Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 2

Problems
This wiki doesn't really get it. In my opinion its pretty poor that the opening paragraph doesn't mention the cultural stereotype of an 'emo' person, considering that this article is called Emo - slang. Its about being melodramatic and being irrationaly depressed or suicidal for attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.12.60 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's true. But the people who give this article the most attention want it to flatter themselves. Mentioning the stereotype doesn't fit this scheme, so they emphasise more positive details instead. Although the 'emo' tag does strongly connote this stereotype, emos prefer descriptions of themselves to flatter them. --Rintrah 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's genius. We can't have an NPOV article without trashing the crap out of the subject? Visit Goth and see how they've handled it. Articles aren't here to mock or judge. They're here to explain the subject in realistic terms.


 * And if you care, I wrote a large percentage of what's here, and I'm in no way affiliated with anything that's currently "emo". I'm not trying to "flatter" anything; I'm simply trying to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. --ChrisB 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * what a load of crap, panic! at the disco aren't considered emo --Nickybutt23 06:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that generally when you call someone emo they take it as a putdown, and it generally used as a putdown. I have never seen anyone ever calling someone emo in a nice way, or anyone take it in a nice way. I see no problem with covering the topic in it's generaly used and accepted form, even it it would seem to be bashing. Look at Jock (subculture). It is a little bit nicer on the subject, but it still covers it in the generally used and accepted way. --LordShard 18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "emos aren't actually depressed, moreover attention seeking". That's really stereotypical and biased. I'm sure at the very least some "emos" suffer from clinical or bipolar depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.185.244 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It may also need to be mentioned that people may act "emo" to attract the opposite sex, espciall young men attempting to attract young women, by appearing to be emotional or depressed, while not actually being so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.187.78 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * For that reason I'm glad the authors included the reference to extreme nice guy syndrome. Although some girls may be attracted to the melodrama, for most of the population it neuters your prospects. On another note, there is a genuine slice of the youth population that experiences genuine depression and compulsive tendencies toward self-harm. It is interesting when the non-clinical population takes up these behaviors voluntarily, but more interesting that it gives the genuinely afflicted subset a semi-acceptable outlet for traditionally hidden emotions. Having this outlet for expression may not give them any greater relief, but at least they don't feel as isolated, having a subculture that shares and glorifies their melancholy and volatility. --64.113.93.205 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the point I tried to make earlier:


 * The article, in its present state, describes the emo subculture according to what can be objectively ascertained. However, the connotations of "emo" are equally signficant, particularly concerning its stereotype, as this is what is generally understood by the term. Therefore, more information of the perceptions and the stereotype associated with "emo" should be included. Bands and adherents of the emo music are self-concious of this implied meaning, to cite an example of its significance. --Rintrah 17:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to the comment about depressed people feeling less isolated, that's just rediculous. The stereotyped Emo culture makes it much more dificult for those afflicted with such mental illness to feel accepted as many feel that by discussing their illness', they will be labeled as Emo, and made an outcast. Additionally, with the few who do feel "normal", or "accepted", they are less inclined to seek help, feeling that they are "normal" and have nothing wrong.
 * The percieved emo culture does nothign but make it harder for those with depression or bi-polar to seek help. --Evilio 11:38, 30 July 2006

Kudos
This page is much more useful than the music one as a simple explanation of what Emo actually means. I read the music page and was none the wiser. I read this one and I get it. Thanks to whoever's responsible. --Cardinal Wurzel 22:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hal jordan?
What's with the Hal jordan? --69.247.65.212 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My Site
I have released a new site which aims to give the most definitive guide about Emo Music on the internet, I want to add it to the "External Links" section but apparently I have to discuss it here, so please tell me what you think and if you want to contribute then please do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2002 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As mentioned already, please read WP:EL. Sites added to Wikipedia should contain unique information or should be notable before being added to Wikipedia. Site owners in particular are strongly discouraged from adding their own websites. (See WP:EL's "Links normally to be avoided".) If your site is notable and contains useful (and unique) information, someone else will deem it so and add it.


 * But, at the moment, your site contains nothing but articles pulled off of the Internet, including a complete pull from Wikipedia's Emo articles. That hardly meets Wikipedia guidelines for an acceptable external link. --ChrisB 17:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Emo Song?
Should the Emo Song be mentioned in this article? --Schwarzes Nacht 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely! Haha, it should say something like "this is a song about stereotypical emo culture with a background of keyboard demo music" and there should be a link to it. --InformationOverload 10:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism: July 06
"Emo is a slang term used to describe complete homosexuals. F-U-C-K YOU WIKIPEDIA, GO DIE IN A FIRE!!!"

That is the first sentence of the Emo (slang) page on July 29, 2006. – SilverBulletx3talkcontributions 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people try way too hard. --Onias 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Somebody has some problems to work out. I'm glad that the article is locked now.Duckmurderer 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckmurderer (talk • contribs) 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you need to calm down. you have way too much time on your hands to come to wikipedia to just bash on people. at least i am here for a reason to help out people and spread happiness and well-being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.165.19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Needless Unedit
The term "emo" in relation to music, is getting more and more distorted. It has been used to describe bands of completely different natures, and as such is normally unreliable. Depending on who is being asked, emo is used to describe "post-hardcore" bands such as Rise Against, to softer bands such as Dashboard Confessional. Emo as a term in the music industry has become distorted and so encompassing it is completely unusable.

