the article says "nerds are gay" in a slightly intellectual manner. The opinion is inflammatory, derogatory, and does not belong in a Wiki article.


 * Both the Sexuality and Sexism sections should be deleted. The Sexism section doesn't have a supported argument - it's entirely POV. And the Sexuality section is undeniably homophobic. "Emo boys are more naturally predisposed to kiss other boys who look slightly feminine."? I mean, WHAT THE FUCK? --ChrisB 00:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't even notice that addition till you brought it up. Your right, that does cross the line into being flat-out insulting and I've removed that bit. The emo fashion section does clearly establish that there are 2 types of fashion that are commonly called emo - the emo nerd look and the fashioncore (for want of a better term) look that you can't really deny is a pretty blatant example of metrosexuality. That doesn't make it bad by any means, but still, that's a major reason for the whole "emo fag" thing, and I think that section actually is quite defensive of emo. The Sexism section's based on the views of a few members of the old 80s L.A. cock rock scene mostly, but I've seen others bring it up online during anti-emo tirades. It's a stereotype more than a truth though, which the section tries to point-out, but I'm not sure how succesfull it is. The jist of it should be that saying emo lyrics are sexist is akin to saying rappers are homophobic or misogynistic or only focused on financial success; these stereotypes aren't true of all rap or all emo but they do have basis in truth. --80.4.224.6 15:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, what do you think of the article as it is now? --80.4.224.6 16:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This whole article is a joke, there is no connection between the mallcore generation of nu-emo groups and the Goth movement of the 1980s, whoever wrote this article needs to get a clue --Deathrocker 06:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Lots of people" have written this article. It's what a wiki is about, and is why the article seems to be some sort of battleground for people with opposing views about something which is essentially ill-defined. --Someone42 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For starters, mallcore doesn't exist. No band or person walks up and says "I'm into mallcore" or "I listen to mallcore music".  It's bullshit.  It's an insult coming from someone who sees no value in a certain style of music or dress.


 * Beyond that: did you even bother to read the article or understand the implications? The reference to the Goth scene of the 80s talks about how DIFFERENT the "emo" scene is from the original "goth" scene.  The point being made is that the goth scene dressed "goth" to identify themselves as part of the scene, but dressing "emo" doesn't serve the same purpose.


 * This article rather blatantly asserts that the "emo" style of the modern era borrows significantly from the older "goth" scene - it says NOTHING about goth becoming a part of "emo". That's not the argument that's being made whatsoever.


 * Oh, and you deleted the references to MCR and AFI being "goth". AFI has been called a "goth punk" band for YEARS.  They may or may not have been considered part of the "official" (whatever the hell that is) goth scene, but they have been REGULARLY mentioned as having goth influences, which is precisely what this article is addressing.  Both MCR and AFI fashion themselves in a way that very strongly resembles the old goth styles, a style that is being newly lumped in as "emo" now that the music media has decided that they're "emo".  That's the entire point of that paragraph - that some elements of old "goth" are being co-opted as "emo". --ChrisB 09:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The media calls Mairlyn Manson a goth, that doesn't mean he is, Davey Havok of AFI often says that his band is NOT goth. Nothing is "borrowed" from the Goth movement of the 1980s, wearing black clothing doesn't make somebody a goth, incase you didn't know people wore black clothing before the 1980s and the goth movement. Infact using Google you could probably get an image of George Bush wearing black, should we start an article about George Bush's presidency been influenced by 80's Goth?? I don't think so. You are clearly clueless in the department of the goth movement as you say “Whatever the hell that is” I suggest you try educating yourself. --Deathrocker 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You are 100% accurate. Marilyn Manson is not goth, and neither is AFI.  We're not claiming that whatsover.  AND THE ARTICLE DOESN'T CLAIM THAT PEOPLE WEARING BLACK ARE GOTH.


 * If I put on a tye-dye shirt and birkenstocks, my outfit borrows from the "hippie" style - it doesn't make me a hippie. You're fighting a battle that has NOTHING to do with what this article is addressing.


 * And you're "Limp Bizkit and Goth" Google comparison is completely irrelevant, given that NONE of the results actually calls Limp Bizkit a goth band. By comparison, a search for "goth punk" and "afi" turns up results that say things like, "Many people refer to A.F.I. as a 'goth-punk' band."


 * I DON'T CARE IF MCR AND AFI ARE ACTUALLY GOTH BANDS, AND THAT CLAIM IS NOT MADE IN THE ARTICLE. Why do you think "goth" is in quotes in the entire paragraph?  The point is that styles that have been previously called "goth" BY OTHER PEOPLE are now also being called "emo" BY OTHER PEOPLE.


 * If you actually bothered to read and comprehend what the article says, there is absolutely nothing in it that warrants you getting this upset.


 * Here's a twist: I don't personally believe that any of this article describes "emo". It wasn't "emo" five or six years ago when I was a part of the scene.  But people are now using the term "emo" in this manner, and here I am writing about it.


 * And my point about "official" is that I think it's UNBELIEVABLY pretentious to claim that there's a certain brand of something that's acceptable, but people who do the same thing but don't have the same "credibility" are unacceptable. People shouldn't be demeaned for doing something they enjoy doing - liking a certain band or dressing a certain way - regardless of how "lame" it is. --ChrisB 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed an individual's rantings about how society needs to accept gay people. This is not the place for telling others how they should conduct themselves, this is supposed to be an unbiased presentation of information. --Padonae 06:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding MCR or AFI being classified as goth bands - are there any references for this? Also, if we're in agreement that they are not goth bands, just because "some people say" they are, doesn't mean this is worth mentioning. Some people incorrectly claim all sorts of bands are some genre or another, but that isn't notable. The MCR and AFI articles don't seem to mention any goth classifications.


 * Regarding comparisons between goth and emo - in my experience, the comparisons have been purely in a derogatory sense. Eg, people would once brand people as being "goths" as an insult, especially for reasons related to what they wore, their sexuality, being depressed or being a self-harmer - now I've seen "emo" being used instead. I don't know whether this is worth mentioning or not - but I've never seen goth or emo used interchangeably in any other sense. --Mdwh 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Social Impact
Some of the recent additions are precisely the kinds of topics that this article should not be covering. For example:


 * 1) Using Myspace does not lead to suicide. (Nothing in the formerly-linked article references emo.)
 * 2) Not all "emo" kids are suicidal.
 * 3) There is not a predominance of bisexuality in "emo".
 * 4) Kids have been ranting about angst issues since the beginning of time. The shift to Myspace and Livejournal simply reflects an opening of what was previously kept private.  This is not unique to emo.
 * 5) Okay, so there isn't a tv program that focuses on "emo". There is no need to include a section saying so.
 * 6) The position in American Culture bit is dubious at best. Emo does not have the kind of widespread mass popularity or recognition as any of the other genres mentioned.  Emo is not even close to rising to the level of "cultural movement".

While this article is intended to cover the wide topics related to "emo", we should be making an effort to retain some kind of verifiability. Saying that everything that's "emo" relates to a melancholy attitude is a generalization that is factually dubious at worst and unprovable at best. --ChrisB 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * “While this article is intended to cover the wide topics related to "emo", we should be making an effort to retain some kind of verifiability. Saying that everything that's "emo" relates to a melancholy attitude is a generalization that is factually dubious at worst and unprovable at best.”


 * Agreed, we should retain some kind of verifiability, however, “emo” as slang does relate to a melancholy attitude. Source Urbandictionary.com


 * “Defining Emo is like telling people what's in Heaven; you're just bound to piss someone off. For me, it's the obvious - it's short for 'emotional'. His highs are real high, and his lows are real low. He over analyzes and just feels too damn much. As you'll see in the comic, there's a constant monologue running in his head, the world is a bad poem. ” :-


 * I realize that “emo” as a musical style does not mean emotion, but as slang it does.


 * “Using Myspace does not lead to suicide.”


 * Agreed, using MySpace does not lead to suicde. The article never said it did.


 * Not all "emo" kids are suicidal.
 * Agreed,  The article specifically said not a “emo” kids are suicidal, however, there is a large population of children who identify themselves as “emo” and write suicidal thoughts or poetry in their blogs.


 * “There is not a predominance of bisexuality in "emo".”


 * This is possible, however, there does seem to be a predomincnce of a bisexual friendly mindset. Which is notable. It is hard to reference this because “emo” is so new that not many articles are written on it. However this interview of the writer of the “emo boy” comic does mention bisexuality


 * “Yes, definitely. There's going to be some larger stories, and more short ones. Issue 2 will be one 28 page story, where Emo Boy goes to a concert and finally meets a girl he's longed for since the 2nd grade. In issues after that, he'll play some dodgeball, attempt suicide, confront some old demons, consider bisexuality, and do an autobio comic book, all kinds of fun stuff. And prom! ”


 * “Kids have been ranting about angst issues since the beginning of time. The shift to Myspace and Livejournal simply reflects an opening of what was previously kept private. This is not unique to emo.”