Why was this undone, sourced or not it is accurate, and if it is not up to your standards then edit it not delete it. Emo has become a term that relates to anything and everything music and this article needs to say something about it. Emo can no longer even be considered a viable genre as too many completely different bands are being placed under it. At least put the main idea of the above into the article. Or give a reason its not true here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * yea. emo (the style) is totally music based. That is where emo styles came from. 'Scene', on the other hand, is style based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.165.19 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrible
This article sucks. It needs a complete rewrite or be deleted, it is completely unhelpful and undescriptive of both the actual culture, the precieved culture, and the music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about the slang word, not the music. Don't see the point in deleting it, as it is, in my opinion, a good basis for building something bigger and better. --krikkert (Talk) 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but the term is related to all those things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.0.62 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You've got that right. --Chavila 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In General
Quite frankly, I find this article to be beyond offensive and one-sided. Just because someone wears girl pants and dyes their hair DOES NOT MAKE THEM EMO. And also, someone is "emo," not "an emo."

Emo, within the blanket of scene, is an extremely offensive term, and I think that needs to be addressed without someone being completely ignorant. Not saying I'll do this, but one day, someone's going to mess with the wrong "emo kid" and get their teeth knocked out. :] --Ridethefire3211 03:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of people say they are emo, but they just dress in black and call themselves emo. I have yet to meet a "real" emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.136 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I would call a "poser" or a "wannabe". --UnDeRsCoRe 22:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is also a wikipedia article on the word fuck, not to mention the list of ethnic slurs. "Emo" is a real thing, and wikipedia articles are about reality. Get over it. --Last_Drop_of_Sanity 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

vintage → vintage
→  --148.81.137.2 09:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Why try?
It is not possible to give a clear definition of emo that everyone will understand. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to do anything related to emo that anyone will understand. Hmmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.61.66 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Emo Slang"
"EMOFAG" is a particularly ongoing and common phrase as an insult. I reckon the article should contain it for reference... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystaliser (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Second that! --Kestrel 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Emotard" & "EmoHomo" are other slang/insults that should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.95.204 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re-organisation of this article. More depth required?
Given the subject matter, this article clearly needs to be larger and more in-depth. Particularly the section entitled "fashion and culture". It needs to be called simply "culture" and then have fashion as a sub-section. Suggestions for other sub-sections, please?

Also, a main section entitled "controversy", where stereotypes/criticisms etc. can be listed, might be a good idea. We're not looking for opinions, remember, just the noting of established criticisms/stereotypes/whatever, for the sake of better understanding.

Finally, can we PLEASE just have some impartiality from people? This has the potential to be a really fascinating article, if everyone pulls together and forgets their personal views on this subject. --Leowatkins 19:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are asking people to forget their personal views on a controversial topic? Well, I suppose if humans and leprauchans together can forget their differences, so can humans among themselves!


 * Seriously, if you create those sections, no-one will oppose you, and you would most likely improve the article, except in the stereotypes and criticisms. This idea is a feast for controversy. Some people desparately want it, and others never want it to appear (see above for examples).


 * Impartiality is extremely difficult, because this article is not written with a retinue of sources. Only an academic could write this with a serious pretence of impartiality, but even then, hordes would still decry it for bias. --Rintrah 13:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, i think think the only way we're ever going to make this article truely representative is if we emphasise the variation of use/misuse of the term "emo" and try to represent all the different forms it takes, as and when our attention is drawn to them. --Leowatkins 15:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Emo (slang) --> Emo (stereotype)
We should rename this article to Emo (stereotype). Calling a word slang degrades it's percieved value and is therefore POV. --God Ω War 03:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing about the word "slang" that degrades its value. "Slang" simply means that the word is not generally accepted in an official (read: dictionary) sense.  Wikipedia has numerous articles utilizing similar titles, such as Hack (slang).


 * Anyway, "stereotype" would be a false title, as the term isn't limited to the stereotype. --ChrisB 04:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything, changing it to Emo (stereotype) would degrade its value. --Switch 08:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, isn't that what the culture is, a stereotype? To be part of the culture, you have to conform to the stereotype. So moving it to Emo (stereotype) is redundant. --Onias 16:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you must be uncertain of the meanings of those terms, as it seems to me that the word 'stereotype' is clearly much more likely to be deemed POV than the word 'slang'. --Ax0l0tl 05:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that using the word 'stereotype' is more likely to be perceived as POV, and that the current title better conforms to Wikipedia standards. (in other words, /metoo) --12.116.162.162 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I always considered Emo as a part of the list of youth subcultures, right along nerds, punks, goths, jocks, preps, etc. My suggestion is moving it to Emo (culture) or Emo (subculture), to be consistent with these similar articles: Cyber (subculture), Goth subculture, Hip hop culture, Indie (culture), Jock (subculture), Rivethead (subculture), Teddy Boy (youth culture) etc- -Anklepants 08:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. "emo (slang)" (to define the use as a general mood) should possibly be a separate article to "emo (subculture)" --Jeffro77 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hysterically funny and...emo?
You guys are hilarious. Emo can mean so many different things to different people. I have a friend who says "I'm feeling emo" when she's feeling amotional, sad, depressed, etc. But you guys are hysterically funny. You all have just proved that, at least on this talk page, anyone who is emo will come to wikipedia to scream and cuss at each other to prove that they are right about a topic that is so new and vague that no one actually has the "definition". You all have made my day. God bless! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.163.212 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually what happened was, the people with actual SENSE defined "Emo (Slang)" just fine, but then the emo kids came along and complained because their specific situation was not addressed in the article. --Last_Drop_of_Sanity 13:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, Academia concerning the Emo.
Here's the big problem. I am not an emo, and I don't know much about emos, which is why I chose them for research.