 * Culture groups such as: Blues, Jazz, counter culture Rock, and Hip Hop have all been based on “ranting” about issues, however, “emo” is notably different in that the words or lyrics are angst, melancholy or even suicidal where as the other cultural groups were not especially to the extent which “emo” is.


 * “Okay, so there isn't a tv program that focuses on "emo". There is no need to include a section saying so.”
 * I was hopping some one would prove me wrong and it is also notable because as mentioned MTV has started to pick up on the trend.


 * “The position in American Culture bit is dubious at best. Emo does not have the kind of widespread mass popularity or recognition as any of the other genres mentioned. Emo is not even close to rising to the level of "cultural movement".”


 * Agreed, however, the “emo” culture is notable. It marks a sharp shift from previous cool sub cultures.  “Emo” is similar to goth or punk, but neither culture had gained momentum and popularity as fast as emo has.  It was never cool to be goth or punk. Many of todays youths feel it is cool to be “emo.”


 * I hope you find my reasoning satisfactory, I can understand your point of view Chris, but lets not leave out information about a culture, that calls them self "emo", becuase there is little documentation on it --Kaddds 08:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this a joke to you? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?  "Never cool to be goth or punk"?  What?  For starters, that's patently false.  At the same time, since when has it been popular or acceptable to be "emo"?  Half the shit you cited in your edit fucking insults anything and everything remotely related to "emo".


 * If you're going to insist on adding this complete and total garbage, I don't think I have any other choice but to add dispute. This is absolutely beyond unacceptable. --ChrisB 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Chris, I appreciate your concern with the validity of this article. You have done a good job of moderating this article and for that thank you.  I'm trying to see your point of view and I am sorry, that you take offense to what I have contributed to the article.


 * I feel the discrepancy's we are having is related to the fact that “emo” is a slang term that has many meaning to different people. To you I am guessing “emo” has to do with strictly a music genre. I feel it is important though to recognize the current subculture that calls themselves “emo”.  To inform and shed light onto a subculture that is largely unknown by people over the age of 18 and largely misunderstood.


 * The reason I say the“emo” subculture popularity is different than goth or punk is that I have noticed that more and more of the so called “cool kids” - the trend setters and popular teenagers call themselves “emo” and embrace the culture. This is the first time that it has been cool to be bisexual. And is a sharp change in what fashion style is cool -- for men to wear tight pants.  Goth and punk teenagers have never really been labeled the “cool kids” or trend setters, they have always been and wanted to be a subculture. --Kaddds 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it, so you've seen some kids dress "emo" and that makes you an expert in all things emo?


 * And don't patronize me. If you thought I'd been doing a good job, you wouldn't completely disregard my input.


 * Significant problems in your edit:


 * 1) I called out the fact that the article about the suicide had nothing to do with emo, so you went out and found one that did. One article does not make a trend.  Two articles would not make a trend.  Suicide is not any more prevalent in "emo" than it is among any other popular music genre.  (Suicide happened among fans of grunge, particularly after Cobain's death; that didn't make it part of grunge.)


 * 2) You called "emo" a slang term here, but called it a "cultural movement" in the article. If it's a slang term, it cannot possibly be a "cultural movement".  Read Cultural movement and see for yourself that it does not even REMOTELY rise to that threshold.  (If you want a comparison, the trends and attitudes associated with grunge music were not a cultural movement.  Fans of grunge shared the same attitudes and fashion trends.  And, for the record, it was far more popular than "emo" is right now.)


 * 3) The predominance of self-pitying blogs is not unique or specific to &amp;quot;emo". If you go through Myspace and LiveJournal, you'll find hundreds of teenagers writing the same topics.  They're not all emo kids, they're just teenagers dealing with the average teen angst.


 * 4) Your (now removed) link to the Google search for "emo myspace bisexual" ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the results INSULTED emo kids. It didn't support your assertion that emo kids were bisexual; all it did was point out the stereotype.  At best, the article could reference something like: "There is a belief among who do not participate in 'emo' that 'emo kids' are largely bisexual, a generalization that serves more as a stereotype than as a factual statement."


 * 5) Until there is a tv show that covers "emo", the entire media section should be removed. There's not even an "emo" magazine.  There are zines that cover emo music, and have for twenty years.  But those do not belong in the context of this article.


 * 6) Comparing emo to hip-hop, jazz, and hippies is absolutely irrelevant. In all three of those cases, the musical elements were clearly defined.  Yet one of the most glaring problems with emo as a music trend is that it's undefinable.  Nobody knows what emo music is, and most of the bands called emo want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERM.  You can't have a musical-cultural "movement" if the bands refuse to be a part of it.


 * The factual elements of this article were entirely covered in the first half of the article. The second half simply repeats those elements, then adds numerous statements that have no foundation in reality.


 * But since it would be unacceptable for me for control content in this manner, I'm just going to leave it as 'disputed'. If no one else cares enough about the content to edit it in a responsible and factual manner (and if no one else is going to care that Deathrocker keeps removing references to the obvious similarities between "emo fashion" and "gothic fashion"), then so be it. --ChrisB 18:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * and from searching the web emo+bisexual you can find many profiles of children who are self proclaimed emo and bisexual
 * You get even more hits for, but I'm not sure that proves anything. --Mdwh 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Culture groups such as: Blues, Jazz, counter culture Rock, and Hip Hop have all been based on “ranting” about issues, however, “emo” is notably different in that the words or lyrics are angst, melancholy or even suicidal where as the other cultural groups were not especially to the extent which “emo” is.
 * I think the point is that whilst it's notable to document the typical theme of the lyrics of emo music (though that would probably be better placed at emo (music), it's speculation to make claims about the attitudes of emo people on LiveJournal or MySpace. There are a lot of people writing angst on online journals in general (which is no different to the way people used to do it offline), but I see no evidence that there is any correlation between them and people who identify as emo. --Mdwh 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * “Oh, I get it, so you've seen some kids dress "emo" and that makes you an expert in all things emo?”
 * I don't feel that I am an expert, however, I do feel I have some knowledge of this subculture group.


 * “And don't patronize me. If you thought I'd been doing a good job, you wouldn't completely disregard my input.”
 * I'm not trying to patronize you, I am trying to see your point of view. I do appreciate you explaining and talking with me.


 * “I called out the fact that the article about the suicide had nothing to do with emo, so you went out and found one that did. One article does not make a trend. Two articles would not make a trend. Suicide is not any more prevalent in "emo" than it is among any other popular music genre. (Suicide happened among fans of grunge, particularly after Cobain's death; that didn't make it part of grunge.”
 * There is a subculture that calls themselves “emo”, this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes.


 * “You called "emo" a slang term here, but called it a "cultural movement" in the article. If it's a slang term, it cannot possibly be a "cultural movement".”
 * I agree good point.


 * "If you want a comparison, the trends and attitudes associated with grunge music were not a cultural movement. Fans of grunge shared the same attitudes and fashion trends. And, for the record, it was far more popular than "emo" is right now.)”
 * From where I live/ what I have seen, I have not seen grunge become popular, I have seen “emo” become popular.


 * “The predominance of self-pitying blogs is not unique or specific to "emo".”
 * I agree.


 * “If you go through Myspace and LiveJournal, you'll find hundreds of teenagers writing the same topics. They're not all emo kids, they're just teenagers dealing with the average teen angst.”
 * I agree., I never said different


 * “Your (now removed) link to the Google search for "emo myspace bisexual" ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the results INSULTED emo kids.”
 * from the first page alone, the majority were links to profiles that did not insult “emo” kids, but rather supported my claim.


 * “It didn't support your assertion that emo kids were bisexual; all it did was point out the stereotype. At best, the article could reference something like: "There is a belief among who do not participate in 'emo' that 'emo kids' are largely bisexual, a generalization that serves more as a stereotype than as a factual statement."”
 * The article simply says that the subculure is bisexual friendly, the links to profiles, t-shirts, emo boy comic and other blogs support this claim.


 * “Until there is a tv show that covers "emo", the entire media section should be removed. There's not even an "emo" magazine. There are zines that cover emo music, and have for twenty years. But those do not belong in the context of this article.”
 * The media section should not include “emo” music zines, that would better fit the emo music article.