I usually trust Wikipedia.org for all sorts of information, and I made the serious mistake of volunteering to discuss what an emo is and whatnot. I'm researching them for a psychology class, and I've already hit about 12 sites--none of which are any help in the objectiveness department, except for the Emo Music section. What I wanted to focus on was the Social Group known as the Emo, from their trends (in fashion), to their demographic (age, economic status, etc) all the way to their philosophies. I got half way through this talk page (after reading a pretty skimpy article on Emos right here in Wikipedia.org).

My professor wants me to discuss them in an objective and poised manner, but most of the slants are negative, which won't be good for presentation. He lumped me under the Psychological Diseases chapter and I was thinking to myself: wtf? Why did he put my topic there?

He probably already has a bias that emos are completely bi-polar and depressed, otherwise he would've... put them somewhere else?

Yeah, help?

(I don't know how to sign this--this is the first time I've done this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.200.20 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the major problem with your assignment is that there is no social group universally called "emo". You can't call any band emo without someone disagreeing with you. You can't call any person or trend emo without someone disagreeing. There are very few people who call themselves "emo". I would just utilise what you've come to associate "emo" with. If you need to do research, I think the best place thing be to go to UrbanDictonary's definition of "emo", as well as the MySpace group called "The Emo Army" or similar groups, and talk to them. I can't help you any more than that. --Switch 01:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Anon,


 * I think the emo subculture is a really interesting topic to look into. I have my final year thesis due next week, so I can't help you out much. But the first paper you should look into is Emo Music and Youth Culture by Brian Bailley (link). It discusses emo in the context of engaging with youth through education. It's thoughtfully written (unlike many of the tabloid newspaper articles which are often just plain wrong) though my only criticism of it is that it paints emos as emotionally vulnerable rather than people who embrace emotions and find solace in the music. Andy Grenwald's Nothing Feels Good might also help you gain an understanding of the subject. From the Amazon preview it seems thoughtful though I haven't had time to read it in full (link).


 * Beyond those the next thing you probably want to look into is the music and our emo (music) article might be helpful there. Presuming you are discussing what that article calls third-wave emo (post-2000), you might be able to get a sense of it from the lyrics of songs. Emo music is often misinterpreted as I think in emo music there is a desire to convey very strong emotions with very strong imagery often in a far more graphic way than mainstream pop would. This leads to lyrics like those from Hawthorne Heights' Ohio is for Lovers "So cut my wrists and black my eyes. \ So I can fall asleep tonight, or die. \ Because you kill me." and Taking Back Sunday's You're So Last Summer "The truth is you could slit my throat and with my one last gasping breath \ I'd apologize for bleedin' on your shirt." Outsiders may not realize that this is mostly metaphor and the guys from Hawthorne Heights discuss that in an interview here. Nevertheless lyrics like these and others in emo are, in my opinion, indicative of the emphasis the subculture places on emotion, emotional expression ("dressed in a fashion that's fitting to the inconsistencies of my moods") and on this notion that there are no shameful emotions. This notion that emotions ought to be expressed not suppressed is something that is not fully embraced by wider society and is probably a partially responsible for all the shit emo kids put up with &mdash; but ideologies that run counter to mainstream thought are the essence of all forms of punk not just emo.


 * Also you might want to cover something about the conflict over what is emo and what isn't and how a subculture forms around a label that some people don't even like or if an emo subculture even exists at all. Many prototypical bands of the genre reject the label outright, witness Taking Back Sunday (link) and My Chemical Romance (link). Probably the biggest name in third-wave emo that accepts the label is Silverstein (link note categories). The Used also seem not to object too much to the screamo label.


 * Finally don't confuse emo with the goth subculture, it's a surprisingly common mistake but the two are very different. This is in terms of the way they identify themselves, their music and their feelings towards society (Goths seem more cynical to me). However parallels between the two can be drawn because both are derived from punk and both embrace romanticism to an extent. Finally appreciate that there is an element of humour about the wider perception of emo in the modern scene. And this is evident in everything from Fall Out Boy's needlessly long titles on their second album From Under the Cork Tree (like Get Busy Living Or Get Busy Dying (Do Your Part To Save The Scene And Stop Going To Shows)) to the names of pro-emo communities themselves like Cry Baby Emo Kids. Even in the early post-2000 emo stuff there were hints of humour.