 * “ Comparing emo to hip-hop, jazz, and hippies is absolutely irrelevant. In all three of those cases, the musical elements were clearly defined. Yet one of the most glaring problems with emo as a music trend is that it's undefinable. Nobody knows what emo music is, and most of the bands called emo want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERM. You can't have a musical-cultural "movement" if the bands refuse to be a part of it.”
 * Bands don't define there fans, if self proclaimed “emo” teenagers listen to a band then, the band has no control. Jazz might be a bad term, however, the hippies and hip hop both exist out side of music, they are a subcultures.


 * “The factual elements of this article were entirely covered in the first half of the article. The second half simply repeats those elements, then adds numerous statements that have no foundation in reality.”
 * The first part of this article describes one group of people that call themselves “emo” but ignores the younger generation of MySpacers and bloggers who call them self “emo”


 * Since you and others feel the subculture aspect does not belong here I have started a emo (teen subculture) article maybe this will clear up any confusion about which definition of “emo” is being used to describe which article. --Kaddds 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a subculture that calls themselves “emo”, this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes.
 * This statement cannot be proven. It is a generalization and a stereotype.


 * From where I live/ what I have seen, I have not seen grunge become popular, I have seen “emo” become popular.
 * I'm not going to fault you for your apparent youth. Grunge music exploded in the early 90s and brought a broad change in style and attitude that reflected the scene.  Flannel shirts, baggy pants, etc.  Many of the die-hard fans shared a similar mindset to those who are interested in "emo" today.  My original point: grunge was significantly more popular then than "emo" is now.  Yet it did not rise to the threshold of "culture" or "subculture".  At the end of the day, it was simply people sharing trends of fashion and attitude.  I think the exact same can be said about modern "emo".


 * I agree., I never said different
 * Your edit heavily implied that getting on MySpace and blogging about angst was a significant element of "emo". However, "emo" cannot be defined by something that is prevalent outside its borders.  It's kind of like saying that a certain group of people are defined by wearing blue jeans.


 * from the first page alone, the majority were links to profiles that did not insult “emo” kids, but rather supported my claim.
 * I'd double check that if I were you. On that first page of MySpace profiles, only THREE of the ten listed themselves as bisexuals.  Most of the others didn't even have the word "bisexual" on the page - the word was included in a left comment that had since slipped off the page.  I can't fathom how that supports your claim about emo and bisexuality.


 * For clarity: my comment about "insults" was about the general Google results, not the MySpace ones. Your linking to a general search for those three terms would send a Wiki reader to the general results, not to the MySpace ones.


 * The article simply says that the subculure is bisexual friendly, the links to profiles, t-shirts, emo boy comic and other blogs support this claim.
 * The article already said that the emo scene was gay-friendly. Focusing on bisexuality serves no additional purpose.  Linking to Emo Boy is questionable at best, as it's more of a parody than anything, but would be acceptable as an external link, not as a refernce.


 * The media section should not include “emo” music zines, that would better fit the emo music article.
 * I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with zines, but they cover more than just music. Regardless, you're missing the point that the absence of something should not be noted in an article.


 * Jazz might be a bad term, however, the hippies and hip hop both exist out side of music, they are a subcultures.
 * You're missing my point. The musicians in the hippie scene participated in its "subculture".  Hip-hop performers participate in that genre's "subculture".  "Emo" performers avoid the "subculture" like the plague.  They want nothing to do with it.  That makes it ENTIRELY different from the three you're comparing it to.  Even if there is a subculture of "emo" (which you still haven't proven), comparing it to those genres doesn't work.


 * The first part of this article describes one group of people that call themselves “emo” but ignores the younger generation of MySpacers and bloggers who call them self “emo”
 * It ignores it because it cannot be proven. Period.  People keep generalizing its existence, but there's no proof that it's out there.  Now, we could mention that many people believe that the link between MySpace and "emo" exists.  But it would still have to be properly cited.


 * Since you and others feel the subculture aspect does not belong here I have started a emo (teen subculture) article maybe this will clear up any confusion about which definition of “emo” is being used to describe which article.
 * I've already addressed this on that page's Talk, but this was absolutely the wrong thing to do. --ChrisB 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The subculture aspect belongs here. But statements like "this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes." is an example of the derogatory usage of the word - it should not be presented as fact! This is exactly the sort of thing people used to say of Goth - but if anyone tried to write things such as Goths embraced suicidal poetry in the Goth article, I bet it would be quickly removed (and rightly so). --Mdwh 03:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "There is not a predominance of bisexuality in "emo"." - No, there is just a predominacne of bisexuality in poser rebels, many of whom happen to be emo. --ScWizard 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge debate
Yes they should be merged, who the hell thought it was a good idea to start another article that says EXACTLY the same thing as this?? --Deathrocker 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree they should be merged. It's pointless having the same debates in two places. --Mdwh 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nu Emo"
"nu emo" has only 563 hits on Google, and many of those seem to be emo references on *.nu sites! I presumed you searched without quotes, which is incorrect (you can get millions of hits by searching for "nu" and all sorts of other terms)!

If there are really these two separate subcultures that have both been referred to as "emo", then please provide references to what this previous subculture was, since it seems to be completely ignored by the current Wikipedia emo articles (if I wanted to show someone the difference between nu-metal and metal, it would be hard to do that without showing what metal is). --Mdwh 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - Deathrocker, is your position that older emo (eg, the first wave as described in Emo_(music)) is unrelated to emo today? Or that the subculture described here is totally unrelated to emo music? If the former, you should take that up in the Emo_(music) article. If the latter, then I'm sure it can be explained that the subculture described here is quite separate to the music, without inventing terms like "nu emo" (just as, eg, many people dress in a goth fashion, without necessarily being fans of goth music - this is explained simply with "but not all those who dress in this fashion listen to Goth music"). If you mean something else, then please explain. --Mdwh 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * He's talking about Emo music of the 80s, which has its own article. It wasn't a subculture, either.  There were numerous edit wars over the content of the main Emo article from those who insisted that the Emo music of the 80s was the only genre of music "properly" referred to using the term "emo".  (They're missing the point that inventing terms like "pop hardcore" to describe the "emo" that they feel isn't "emo" is entirely against Wiki guidelines, and ignores the fact that the use of the word "emo" in the 90s and 2000s is far more widespread than it was in the 80s.)


 * He also takes issue with anyone who uses the term "goth" to describe anything other than the scene from the 80s. I'll note again that he keeps removing comparisons between so-called "emo fashion" and so-called "goth fashion", even though the similarities are obvious.  He also has a pronounced history of edit wars and not discussing his edits.


 * There is no established used of the term "nu emo". His insistence of "a million google hits" is obviously a fallacy: a search for nu emo without quotes generates a million hits because the search isn't for the term "nu emo" - it's for articles that include the word "nu" and the word "emo". --ChrisB 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the emo of the 80s had a subculture, how the hell would it have existed without a subculture or people who follow it?.. it grew out of Hardcore punk. What are often called emo kids today (My Chemical Romance, The Used, fans) are to emo, what Kindergoths are to Goth rock, and what Nu-metal fans are to Metal of the 80s and late 70s... the fans that came later are unrelated to the original movements, some people have started calling these so called "emos" nu-emos, to distinguish those who follow, or were part of the original movement, try searching without quotation marks and actually look at some of the info there, instead of automatically discarding it.


 * It also must be noted ChrisB has a history of fandalism and writing bias articles, glorifing his own tastes. --Deathrocker 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Glorifying his own tastes"? What exactly are you doing?  Any opinion you disagree with gets deleted.  Just because you disagree with content or have a different perspective doesn't mean that the content is a lie.  And I think I've already mentioned the fact that I'm not a fan of the new "emo" - the only reason I'm against your recent edits is because they're POV and favor the views of detractors.  Not to mention the fact that they're uncited and unsourced.


 * Everything you've mentioned in your above comment is POV. The majority of people don't use terms like "kindergoths" and "emos".  If those terms are in use at all, it's among a small minority of detractors.  I don't have a problem with articles explaining phrases like "mallcore", but I do have a problem with someone writing in an article that a band is "nu-emo" and not "emo" just because a handful of people want there to be a difference.  In the minds of the folks who adhere to current emo (who, unfortunately, far outnumber the fans of the original genre), it's just "emo".  The articles should reflect the reality, not an alternate "desirable" reality. --ChrisB 20:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't "favour the view of the detractors" at all, you seem to constantly ignore the fact the articles are supposed to be neutral, it voices both sides, whether you like it or not there ARE many detractors of this trend as well as followers. To ignore either "side" would compromise the neutrality of the article.


 * You may want to do your homework if you don't think there is a difference between the new wave of emo and the emo of the 1980s, the information is already on this site. Is it so hard for you to type the word "emo" into the search function on the left and then press go? It wouldn't take you more than a couple of seconds and you would then realise the two are completely different movements. As is expressed in that article. --Deathrocker 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was in the indie emo scene of the 90s, so the difference is obvious. The problem is your usage of terms like "nu emo" to note the difference.  People in the emo scene today don't call it "nu emo", so calling it "nu emo" in this article is unacceptable.  (If not just for that reason, then because this article is for "emo (slang)" not "nu emo (slang)".) --ChrisB 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Any opinion you disagree with gets deleted." is ludicrous, I disagree with most of this article yet it is still there, and seemingly I'm not the only one hence why the article has a "neutrality and factual accuracy of article disputed." tag slapped on it by somebody.


 * Also the genuine emo movement came from the 1980s not the 1990s anyway. --Deathrocker 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim that the only "genuine" emo movement is from the 1980s is POV. I'll wholeheartedly agree that it was the first and the origin, but there was nothing ingenuine about the 90s emo scene.  It existed, it was there, it was called "emo".  Most of the bands of the 90s scene were heavily influenced by the original scene (unlike modern emo).


 * And the NPOV tag was added because someone noticed that there were edit wars going on. --ChrisB 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Look at all my emo" - Ikiroid's content
Wait, you added tags asking for the article to be cleaned up, then ADDED MORE UNSOURCED CONTENT?

You can't possibly provide a source that says that people call their cuts "emo". That's ridiculous. (If "Look at all my emo" is a common phrase, why are there no occurrences on the Internet?)

Other issues:


 * 1) The "focusing on angst and frustration" part of that sentence doesn't help. Beyond the fact that it creates a run-on sentence, the paragraph isn't explaining the music.  It's explaining about how "emo" started to become a term of derision, using the comparison to other forms of music to describe why people had issue with it.
 * 2) "Were simply looking for drama where it didn't exist" explained the same idea without casting aspersions. We should not be judging people in this article.
 * 3) Masochism is not a defined element of "emo", even in a slang sense. It's something that a minority of people outside it believe is a part of it, but there is no verifiable evidence that it actually is.

Most of these fall on the line of original research. What you and your friends talk about cannot be included in a Wiki article without verifiable sources. --ChrisB 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I presume he strictly speaking means self harm rather than masochism from his edit summary - but yes, it's nothing to do with emo. --Mdwh 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The association with self-harm and emo culture is so common among emos where I live is so common that I was surprised to see it not in the article. I saw myself as adding in something so obvious it didn't need any sources, like saying communion is in catholicisim. Apparently, it's some rare exception that exists over here. Self-harm does have an association with strong emotions though, so you can see why I'd place it in the article. My concern with the article is that it only focuses on music and clothes, not attitudes, and I was trying to change that. It also doesn't really take the topic seriously, virtually all the links or so-called 'sources' are a satire of the culture. You might as well have no sources at all. --ikiroid 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree with a lot of the sources as well. Most of them are leftovers from when this article was titled "21st Century Emo" and largely bashed Emo as a whole.  Numerous editors argued that the derogatory use of the word was most important aspect, and the article was chock-full of largely false generalizations.


 * Honestly, what this article needs most is more input from people who are actually (and willingly) part of the modern "emo" scene. I've always gotten the feeling that most of the people who edit this article are doing so because they dislike the scene and want to express their hatred in words. (That's not to cast apersions on everyone here, just the regular occurrence of vandalism and/or the inclusion of satire or stereotypes.)  But I think the modern scene is very insular, and, given the predominance of criticism, I don't know that people are willing to step forward and talk about it.


 * But there's definitely a major quandry here: the majority of the modern usage of "emo" is in a derogatory sense. However, unlike "mallcore" and "mallgoth", "emo" has a non-derogatory definition.  So there needs to be some way to balance the two as a way to reflect how the term is actually used.  --ChrisB 20:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There may be a lot of "emos" who self-harm, but then there are a lot of young people who self-harm. I don't see that this is anything to do with emo, nor that it is something typical amongst "hardcore" emos. --Mdwh 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you are right about the self-harm thing. Furthermore, there are some outsiders are angered by the whole emo culture because it involves focusing on one's feelings and relationships, which may be interpreted as selfish. Also, since emos are more toward emotional goals than one giant group objective, it's not accepted as a political group. I'm not sure that there is a static definition of what makes a person an emo within emo groups either, but it should be appropriate to say that it means you are focused on your own relationships and emotions. However, I won't add this in until I get the agreement of the people contributing to the article. --ikiroid 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

two separate 'emo' articles is plausible
Whilst it would be sensible to merge this article in it's awful present condition with the emo (music) article, emo subculture as a widely recognised phonomena can be a separate aritcle. The focus of this separate article would deal primarily with issues such as the history, fashion, behaviour, cultural influences (in which music would get a smaller mention than at present), public perception (sterotypes), related subcultures. In short, an article that goes into the same kind of objective depth and detail as, say, the chav article as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MysteryMan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So many POV tags, so little article
And that brings us to, why so much attention yet so small a page? Instead of complaining about POV contribute to the article, then complain about it! Not to mention that many comments here are useless/SPAM. I will clean it if I have time... --Bky1701 10:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Its a small page because no one can agree on the content. If you want to make major revisions, discuss them here first. This is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people. --ikiroid 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Section on Definitions of Emo
I have an idea concerning the wide, varying definitions of emo. Instead of trying to find one that fits everyone's idea, why not have a bulleted list. Here's a rough idea: You could try to cover everyone's idea, without giving any one definition offical endorsement. --ikiroid | (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Some define an emo as a person who focuses on their own emotions and relationships
 * Others define emo as a person who focuses on life on something as melancholy
 * Still another definition cites "emoism" as a nihilistic perspective of life


 * I'd say it's better to follow the example of Goth - lots of people think it means all sorts of things to be a "Goth", but the article focuses on the factual aspects of the subculture, rather than trying to cover every person's pet view of the supposed philosophy behind it. I think the same applies here (also see the Talk page, "What is Goth? This article doesn't answer that question.", where someone brought a similar issue up there). --Mdwh 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an URBAN DICTIONARY. People can write whatever the heck they want about subjects! So stop whining people! So start looking at all your emo. Hargle! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.12.67 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're wrong. Wikipedia is an open source encylopedia, not a place for random people to post their opinions. Speaking of, perhaps some suggestions of definitions or topics that should be covered in this article could be added to this sub-heading to turn it into something useful other than the above user, Moo's, angsty rant.


 * I move that there should be some discussion that emo is compared to retro-goth. Discuss. --211.30.80.121 13:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC

Vandalism (1)
Someone is vandalizing the body of this article. Can we have this reverted? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arundhati bakshi (talk &bull; contribs) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, I reverted it. Did you know that anyone can revert an article? See Revert for how to do so. :) -- jeffth  e  jiff  17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I knew that, but I wasn't sure how to do it. Thanks for the tip. :) --Arundhati Bakshi 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone agree with me that this article needs to be visually represented?
The article itself seems to be reaching the phase of acceptability, in terms of the information and knowledge it contains on the slang meaning behind emo, but I think the best way for people to understand is to be visually stimulated; it would be great if someone could find the picture of an acrhetypal "emo" person. Now I'm not saying to flood the article with pictures of emo kids. But, rather that we need to show a picture of the traditional attire/culture of the emo kids (girl pants, tight black shirt with a random design, the straight black eye-covering hair, etc). --John Brown 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...the problem with that idea is no one can agree with what a "typical" emo looks like--we have some examples of clothing, but they're the Lowest common denominator of what emos wear. Good luck, just remember copyrights and stuff--if you want to take anything off of a website, you need to be sure it's ok to do so. I'd go for something in a well-known source, not MySpace or some personal page. --ikiroid | (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be helpful. See my comments below. --  young american (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

commercial impact
Some information should be included about the commercial impact of the emo image such as how well products designed to appeal to emo kids are selling; the "emo style" has definately entered mainstream fashion by now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.201.70 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Umm…
Based on what I have read on the history of Zombie.