 * If you do find anything interesting in your research please post it back here or send it to me because I really enjoy learning about this stuff. Any readers out there who agree/disagree with anything I've said I also welcome your thoughts. --Cedars 12:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa, thanks for that. I think I'll link up emo culture (especially emo music--thank you for mentioning some of those highlights) up with some Freud and Jung analysis, but I won't go very much into detail concerning that.  I was considering calling the "emo" culture a pathology, but I think it's very similar to other cliques one is likely to see in high school and college, so I guess it isn't fair to give that culture a "pathology" stigma.  I interviewed a few people who claimed they were "emo", but I think I'm starting to get the trend.  People who procclaim themselves "emo" generally aren't.  They use it more as a motif (on some people the "emo" fashion seems to jive well, and I don't mind), and sometimes they just enjoy the music.  I have gotten into a scruffle with a few offended parties who were more than insulted at the suggestion of even resembling someone "emo", but I looked for all the signs that popped up in the Urban Dictionary: the glasses, the pants, the hair, the makeup.  Tepid responses. I'm going to copy and paste this page into my notes section when I present, so thank you, Cedars, and thank you Switch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.200.20 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Emo (Nemo)
Nemos are an emerging subclass of the emos, and not all is known just yet. But what we do know, is that "Neo Emo (Nemo)" is a title given to a person who once was an "emo", but has taken it to a whole different level. I.E. The new breed of "emo." One such example is the lead singer of "My Chemical Romance." Prior to the renewed interest in the band, he was a blatant emo. However, with the debut of his new song, his hair has been dyed white, and his clothing style has made an obvious change. Neo-emos, follow many of the same rituals as a emo, but with some obvious visual differences. Update this article at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scyufg (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely preposterous. To even think about making an addition to this article for such a trivial reason is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poj21 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * that's not really true if a person isn't emo then they are not emo --207.69.136.200 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-write
To put it simply, this article is complete and utter tosh. It needs a total re-write, and I am seriously consideing starting the whole thing again. Any thoughts? From people who have no opinion on 'emo'? --HawkerTyphoon 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't we mention that Emo's can't fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameskeates (talk • contribs) 08:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Wikipedia is striving for more incisive information than Britannica. Poets might also want to know what "emo" rhymes with. --Rintrah 07:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chemo. Remo (as in a slang term for remedial). If you mumble a little, lemur. It's an endless world of possibilities... --86.0.232.60 10:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be old and out of the loop, but from my perspective all I see are a bunch of Melodramatic Kids in makeup and dark cloths pretending to be worldworn intelectuals (can you say GOTH 2.0?) Before the Goth were the Rebels. Before the Rebels were the Beat kids, before the Beat kids.... You get the Idea. Sorry EMO kids, you are not original no matter how desperately you want to believe you were the first generation to achive social and political awareness and dispair at what you've found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.197.126 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wear the clothes considered 'emo', but i don't prance around cutting and saying "I am so rebel, I am an intellectual, and i am the first group to have achieved this"... i just prance around saying... "I don't look like you... so what?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.165.19 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What you just said is a stereotype. So is the comment above yours. It's almost impossible to define "emo," because everything who's "emo" defines it differently. Everybody's different, so every emo isn't going to be a carbon copy of the next one... therefore, every emo defines "emo" differently. Not only that, but in my opinion, if there are so many definitions of "emo," either most people are emo or almost nobody is. That said, This article should be about the emo stereotype, instead. Either that, or include as many definitions as possible. Who agrees?? --Chavila 15:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An article on the stereotype would be easier to verify, but on the contra side, there would be more whining on the talk page. I think the title Emo (slang) warrants a description of the stereotype in the article body because the slang more strongly connotes it; whereas if it were called Emo subculture, the article should describe the subculture. Whatever the case, the drama on the talk page is fun to observe, notwithstanding the wretched state of the article. --Rintrah 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose you're right, and yes... the drama is interesting. --Chavila 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Emo (subculture)
Emo is more than just slang, I believe the article should be divided into an "Emo (subculture)" article, because there are many things other than the slang, the article would list typical things about emo basically just like this article, just maby include steriotyped and stuff of the emo as well as many other things, I know, I am basically an emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.157.105 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can an admin please correct this?
the page is protected but still says "emo people are extreme homosexuals". can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.45 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha, bit of an oversight there. (Fixed it... didn't need to be an admin though, just need to register). --SColombo 06:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Before Posting On the Factual Nature of This Article....
Before complaining about what "is" or "isn't" considered "Emo" by your definition, you have to understand something: Just as the articule accurately describes, there were three major periods for "Emo" music. The original Washington movement of local and very raw bands who often did such emotional actions as to cry on stage; a late 90's movement usually defined by Weezer's Pinkerton album and vintage clothing; and the most recent black hair/tight pants transition incorporating such bands as Panic! At the Disco.

What has been said above is absolutely nothing disputable. It does not matter if you as a fan of Weezer or Panic! At the Disco consider one band/style or another more or less "Emo." These are simply the three very different stages that the "Emo" sound/style has undergone and you need to accept this. The actual article does a good job of tracking the transitions and unless you are planning to add more information to one of the seperate parts, please don't bother editting the article because you feel as it stands it's not "your" definition. The way it is written should satisfy any lay person's understanding of the three divisions. Wikipedia also uses an unbiased approach to defining an idea and is not "stereotyping" by simply describing the standard attire or musical taste of a particular group, it is merely better describing it for those curious to know more. Please take all of that into consideration before altering this article for your own personal satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.207.160 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * True. The topic is also controversial because the "emo" image, in popular conception, is partly defined by the negative stereotyping of outsiders. It seems the "emo" subculture in itself is not coherently defined by its practitioners; those subscribing to it are apparently more influenced by the music than the social group. As a result, different emos will try to define the culture according to their tastes, and their various understandings of it.


 * By contrast, the goth subculture, though not homogenous, has an apparently clearer and less disputable definition to its practitioners, as far as I can glean as an outsider.


 * People can easily argue about what is and is not emo because no citations compel anyone to accept a particular interpretation. It is either a subject of pride or revulsion, so people are tempted to edit it without regard for verifiability.


 * I took an interest in this article because I wanted to understand why there were so many skinny guys wearing tight jeans and make-up who apparently materialised from no where on the streets. This article does not yet satisfactorily answer that. --Rintrah 07:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ...because MTV decided to sell more crap by making crappy bands who wear tight jeans and make-up really popular. And they succeeded. --Switch 12:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MTV does often dictate music tastes to its viewers. But to create a whole sub-culture, I believe, a television channel has to do more than play certain music videos, interview band members, and produce television shows aimed at teenagers — at least I cannot recall any television shows which have created a subculture. You need to support your proposition with evidence, as appealing as your denunciation might be as a sentiment alone. --Rintrah 15:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They already did it once with nu metal (see Merchants of Cool on IMDB, and their transscript and streaming video), it's no stretch to realise once nu metal was out they'd do the same thing with something else. They didn't make a subculture; they just took one, made it more appealing to the "rebellious" kids they get paid to brainwash, and started polluting the airwaves with it. --Switch 12:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * TV is full of shit, infact all sources of media (excluding encyclopedias and other non biased databases)are full of shit because has not anyone realised that everything you see is not what is actually the most important but what will get the most coverage for example, 1 person being murdered in your neighbourhood has the same sort of impact on TV as 10000 people starving in a 3rd world culture, because media is just there to make money, they dont care what the concequences are. So we put this into effect and if they know people are depressed more than ever and to a larger amount of people they will of course find someway to get those viewers in which is why current society is an it is now.