"removed poor-quality non-encyclopedic amateur art, AGAIN. Please stop putting that nonsense back" (DreamGuy)

Maybe the image here should be removed too. --FlareNUKE 22:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's amateur art, but I created it based on the descriptions of "emo" in the article. All of the other images were removed because they were too incomplete to fit the descriptions of emos in the article. It's very hard to find a fair-use image for the article. -- The  i  kiro  id  ( talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話 ) 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Electroclash
It shares similar fashion. How about some references? --782 Naumova 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Electroclash is much more connected to, and in fact largly rooted in, the high-fashion world of NYC and LA than it is to high-school fashion of emo. --Zmbe 02:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, current electroclash fashion and current emo fashion seem to be HIGHLY different...I really don't see any connection at all... --JapanLover 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A new link should be added
I believe the site emoholic.net should be added to the link section. I personally would appriciate it because that site give a great definition of what emo is and also intends to offer some samples of the music/dress/actions of "emokids" from an outsiders standpoint. Personally, I love the music by have my own style. Personally, I don't think you would know I listen to bright eyes if you looked at me. I am pretty much the antithisis of the commonly defined emokid (head of a fraternity, in student government, and I love sports). I think these people need to be just as represented as the 'emos' so people dont have such a negative take on the whole topic. Any comments --143.236.35.199 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it. --Pro-Lick 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this notable at all or just some site somebody put up to try and make money off the emo fad? --Pro-Lick 17:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For the sake of WP:V, emoholic.net has no Google backlinks and Alexa's traffic ranker has it at 4,156,858 (1 being highest). The message above from [REDACTED] u just happens to correspond with the owner of the site, [REDACTED] who lives in Wisconsin ([REDACTED] is a University there). --Pro-Lick 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with him, I think it is a good link that has helpful info --65.73.75.58 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks this anon is a meatpuppet. Only 2 contribs&mdash;adding this comment and adding the site as an external link. -- The  i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect you're right, or at least an IP sockpuppet. &mdash; Saxifrage &#9998; 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Emo Slang vs. Emo Music
It's apparent when reading the rest of this talk page that you guys are focusing on the slang term of "emo", with clothing style and such, and not the music term. This, though, isn't too apparent in the artical, and I think there should be a much heavier line drawn in the artical to divide the two definitions appart. Your thoughts? --Underwater 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very apparent in the article, actually. The style evolved because of the music, and vice-versa. Shedding a little light on the Emo (music) actually seemes very necessary. --EMC 00:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The movement is called scene, since when has there been an emo "movement"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is called Emo (slang). This could not be any more apparent. --Switch 15:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using the term "movement" interchangably with "scene" mostly because of the negative connotations of the word, but I guess calling it "movement" is a bit too much, eh?


 * Hmm.... I'm having a hard time trying to put what I'm trying to say into words...


 * Okay, let's say there's a guy who listens to absolutely nothing but so-called "emo" music. But he, in no way, reflects the style of an "emo kid". Then let's say there's some kid who whines and wears girl pants and has scene hair and cuts himself. But he doesn't listen to emo music. So who's more emo than the other?


 * Emo kids stemmed from Emo music and listen to it, but that's basically where the corolations stop. Listening to emo music does not nessisarily mean your emo. Get what I'm saying? I sure hope so. --Underwater 23:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. That's why there are two articles, one for Emo (slang) and one for Emo (music). One is about the music, the other (this one) is about the slang term. To answer your question, in the sense of this article, the second kid is more "emo". --Switch 08:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested move
May I suggest that the body of the article be moved to Emo subculture? It seems more appropriate than "Emo (slang)" as this implies an article mostly about the word's etymology. --ikiroid | (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Except that:


 * We can't conclusively prove that there is an emo subculture. The definition of what is and isn't emo is too varied to be as unified as a subculture would be.  ("Grunge" wasn't a subculture, and it was significantly more structured in common ideas than "emo".)  The media is dying for it to be out there, but there's no uninformity at the moment.
 * The term "emo" expands beyond any so-called subculture. Additionally, Emo subculture already links here.  If such a subculture exists, there's no reason that it can't just be included as a section of this article.
 * If we move this to "subculture", several items here would have to be removed, as they would no longer apply. So there would probably have to still be an "Emo (slang)" article.  And then someone would suggest that the two be merged.


 * So we should probably save ourselves the time and effort, and just leave the article here. --ChrisB 04:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet "Emo (slang)" still doesn't sound like an appropriate name to me. --ikiroid | (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with ikiroid, the article is a poor article for the slang word emo. It does not properly discuss the term's usage or pronunciation. It does not mention whether the term is used as a noun, verb, adjective or adverb. --Cedars 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I added in the parts of speech into the intro. -- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Offensive to Self Harmers
I feel that there should be a little bit more in the area of the stereotypical emo = self harmer.

I cut myself, yet I am not emo. My best friend is emo, yet doesn't cut herself. It insults both of us, and I know many others.

So, could there be a little more in the article about how the two aren't the same? Every person I've seen that makes fun of emos think that emos cut. It's driving me (and my support group) up the wall!

I know some emos cut. But, not every single one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.67.7 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at the bottom of the section "Fashion and culture:"

"There is also a common stereotype that associates 'emo' with self-harm, most notably wrist slashing, mainly due to the song lyrics of popular bands conforming to the image of emo in the public eye, which often speak of suicide."
 * Isn't that enough? Tell us what you think should be added. It would help. -- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking something a bit more specific. While it says it's a stereotype, would it be okay to have it say it's rather offensive to both groups? --70.152.67.7 23:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That all depends on whether the emo hates being associated with the self-harmer or vice-versa. -- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 23:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know quite a few people who consider themselves emo that do not cut, and do not like people saying they do. --70.152.67.7 23:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How about now? -- The  i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 01:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that we're already treading on original research in this article, but there can't possibly be any source available that supports a statement of "self-harmers don't like to be called emo". I tried to put back more or less what was in the article a couple of months ago to expand on the idea that emo and self-harm are not associated.  (I have no idea why it was removed in the first place.) --ChrisB 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --70.152.67.7 19:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Self-Referencing
ChrisB deleted both of the two lines I added, the second containing a link to this talk page. His comment was "referencing a wiki talk page is not encyclopedic." While I'm not sure if I agree with this statement, after thinking about it, I agree that it was misplaced. I'm adding the link to the "See Also" section. I think it's an educational demonstration of ambiguity of the term, and that's what we're here for. If ChrisB or anybody thinks this is inappropriate, I'd request they show where it's implied so in the rules before removing it. I'm also re-adding the first line I previously added, since no justification was given for its removal. --MQDuck


 * It's removable because it's original research. It also violates WP:V and WP:RS.  A Wiki talk page violates both of those as well, granted that a Talk page is not a verifiable, reliable primary source.  Need I go on?  --ChrisB 19:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dashboard Confessional?
You say something about dashboard confessional emphasizing a more personal style of emo, the only problem with that is DASHBOARD CONFESSIONAL AIN'T EMO. Please remove offending statements and paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Again: understand that the post above wasn't signed, and it should be voided as it is nonchalant and immaterial input. If that part of the article offends you: don't expect an apology just because you are offended when a band that you enjoy is classified as "Emo". Please wake up and smell the coffee. You would honestly be surprised as to how many times we get this on here, and how erroneous your statement, and statements like it, are. --EMC 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm offended they're classified emo, because well, they aren't. It's emotionally driven HARDCORE punk rock. I enjoy Dashboard Confessional, and i like emo, but Dashboard Confessional isn't emo. Antioch Arrow=Emo, Dashboard Confessional=Indie Pop Punk. Also, emo isn't a form of style, the kids who do that are called SCENE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * REMOVE OFFENDING STATEMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again: no. --EMC 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The emo style being emphasized by bands? Give me an example of this, I have never heard any band going, "You all should dress like us and call yorselves emo." When has any band advocated a more "personal" style of emo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't come out and say "You should all dress like us and call yourselves 'emo'", no. "Emo" was not exactly created by the music artists, and despite what you "think", the facts are that bands do have subtle characteristic influence on its listeners. It's common sense that the fans would soon start to follow the trend of their most favored artists. Also considering you don't know anything about this topic, I'll say it again: no. --EMC 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism (2)
i vandalised but reverted it so plz dont block me. --65.79.36.66 15:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon Image
I have drawn and uploaded a picture of a typical emo. Any questions or comments? --ikiroid | (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * wicked. --  young american (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * the image is good, but i think we also need a real picture. like somthing thats on a myspace. but the drawing should stay cause a stereotype for emo is tht they are all artistic, so it fits well with that- emopunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emopunk (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote for removal
definate bias, and opinion/POV showing here i can draw a great phycological pict about this/these authors. get it out. despite my opinions about "emo", (what it is, is it cool, is it not)

Reasons for complete deletion Imagine a journalist, who is not involved in music or fashion, delving into the shady nether-world of emo day and night to get the real scoop on the situation.
 * 1) this article has problems that can't be solved or agreed upon
 * 2) dosen't belong in a COLOABORATION of FREE, SHARED, human knowledge if it is to be respected.
 * 3) requires constant updating from a non-biased source.

Its my opinion that it should go and its my opinion that should be yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.44.130 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. --24.124.112.89 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome to put the article up for a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD) but frankly, I think it's too much of a well known word to be removed. The article needs to be improved, not deleted.└ UkPaolo/talk┐ 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I say don't delete it. As soon as some author or journalist creates a credible source, we can fix it. Until then, we'll just keep it very short and conservative so not to piss anyone off. If you delete this, the article will be rebuilt within hours, because emos are a giant part of the current pop culture. The users and visitors of wikipedia won't stand to purposely leave giant gaps of information in the encyclopedia. --ikiroid | (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NO! article is dead on! keep it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.113.28.124 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * true this page needs a lot of work, but it needs to stay. emo is used so alot these days that there deserves to be somthing about it, even if a lot of the information is inacurate and contraversal- emopunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emopunk (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Emo is a large segment of popular culture and we can't afford to lose the entry. --MafiaCapo 22:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lock/Protect page from edits?
I've come across a bunch of small vandalism edits people have done, and tried fixing them. They always seem to com eback and are along the lines of "so-and-so is a (sic) emo fag". Can we temporarily block the page from edits to stop these immature edits? --FyreNWater 06:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that proposal. --EMC 23:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vans
Vans are a preferable shoe brand worn by those who fit into the "emo" bracket, thus, the shoe brand has, as of recently, become synonymous with the emo trend. Of course, the same can be said for "skaters" and shoes such as Vans. --EMC  Shizzle Dizzle  00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No one who I know who fits into the "emo" catagory would ever touch a pair of vans much less wear them. If you can show me some type of proof that they are emo related then and only then I will beleve you. Until then I will edit the page Once Agian since you keep adding this and won't consider the point of view I have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatetheboarding (talk • contribs) 00:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's evident that you're putting your efforts on nothing but opinion. Perhaps you need to read this post. We could care less about the "emo" people you know and what shoes they would not touch; Vans are a blatant trait of emo. What, do you think we pulled this out of the sky and put it into the article? --EMC  Shizzle Dizzle  00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok show me proof because so far you have none and I will not let you use this article to bring down a respected company's reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatetheboarding (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gladly:


 * "2) The style of clothing stereotypically worn by fans of emo music. This consists of, in general: tight band t-shirts or vintage 80's t-shirts, longer (messy) hair often died black, tight (usual girl's) pants, shoes by Vans or Converse, messenger bags, anything checkered (usually black-and-white or black-and-pink), studded belts, thick-framed glasses, neckties, etc.

(Note: girl emo kids often cut their hair short in the back and angled down in the front, less often died black)" - Urban Dictionary.com


 * "The look (for guys): shaggy hair, tight pants, vintage 80's tshirt, vans (shoes),tote bag swung around their waist with buttons and safety pins, thick framed glasses." - Urban Dictionary.com


 * Of course, these are not facts; these are simply examples that represent my previous statement that it's a widely recognized trait of "emo" to wear Vans style shoes. If the fact that those considered "emo" wear Vans shoes offends you (hence your claim that this brings down a respectable company, which is not my intent at all), then that's your own problem, which again, you need to refer to this post.


 * Secondly, show me proof that they aren't. You say it as though it's written in stone that it is not part of the "emo" trend.. --<font color="Green">EMC  Shizzle Dizzle  00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well For all we know you could have in fact wrote those. Second I do not need proof that vans are not emo, because there is no valide evidince that they are. It's like saying that The center of the moon is made out of cheese. We have no proof that it is or isn't since we have never been to the center of the moon. does that mean that it is. No. Case closed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skatetheboarding (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "For all we know you could have in fact wrote those." That makes no sense what-so-ever. It lists the date that each of those posts were written and by whom, which I assure you are not me. Secondly, the suggestion that you do not need proof is void because again, you are basing this on nothing but personal opinion (that's the last time I am pointing that out). I gladly provided links to represent what this article already stated before you deleted the text. Thirdly, there is no contrast between the center of the moon and this topic; there just isn't. We know that the center of the moon is not made out of cheese. The proposition that "we've never been there, so we don't know" it completely stupid. Again: you say it as though it is written in stone. Of course there's no valid evidence that they are, because this article did not state "emo people wear Vans". It stated that Vans are commonly warn by "emo" people, thusly, it is considered one of the more obvious traits of this trend. --<font color="Green">EMC  Shizzle Dizzle  01:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As your credibility slowly slips down the septic tank as evident in these recent vandalism warning of yours, I make it noted that anything you suggest will not be considered a valid suggestion from this point on. Thank you for playing! --<font color="Green">EMC  Shizzle Dizzle  01:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article on a slang term. Slang terms are defined by popular usage, and UrbanDictionary is the perfect place to find the popular usage. If Vans are associated with emo popularly, then that belongs in the article. --Switch 15:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

National Emo Kid Beatdown Day
At the very least there should be a link to National Emo Kid Beatdown Day from this article. --God <FONT FACE="Book Antiqua">Ω War 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No not really. We only put links to articles that provide a better understanding of the definition of emo or articles that contrast or are clearly evident that they are relevant to "emo". You wouldn't link an anti-Semetic Holiday to the Jew article, would you? Use your brain, please. --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper source
Are we allowed to use newspaper articles for sources on wikipedia? This sunday, the Chicago Tribune recently published an article about emos called "Finding emo" and I was wondering if I could reference it. --<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk) (Help Me Improve) 18:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's allowed. But there's something about that article that bothers me.  It strikes me as if the journalist was given an assignment to cover "emo", then did Internet searches to start her research.  It strikes me as slightly tabloid-ish, painting caricatures that may or may not be true.   (Especially using a 12-year-old as an expert on all things "emo".)  I couldn't find her "Emo Tim" on Myspace, and her discription of it sounds like it's a joke (if it exists).
 * If it were me, I would only include content from that article by specifically starting with, "In a May 2006 article for the Chicago Tribune, journalist Barbara Mahany claimed that..." --ChrisB 22:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * People who aren't members of the Chicago Tribune can't view the article online. --71.212.2.68 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
This article is very very very bias, and I'm putting a non-pov tag on it. Someone with lots of experience (and time) needs to clean this up. --Angrygoatface 23:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply adding an NPOV tag because you disagree with content is not acceptable. Adding the tag requires a discussion of what content is POV or how the article should be improved.  We can't read your mind, and can't defend what's in the article if you can't specifically explain what's wrong with it. --ChrisB 00:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As wonky as this article is, I agree with ChrisB. Additionally, Music Genre articles (especially those related to the Indie, Emo, Punk, and Gothic Subcultures) are usually slightly POV because there are very vague lines when it comes to music. To Spin, emo is a good thing. Pitchfork Media, to the best of my knowledge, considers the entire genre Trite and Maudlin (or whatever new word they pulled out of their thesaurus this week). Rolling Stone can't classify any genre/movement without at least 3 of the following tags added on; post, punk, core, synth, revival, indie. Depending on who you like (I hate all three of the above AMG all the way) you will be more or less likely to classify to different styles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragoonmac (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the NPOV tag. This article has been written from a pro-emo perspective. This article must be rewritten to display both sides of the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.150.72 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