 * another thing is why do you care about other people so much? let people live their lives the way they want and stop being abusive to emos, they look different. Thats the same as making fun of someone that is disabled just cause they look different. When the truth is that its actually quite childish and if you do that, id say personally your as bad as terrorists because they are following their religion that non-believers have to be killed. Well following a predujist value means that your as fucked up as them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.10.229.124 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I feel there should be a separate soapbox page for impromptu essays. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. --Rintrah 17:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? You're comparing the mass killing if innocent civilians for political or religious reasons with calling someone "emo?" Also, disabled people don't want to be disabled, it just happens. Emo people choose to be what they are. You can't really consider both of them the same thing. But back to the terrorism. You're so wrong it's not even worth going on about. --Last_Drop_of_Sanity 21:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I read about a page of the transcript and realised something I suspected: television documentaries look scizophrenic in their transcripts. The text in a documentary jumps from one person to the next, without any steady progression or delineation of ideas. It makes the thesis of Amusing Ourselves to Death seem more real. Documentaries are not much more than entertainment packages. They are sometimes useful for subjects on history, but virtually worthless for everything else. Read a book instead. --Rintrah 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, so, so wrong. I can't even begin to comprehend the thought processes that you went through to post that.
 * (Also, I posit that MTV, a corporation that makes its money from producing manufactured music, is more full of shit than an independent documentary).
 * (Also also, if 10000 people starving in the thtird world got as much coverage as one murder near me, there would be a lot more publi outrage about it. It would be all over the news every day.)
 * (Also also also, calling people names is as bad as terrorism? And since when are all terrorists motivated by some obscure religion that commands all nonbelievers be killed? Religions like that don't last long; most terrorists have political, not religious, goals.)
 * (Also also also also, what the fuck? Terrorism?)
 * (Also also also also also, I don't insult people for being emo. I'm fine with everyone as long as they're fine with me.) --Switch 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read that particular book, and I'm confused by what you say. Of course the film jumps from person to person; the progression is of ideas, not poeple to be interviewed, which allows for a cohesive meaning to the film. In fact, the film presents information very similar to that of the book in question, except it is not essentially a propaganda piece aimed at one particular medium, but an exposé of an industry, targeted at the practices of several media.
 * I'm also a writer, and a prodigous reader. I had read most of Seuss' children's work by the time I was three, most of Dahl's children's stories by the time I was six, and read The Lord of the Rings when I was twelve. I was in the tenth percentile of the state in my final year of school literature exam. When you can read Metamagical Themas, The Silmarillion and The Gods Themselves at the same time and take any meaning away from them, you can have a go at being condescending. --Switch 17:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The jumping is precisely what makes the ideas incohesive; the audience has to put disconnected comments into a structred argument. Some information might be similar, but the themes are entirely different. If it were not merely soundbites spliced together, it might actually be able to convey a cohesive meaning. Since you have taken my comment as a personal attack — even though it was directed at the film itself —, you perhaps want me to comment on your exploits. I am pretty sure I could read those three books at the same time. I have already read one Hofsdater (Gödel Escher Bach) a long time ago; I have never liked Tolkein, but if I were forced to read it, I might, and even extract meaning from it; and Asimov is not hard to read, for his style is very straightforward. However intelligent you may be — though it does not really concern me, and your sudden outburst seems like a vanity comment; I might as well comment on my own high intelligence and boast about what girls have said of my looks, though I can keep some restraint —, your arguments are not well constructed, and those are what I have examined and commented on. I hate MTV too, but a simple diatribe is not as good as a proper argument. And another problem is, if your assertions are so highly important, you have chosen the wrong forum! --Rintrah 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

←They aren't important, they're just a defense against condescending remarks. I can also restrain myself from boastful remarks, but I feel compelled to defend myself when someone insults my intelligence (unlike your handsome self, my intelligence is really all I have going for me). The audience follows a natural progression of thought, as well as following the process in action with a few histories presented as examples, with several different interviewers contributing to that progression. It is not intended to be presented as an argument, but as an exposé of the mainstream music industry. It merely shows what does happen; the way in which the media influence their audience is implicit in the facts the film presents. --Switch 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, if you are insulted by someone in a web-forum, you do not really understand web-forums. Those posting remarks are anonymous; their identity on the web is different to their real life one. There is little point in taking some comment as a grave insult to your real-life person. Wikistress is nonsense. Moreover, I cannot find where I have insulted your intelligence, be it openly or in a veiled comment.