MCR?
My chemical Romance is so not emo. who ever said that has no idea. MCR is more goth, ask an emo they wouldnt say they like MCR. --65.188.222.91 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm emo and I like MCR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.107.150 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's all personal opinion. Whether or not you consider them "emo", they have been considered, by many, to represent the emo (music), not the emo (slang). In fact, MTV and other pop culture media such as LaunchCast popularize them and categorize them under the genre "emo". Another good example of an emo (music) disputable band would be Avenged Sevenfold. And please, don't get all upset just because people call a favored band of yours "emo". We state facts, not opinions or emotions. Please be sure to look at NPOV. --EMC 04:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * according to their purevolume website, they are punk and rock. according to their myspace , they are rock, metal, and post hardcore. i think if they don't say their emo, then their not.- emopunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emopunk (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Goth? Fuck no —Preceding unsigned comment added by In Flames (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerrard personaly said that they aren't an emo band. check their wikipedia page for source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.97.156 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerard wouldn't know music if it hit him upside the head, despite the fact that he is loosely called a "vocalist". --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  20:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * MCR is DEFINATLY not emo, or goth. They were at first alternitive punk, now, unfortunalty, they are more Pop-Punk/glam rock/pop-punk. Same with FOB, P!ATD, AFI, & HIM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.127.106 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I don't think so. --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  ( t a l k ) 19:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, Trash, Wrong, and Insulting...Is objectivity DEAD!?!?
Yeah I "vandalized" this article, but being that this is a FREE encyclopedia, for anyone to edit, I have a right to change things. No I have a duty to change things IF the content is wrong (not factual) and/or biased. If you have to place a disclaimer at the beginning of an entry, the entry should be removed or edited to remove the questionable content until a non-biased definition is compiled. Until then less is more. This entry was VERY biased and it is a shame that I had to "vandalize" to make it more honest. Look at a real encyclopedia for examples of how to define a term in a NON- BIASED fashion please. Other entries in Wikipedia are quite well done, this one, however, was complete rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.201.238.248 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This brings up a discussion on how this article could be written. "Emo" is such a loosely defined term, like existentialism, and it suffers from the same problem in that there is a disagreement about what it actually refers to. However, unlike existentialism, scholars have not written works on how they perceive "Emo". So we're stuck with a dilemma: either we have a short article describing a broad concept, or we have a collection of different viewpoints which will require heavy editing to NPOVerize. How do others think this article should be written? --Someone42 07:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe I can help? Emo = kids listening to crappy, depressing music while they cut themselves and write about it on their myspace sites; haven't ever heard of The Cure, think they invented Goth, but haven't heard the term; often addicted to Ritalin. --Kar98 22:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... you seemed to sum up the worst possible incorrect and mainstream definition for emo possible. This is exactly the problem with the whole artical. Too many people actually believe that's what emo is. --Underwater 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. --Timeasimperialism 01:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As quoted from the article, "don't cry emo kid" --Psycho78m 05:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kar98 described an emo very well. If you want a definition of emo simply go look at My Chemical Romance. The members of that band are emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.54.100 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Goths again...
This article needs to mention the similarities between goths and emos. It would provide a better understanding of emos quicker. --DarkSideOfTheSpoon 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehhh...no. check this out and this out too. --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  ( t a l k ) 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Emo has nothing to do with goth other than that they are both musically derived from punk (goth from early punk, emo from hardcore). The fact that the term "emo" has come to partially replace the term "goth" as used by major media (i.e., satanic depressed kids who listen to Marilyn Manson and nothing to do with goth) should be mentioned though. --Switch 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Self Harm
In the article it states 'There is also a common stereotype that associates "emo" with self-harm, most notably cutting ... there is no evidence of any correlation between "emo" and self-harm.' I find, in my personal expirience that that statement is a blatant lie. I know plenty of people that call themselves 'emo' and a good 90% practice or have practiced, open self harm. I have also noticed that a lot of emos are attention whores. I'd like a second to add this to the article. On a last note, I also think that the article is WAY too biased in favor of emos. The fact is most emo people have no problems WHATSOEVER and simply make them to  feel special. THE END -- PAX -- Schafer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.101.11 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say the phrase "there is no evidence of any correlation between "emo" and self-harm." sounds rather dubious, as I don't know, but I doubt a good number of scientific studies have been done to ascertain the relationship between "emo" trends and self-harm. If they haven't, then there's no evidence either way. --81.154.232.187 18:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * yeh, I got rid of that statement. I think this article is really trying way too hard to be unbiased. The fact of the matter is that emos are widely criticized and they didn't develop the self harm stereotype for no reason. This cultural view needs to be acknowledged much more in the article. --Satchfan 13:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing the statement is disingenuous. There is no direct correlation.  It's the same thing as when people used to say that all Goth kids cut themselves.  It wasn't true, either.  A lot of people follow emo trends and listen to emo music and don't cut themselves.  A lot of cutters have nothing to do with "emo".  Do the members of Emo bands cut themselves?  So how is there a correlation?


 * And, remember, "I know plenty of people that call themselves 'emo' and a good 90% practice or have practiced, open self harm" is original research and cannot be used as supporting evidence in the article. --ChrisB 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there were no evidence, the stereotype wouldn't exist. Just because its generalizing doens't mean it doesn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satchfan (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's absurd. If it happens, we need a direct source that says so.  If 5% of a population does something, and it becomes a stereotype, it doesn't mean that the other 95% are doing it as well.  I'm not going to claim that those percentages are factual, but you get the point.  There is no evidence that a substantial element of "emo" folks are cutting themselves.


 * There are thousands of "emo" music fans who wear the clothes and follow the trends. But there is NO EVIDENCE that a substantial element of that population cuts.  Seriously, everybody who buys a Hawthorne Heights record and wears long bangs and eyeliner cuts?  What exactly are you claiming? --ChrisB 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

ChrisB
ChrisB, is there some kind of compromise reachable regarding the self harm issue? Perhaps the statement could be rephrased; perhaps change to "no subtantial evidence" or similar? --Satchfan 03:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Maybe something like: "However, apart from the anecdotal, there is no significant evidence of any correlation between emo and self-harm."? --ChrisB 07:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That works for me. --Satchfan 08:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Social scene
The article covers too little of the social scene associated with emo.

Some emo article should fully describe the typical traits of emo fans or people from the "emo" culture. It should also include how the stereotypes are related to the real "emo" scene.

I have noticed the conspicous emergence of this group in this year, distinguished primarily by clothing and behaviour. Many of my friends have derided what they consider the typical emo characteristics, and thereby brought these to my attention before I had witnessed them independently. Many people I have seen strongly fit these characteristics, thus verifying many of those impressions.

This article and other emo articles, however, inadequately cover these characteristics.

The song-parody "I must be Emo" by Hollywood Undead lists many of the characteristics outsiders associate with emos. --Rintrah 12:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, great! So go ahead and edit the artical and add in all the extra information you know! Don't worry about making mistakes... we'll clean up any rough parts afterwards. --Underwater 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But before you do that, you may want to read this. --ChrisB 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, this whole article is original research! But since it can be verified by empirical evidence, it's all a moot point. I doubt Jimbo would office this article over its lack of sources, because none really exist. Any articles about emos in print or on the internet are almost always sourceless biased BS. --The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * True, but we can certainly do better than "I've seen people doing this, so let's add it to the article." In his wording: "any of my friends have derided what they consider".  That doesn't work for Wikipedia. --ChrisB 05:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I gotta go with ChrisB on this one. I don't mean to denounce anybody else's efforts or status on Wikipedia, but Chris has been one of the more valued individuals who have worked on this article for quite some time now, and even putting that aside, he's absolutely correct. --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  ( t a l k ) 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Warped Tour
So I'm apparently the only person that has a problem with this statement?

"Followers of this trend are generally fans of pop rock groups who appear at Warped Tour in the 00s."

So we're basically saying that "emo" is an offshoot of the Warped Tour? Or that all "emo" bands play the Warped Tour, including those in the UK where there is no Warped Tour? Or that only pop rock bands play the Warped Tour? Or that all people who dress emo attend the Warped Tour? Especially all of the people who dress "emo" in the UK, where there is no Warped Tour?

I don't get it. And I certainly don't like it being jammed into the article without discussion and without a source. --ChrisB 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can't believe somebody would need this explaining to them, especially somebody who heavily edits the article.


 * In the Emo (music) article, it reads;
 * "Correctly or not, emo has often been used to describe such bands as AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, Taking Back Sunday, The Starting Line, The Used, and Thrice."


 * These bands play Warped Tour in the 00s, particularly popular are the pop rock groups such as The Used, My Chemical Romance, Something Corporate, Fall Out Boy, etc.


 * And from the Emo (slang) article it reads;
 * "The other popular style of dress focuses on darker colors. Commonly seen elements include dark colored hair (often dyed either black or an unnatural dark hue), males wearing pants tailored for females, lip, eyebrow, and labret piercings, and dark make-up on males and females (most notably black eyeliner, although red eyeshadow is becoming increasingly popular). Followers of this trend are generally fans of pop rock groups who appear at Warped Tour in the 00s."


 * Nowhere does it say everybody who follows that trend and listens to bands such as MCR, The Used, etc go to Warped Tour, it simply states that the people who follow the newest "sect" of what is labelled "emo" are generally fans of the pop rock groups who play Warped, similar to the "emos" of the 90s been associated/fans of the “indie emo” movement, which is also mentioned in the article. --Deathrocker 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, you drew up this conclusion on your own, explained right here, which makes it original research. Wiki explicity forbids original research.  So unless you have a verifiable source for your argument, it can't be included, no matter how strongly you feel about it.


 * Beyond that, it's just ridiculous. There are a lot of people who display emo fashion that don't listen to the bands you're describing.  What does "generally" mean?  50%?  75%?  If it's "not all", then is it a majority?  And, regardless of the answer, can you prove it?


 * Furthermore, your generalization doesn't need to be there because the paragraph describes the fashion for what it actually is - we don't need to quantify some random description as to who's wearing it.