 * As for documentaries, I disdain the format because of how the information is presented. The soundbites, each of which comments on something different, make the progression unnatural. It presents a succession of "facts" for a particular argument, with the experts interviewed conferring weight upon them. If this is not meant as an argument, the viewer either has to assume it is correct at the beginning, or it is unpersuasive rationally, because an argument is the mode of rational persuation. I cannot think of a rational mode of persuation that is not an argument. In the expose documentary format, it is difficult for the viewer to put all the facts into a coherent argument after they have been presented with poorly connected pieces. Some investigative documentaries do present good arguments, but they are the exception. A compelling documentary usually presents simple facts validated by the experts alone (like important whistle blowers, for instance), and consequently prove some position; but for most controversial issues, this style is inadequate. --Rintrah 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going to tell someone not to be condescending by being condescending, it isn't very convincing if you tell people that you're a "prodigous reader".--Jeffro77 07:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * just remember that most documentaries exhibit extreme selection of detail. I must agree with who ever sed TV DID IT. Media has a major impact on the development of society and has been exhibiting this power exuberantly over the last 5-10 years. People have obsessions with celebrities, want to be/look/act like them. MTV is watched by millions around the world and have in a sense developed the emo sub-culture, into the the thriving bacterium within society. Another sense is that ppl are becoming whores, ive heard of 12-13 year olds having sex, which is absolutely ridiculous, as they wouldnt even know were to put it. The vast information and entertainment that exhibits sex to young viewers from the internet and TV, has attributed to the loss of morals in society. Yer and the disable/ emo comment above is intellectually disabling. That comparison is ridiculous, my problem with emos is that they are so self obsessed its scary, they need attention (good or bad). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.233.47 (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

History
Ok, from what I can see, there are two conflicting stories on the history of emo, one takes it from "emotive hardcore," and one from "emotional hardcore." Someone who knows more about this topic then I do should find some actual sources for which one is true, because they're both different (one's from the 90's grunge scene, one is from the mid 80's), and I'm really curious as to which one it is. --Last_Drop_of_Sanity 22:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For a good history check out . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrogged (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hair
Removed "Emo people almost always have short hair and anyone with long hair is not emo," as it conflicts with the popular stereotype as well as the caricature further down the page. --TH89 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Accurate article
This has got to be the best explaination of "emo" out there. But, like the article says, it really is hard to find an exact definition because everyone has a different view of "emo people." Coming from a person who is friends with many people who could be considered "emo," I think this article is pretty accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdiamndbordr (talk • contribs) 17:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Article at Present State
There is no slander, but merely an in depth description of the current "state" or what "emo" means and how people react to it. I'm pleased with it's present form. --Altonbr 00:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Misnomer
Stating that "emo" is a misnomer as the primary definition of the word is COMPLETELY inappropriate. First and foremost, it is a slang term. It has always been a slang term.

But, going further, calling it a misnomer is simply an opinion, particularly since the "original" definition is dubious. Ian Mackaye thought that the term "emo" was bullshit in 1986 link.

"Emo" is whatever it's being used to describe. It's most widespread definition is the one being used today. It evolved into the term it is today - calling the modern version a "mistake" violates WP:NPOV. --ChrisB 03:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Emo (Slang)
While I realize that many people who either take on the title of Emo, or deface it, the topic itself isn't up for debate. Society as a whole decides the connotations of certain slang words, such as emo. If you consider yourself Emo, welcome to the real world. Most people think you guys are whiny, annoying brats. The topic should not be put up for debate because you think "Zomg, My Chemical Romance is SO not emo." The fact is, society decides whom to include when they discuss emo. Slang is decided upon by the informals who use it. If we say emo means you wear your hair over one eye, then we are correct. By the Way: If you think I have no room to talk on the subject, most of my favorite bands are considered "emo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by InflamedThought (talk • contribs) 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrist Cutting
Someone needs to make a topic about wrist cutting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.202.50 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can if you like, if you can make it conform to encyclopedic standards. Then, like some magical science experiment, you might find posts bubbling on the talk page as a result. --Rintrah 17:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrist cutting is a form of self harm to relieve the user from depression. Gothics were the first to perform this and they did it as a distraction from emotional pain. The physical pain overcomes the emotional, which gives them "relief". twisted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.233.47 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I though the difference between a emo and a goth is the cutting, and it isnt juz the wrist, i spoke to a emo on msn, asked him wat other stuff he did to himself, he burnt himself, threw himself downstairs and into cars, cut his wrists,knuckles,palm,leg and rarly his neck and drowning himself. thats all i remember, so cutting isnt the only thing they do -Zakyboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.1.231 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-harm predates goths by a little bit (not much, just a century or two or several). The reason it is performed is that physical pain releases natural endorphins, which can make you feel happier. As for Zakyboy - what? --Switch 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HEY! I happen to be emo and i know thay dont all cut themselfs! cutting is for suicidal emos... sure were depressed and stuff but thats only because of what people say about us. we get critisized over all that junk and it only makes our lives worse so cut it out! (not literally) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxsheronxsyndromexX (talk • contribs) 06:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Definiton of Emo - an impossible task, surely?
I really don't see how the term "emo" is ever going to be defined fairly, as too many people seem to feel too strongly on the subject. There does not seem to be enough impartiality over the issue. Granted, there is some validity in the claim that some emos are just looking for attention; however, there is equal truth in the statement that some emos probably do suffer from bipolar or other forms of depression.

Different people like different elements of the emo culture, and so participate in it for completely different reasons - for instance, some girls may become emos because they find male emos attractive, and vice versa; it could be that some boys want to explore their sexuality covertly and believe that the naturally feminine emo "look" gives them the oppurtunity to do so; it may just be that, in a certain school, "emo" is in vogue and therefore people just conform to it for the sake of having friends.

I do not believe this issue can ever be black or white, because there are so many different interpretations and beliefs as to what it means to be emo.

Therefore i believe that all that can be done, here, is for everyone to forget their personal views on the subject and remember that they are here to document and explain as many different kinds of emo as exist, and the general, prevailing trends within the culture. Impartiality should be the watchword, for this project, surely? --Leowatkins 10:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are my hero! I totally agree with you, Leowatkins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdiamndbordr (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * thankyou leowatkins i totally agree and all i have to say is those types of things start school shootings such as the one at north pole middle school in north pole alaska. when you label someone it changes them first of all, and second it drives them nuts enough for them to crack, freak out, and kill everyone. thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxsheronxsyndromexX (talk • contribs) 04:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Emo Music
Dashboard Confessional is not Emo Music. Stuff like Hawthorne Heights is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.239.239 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hawthorne is really more post-hardcore or pop-punk in my opinion --Burger king 03:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)burger king


 * Dashboard is emo. I offer no evidence to support my claim because I just don't care. But it is. --Kestrel 05:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Emo (music) but about the common slang usage. Because emo (slang) draws is meaning from being emotionally unstable, Dashboard Confessional is very much associated with the emo (slang) term.  As far as emo (music) goes, the traditional definition consists of bands like Jimmy Eat World and Hawthorne Heights.  These bands have no place in this article, except perhaps to show the origin of the word. --68.219.188.246 08:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You have an opinion. But you might want to research some more into where 'emo music' came from. It came from the grunge genre, so you might want to check out post-grunge (i recommend "silverchair") because that genre is where 'emo music' came from. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.165.19 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dashboard AND Hawthorne Heights can both be categorized as emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdiamndbordr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * whoever just wrote that thing about dashboard and HH shout shutup and die. they dont know anything about those bands just becuz hawthore height sang that song ohio is for lovers does not make them emo. that song is a figure of speech "cut my wrists and black my eyes" IS A FUCKING FIG OF SPEECH!!!!!! i have the album... —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxsheronxsyndromexX (talk • contribs) 04:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As a stereotype of all rock subcultures
From my personal experience, I have come to realize that “emo” is used as a catchall insult for anyone who appears to be a part of any rock subculture. (I go to a private high school and can hardly even walk thru the halls without having it yelled at me). I think the use of “emo” in this manner is becoming more prevalent and should be elaborated on in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.96.69 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? I've never seen that. I never get called emo (I'm a punk). I have trouble imagining a metalhead getting called emo too. Maybe trendy rockers who try really hard to look fashionably perfect, but not all rockers in general. -- Ungovernable Force  Got something to say? 03:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Call me crazy, but it seems to be the kids who are part of rock subcultures who do most of the insulting and yelling "emo" at people. The kids who get called emo are... well, see above. --Switch 02:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * meh we have one emo at our skoo and he does get abused, not physically. he was actually emo, who wore tight women jeans, hair over one eye etc. brought it on himself. go to youtube and watch sum41 film clip, thats how a punk rocker should look like, if u dont well u brought it on ureself, go sum41 :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.233.47 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is just a derogatory word for people who are part of a rock subculture. Because you dress "emo" has nothing to do with listening to the music. Most "emos" I know listen to Death Metal and Hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.132.54 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * yes i agree not all emos listen to emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by XxsheronxsyndromexX (talk • contribs) 04:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience, "metal" and "hardcore" are just what emo kids call emo because they dom't want to admit they're emo. --  S w i t c h t 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Post-Hardcore = emo? Or Emo = Post-Hardcore? Or Post-hardcore is completely different from Emo?
At The Drive-In is Emo? The Fall Of Troy is Emo? THE BLOOD BROTHERS IS EMO?? Heh...Say that Emo is Post-hardcore in some kind of way can be acceptble deppeding of the band, but Post-hardcore is something different from Emo, go listen to Fall Of Troy or The Blood Brothers(and so many others!) to find the true modern Post-Hardcore!

Now said this, EMO as music should be classified yes, but EMO as slang? Hum..What about MCR style? They dont even consider themselves Emo, what I agree by the way in some degree considering their last CD. Come on, there is no such classification, who says proudly and loud "Im Emo" just mean "Im idiot and easyly influenced by large masses". The same for who says "I hate EMO(people)!" Just go listen to your music and leave the others alone heh. Dont try to convert anybody to or out of the "EMO cause and style" because its ridiculous and completely made-up by the Media.

Wake up people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlborn (talk • contribs) 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