 * The claim that the new "emo" is related to the Warped Tour belongs in the music article, not here. It doesn't have anything to do with "emo" attitudes or fashion trends.  Again, there are significant subsets of people who wear the fashion but don't listen to the bands and who listen to the bands but don't wear the fashion.  Your argument draws a link between the two where it doesn't exist.


 * Again, find a source that supports your argument, and I wouldn't make that big a deal about it. But I know for a fact that you can't provide a source.  You're pulling this out of your head and forcing us to accept it.


 * And, for the record, there were no "emos" in the 90s "indie emo" scene. That term didn't appear until this decade. --ChrisB 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoever wrote this artical sounds like an ignorant ass who was looking at this artical from a biased point of view. No, prefrence in music does not specify one subculture, such as I listen to a few of those bands on that list, yet if one were to see me, one would harldy define me as "emo." Also, there is a difference between pop-punk and "emo" (which is actually called post-hardcore). For example, My Chemical Romance and The Used- pop-punk. From First to Last and Brand New-post hardcore. Yes, you may believe that all emo kids listen to these bands, but on an article that was meant to dicuss the term "emo" as a slang, it would hardly be appropriate to discuss the musical choices of these so called "emo" kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.205.239 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I would highly recommend re-reading the article. Nowhere in it does it claim that "emo kids" listen to My Chemical Romance or The Used, or what their "musical choices" are.  The article intentionally says nothing about the music.  (The Used aren't even mentioned in the article.) --ChrisB 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

paragraph doesn't belong here.
"Though the original emo scenes were not exclusionary, the modern "emo" scene has developed into a "gay friendly" scene. Though it's unclear whether it's related to the diminished "macho" elements of emo music or the "gay friendly" nature of the scene, it has become commonplace for detractors to use "emo" in combination with popular discriminatory gay slurs, such as "emo fag"."

This paragraph is completely POV. Either someone reword it, or it should be deleted from this article. --dposse 21:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WTF?
Neither of your links have reliability, and this whole article should fall under original research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.164.187 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

pic???
A GFDL or public domain photo of someone all emo'd-out would be a great addition to this page, if anyone has a digi camera and an emo friend that is willing to pose.  young <font color="#CFB53B">american (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cant you just find a picture on myspace? Maybe I Should do that. *does it* --65.188.222.91 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we don't know the copyright status of any of those photos. The best way to have an appropriate photo would basically have to have a wikipedian personally snap a picture of a willing friend that is dressed in an emo style. there are other ways, but this would be the best possible course to ensure compliance with the GFDL.  young <font color="#CFB53B">american  (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion at the top of this talk page: Does anyone agree with me that this article needs to be visually represented? --ikiroid | (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The current image is really bad. We have dyed black, swept-down hair - that's it. It doesn't show the clothes, and the model doesn't even have the stereotypical labret. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwitChar (talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, I'm new to this whole wikipedia thing. But I know that I have studied the whole Emo fashion, music and Attitude for about a year now and I know that I have all the nessessary clothing to pose for a stereotypical emo. I have the band t-shirt, the studded belt, the emo nerdy glasses, the high top converse, the tight black jeans and I have even dyed my hair jet black. I'll get I pic of myself and post it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmuncher (talk • contribs) 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free use one of my pictures lol. --Lordofchaosiori 17:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wrist slitters
Isn't Emo also a way of meaning a guy who slits his wrists? If so, why isn't it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.12.163 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a common misconception. Altho there maybe emos that do self-harm, it is something consistent across all types of people&mdash;especially teens. Emos merely used as a Scapegoat to criticize the popularity of such a thing. --<tt> The </tt> i  kiro  id  (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. The wrist slitting is a stereotype applied to emos (before "Emo" became a widely known, the same stereotype was usually applied to goths) and thus self-mutilation is often considered to be "emo" even if the person doing it otherwise isn't. --Ashmodai 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's often a blatant stereotype. Often people that appear emo (or are emo) are accused of slitting their wrists. I go to high school, so I know all about this. I think it's just a stupid stereotype. Take this quote from my friend's girlfriend, for example: "I hate emos. It's okay if you slit your wrists, just don't tell everybody about it." That kind of stereotype pisses me off, but I'm sure it's still true in some cases (stereotypes usually don't exist if they aren't true to at least some extent). --bob rulz 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be added to the article that 'Emo's are stereotyped as slitting their wrists, but this is not the case with the majority of emos, infact people that are not emo's slit their wrists and called emo' or something along those lines? It might help people understand that the stereoype doesn't apply to all emo's, and that people who slit their wrists aren't necesarily emo's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.15.187 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Heck, no, those kind of sterotyoes are VERY wrong. Wrist cutters are called masochists(sp?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.210.127.106 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares if it's wrong? Look, we don't censor here on Wikipedia. I believe it should be added. After all, this is an article on the slang definition, and that is one of the stereotypes commonly associated with emo. --<font color="Black">em <font color="Green">c <font color="Black">!  ╬  ( t a l k ) 19:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, I think the S&M folks would take offense at that, as most of them are not at all suicidal. Wrist cutters are called wrist cutters, just leave it at that. Beyond this, I agree with emc. --treed 21:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Who cares if it's wrong?"?!! Would you like it if someone said that everytime someone wrote a wikipedia article? Psshh. I swear... people nowadays... --Lordofchaosiori 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gay Friendly???
''Though the original emo scenes were not exclusionary, the modern "emo" scene has developed into a "gay friendly" scene. Though it's unclear whether it's related to the diminished "macho" elements of emo music or the "gay friendly" nature of the scene, it has become commonplace for detractors to use "emo" in combination with popular discriminatory gay slurs, such as "emo fag".'' What are they saying? The scene is "gay friendly", so some "emo" people are gay and that's why people call them "emo fags"? Sounds kinda dumb to me. I think this should be re-written or deleted. Your thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underwater (talk • contribs) 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No that's not it at all. Do you even understand what that section of the article says? --EMC 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. The article is saying that the Emo culture is OK with other people being gay, including themselves, which is an oversimplification, like saying all mexicans like beans, but that's what the article is saying. Someone could clean that up. (I'm mexican and I don't like beans by the way haha.) --Lordofchaosiori 17:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Attention
I'm personally sick of people, especially non-registered users, crying about how their favored bands (ex. "MCR", "Fallout Boy", "Dashboard Confessional") are not emo, and then back up their statements with absolutely nothing and/or nothing but personal opinion. It is a waste of space on Wikipedia and a waste of energy for other users who feel obligated to respond to such comments/proposals.

To those who this statement directly relates to: if the idea of one of your favored bands being considered "emo" personally offends you, that's your own quandary. Now, I don't have a problem with objections such as these, but I do have a problem with these objections when they are based on personal opinion, and at often times, nothing at all. If you have intelligible, supported, and logical suggestions or proposals, feel free to share them. If not, kindly leave your thoughts to yourself so those who wish to edit this article successfully can do so without hiatus. This goes for all people who wish to share their input on this edit page, for I've realized that this edit page is full of crap that is very unconstructive and only mars this edit page. It's this kind of behavior that makes pages like this under the category of "Wikipedia controversial topics". --EMC 23:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * TRUE!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I'm emo and I know emo music, (I'm not saying I'm a source), and almost all other emo people agree with me that Dashboard Confessional is not Emo. But you're right, people should back up their statements with something. --Lordofchaosiori 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

stupid bullshit
The whole thing. I removed some unnecessary, unfunny junk from paragraph 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.56.49 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

merge from "Patch (emo)"
I merged in a line from Patch (emo) (now redirected here). Can someone verify that the line is actually correct, as I don't know much at all about the fashion/culture to know myself! --Chuq 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if that term is used, it's not commonly used (and the statement is unsourced). An "emo patch" is generally something you attach to your backpack or messenger bag. --ChrisB 04:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Chris, looks like its a neologism by the creator of Patch (emo). I'll mark it (the patch redirect) for deletion. --Chuq 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Image
can we possibly get a better picture of what an emo looks like, just having a caricature makes it seem as though it can only be bad to be an emo, or be associated with emo culture. --Fabio 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Emo kids don't get their pictures taken. The bright light causes them great pain and photographs prove the emo person to actually exist, something to fight to make sure people don't know. --H2P 07:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * agree with Fabio about needing a photograph. From where I come from the image given bares little resemblance to what an emo looks like, and there are pictures of people of an emo fashion (lets not get nasty about this H2P) --Woodgreener 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I might suggest using this artwork (or something like it) as pictures. It seems to give a pretty clear idea of some of the fashion accessories associated with the "emo" look. I leave it to someone else, as images are not really my forte. --IllaZilla2 08:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)