my chemical romance
in the wikipedia page on emo-slang, it says that my chemical romance are an emo band, but they reject that saying they are rock and violent pop, it says that emo fashion is inspired by them, which is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.164.35 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * you have to imagine youth culture a bit like the pattern of a tree trunk: there is a center, the pure 100%, fully involved. this invilvement´s fadin more and more towards the outer circles - where i´d put my chemical romance, they might be emo, but the commercialised popularised part (as HIM is for gothic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.122.37 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh...
Is the Urban Dictionary really a reliable source? --Foot Dragoon 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is for a slang term. --Switch 04:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardly! See WP:RS... --HawkerTyphoon 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Because anyone can write anything on it and it wouldn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.165.19 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone can write anything in wiki, and it seldom matters. ajdkghsa. See? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.7.51 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but wikipedia requires that you PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE for your edits. Urban dictionary is basically "OMG I cReatzed A fuNIe sl4Ng, I'11 snEd it in! lolz". I think the link should be removed because it contributes very little, if anything. Sign your comments please (4 ~ at end). --Nodnarb232001 19:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to first comment
Dont Merge in with Goth, Goth is NOT emo --71.98.16.172 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How so? The similarities between Goth and Emo are numerous and uncanny. --Nodnarb232001 09:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Goth and emo have almost nothing to do with each other. The only vague connections I can pull up are that both are derived from punk and both have an image in the mainstream of being depressed, self-harming and/or suicidal. Even then, goths (tend to) play down that aspect, whereas emos will play it up. A brief mention that some trends previously assoicated with "goth" are now associated with "emo" is fine, but nothing more. -  Swi tch t 06:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, the whole 'Goth v. Emo' thing; When I think of Goth, I think of a subculture that dresses in more lacy, almost medevil inspired dark clothing, they listen to bands like Bauhaus, or Skinny Puppy, even the Damned and the like. Goth was more popular in the '80s and '90s. The attitudes were more of a melancoly, longing sort of emotional, S&M sexual sort of thing. When I think of EMO, I think of a subculture that dresses in a sort of punk-goth hybrid, the hair dye, the little black outfits with splashes of strange colors, the wrist bands, the pins on the jackets and bags. All of these are expressed either in Goth and punk. They listen to bands like My Chemical Romance and Dashboard Confessional, which IMO is a bit of a cry from the punk and goth music of The Damned (goth)or The Minutemen or even the Ramones (punk).People of the EMO culture that I've had dealings with, seem to almost feel 'oh woe is me' martyr, nobody understands me sort of thing. Goth was a bit more 'the world is a terrible place' almost existential sort of thing. Comparing the music of goth and punk is Similar to the comparison of 'new punk' to 'old schoolpunk', which would be like comparing Green Day to Fuguzi. Again, just watered down versions of the original. My point of reference comes from living in NYC but then again, it could be different regionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evie06 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They play it down? I always thought wearing black leather, fishnet stockings, Marilyn Manson T-shirts, piercings, corpse make-up, and excessive mascara made it more obvious. Emos are moderately dressed in comparison. --Rintrah 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know any goths who own Marilyn Manson shirts. Maybe it was a typo and you meant to type Bauhaus or The Sisters of Mercy? ;) In any case, I shall clarify: Emo kids play to the media image of them as depressed, suicidal, self-harming. They act the part, complain about how hard their white male middle-class suburban life is, even pretend to be depressed when they aren't. Goths don't actually assoicate themselves with that kind of thing, it is a stereotype applied to them by mainstream media; in fact, in my experience, goths tend to resent that stereotype, and they try to distance themselves from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwitChar (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I admit my knowledge of gothdom is poor, but I am sure I have seen many in Manson T-shirts; however, I have seen very few Bauhaus or The Sisters of Mercy ones. Have you ever been to Flinders Street Station in Melbourne? Goths are conspicuous there, and their dissociation from everyone else is presented starkly. It seems a poor strategy to stand out with a peculiar dress sense indicating alienation and depression, yet resent the negative media attribution. There might be a whole underworld of a gothic subculture unknown to me, but to my knowledge, in my city, Melbourne, the goths at Flinders street typify the subculture. All the goths I have known, which I admit are few, have expressed the desire to make their differences known. But I agree with you, goths seem less like crybabies than emos. --Rintrah 15:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...but emo is the new goth; the new "in" counterculture of today's mid-school to college youth. Despite emo being almost totally different from goth, the mainstream culture's reaction is as it has been to teenage culture through the generations.  "Oh no, that Elvis - that John Lennon - that Ozzy - that Kurt Cobain - that Marilyn Manson - will corrupt our youth and shake the very foundations of civilization!"  This is the turnover; this is the new era.  Soon the advertisers will focus on the emo as they focused on the goth.  Before you know it, there'll be a major character in a mainstream television drama that dresses emo, sounds emo, but otherwise is just there to reassure the parental generation that their kids are okay.  This is the way of the world. --BlueNight 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a just a little speculative. You are also generalising; Elvis and John Lennon, and even Kurt Cobain, did not cause the same reactions as Marilyn Manson. Although emos and goths have a lot in common, they are different. Perhaps what you are saying is emo represents many of the things goth used to more prominently, and that those who might have become goths in a different era are more likely to turn emo. In any case, neither goth nor emo was an "in" counterculture. Emo is also less likely to be featured in mainstream media because it is less of a rebellion. --Rintrah 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a terminology thing; I know a few "real" goths and my mother knew quite a few first-generation goths, so and I would consider the the kids you're talking about (I have seen them - I catch the train to Uni at RMIT every day) part of a generic "we're so different and rebellious" subculture that exists all over. You might, for example, notice a lot of baseball caps, hoodies and baggy pants (gangsta culture) or similar parts of heavy metal fashion as well as the goth fashion, and most of them will listen to metal more than gothic rock. I don't think Manson has anything to do with goth, personally.


 * I'm pretty sure Elvis did, though I wasn't around. Regardless, though there have been people like that in every generation (Jim Morrison, Sid Vicious, Eminem for example). However, there are a lot of negative connotations to the term "emo", and no one is exactly sure what it means, so I don't really know where it's going to go. In any case, I agree with Rintrah for the most part. -  Swi tch t 10:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (I know very little about this either.) Manson's music is in the Industrial genre, which is either not "goth" or on the fringes of it, depending on how one looks at it. His most fervent supporters are goths or people who are called goths by outsiders. Of the Flinders Street crowd, a large part are ostensibly goth — faces painted white, black clothes, and other recognisable parapharnalia — but among them are people who style themselves as punks, hoodies, and metalheads. They are really a heterogenous crowd who only have their loser, psuedo-rebellion status in common. All my contacts have told me goths meet at Flinders Street because of Smoke Dreams, some tradition dating back to some time I have forgotten, and the gothic clubs in proximity to the station. There might be differences to "real" goths—this I have no idea about. As far as I know, because the goth scene is small in Melbourne, there is also a mix of "subcultures" at goth clubs. Although the Flinders Street goths annoy me, emos seem to be the growing vermin, the one I should worry most about. --Rintrah 13:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

←We're getting off-topic here, but I'll just follow up the question of music - Manson is industrial metal, which, at different times, may be very similar to "classic" industrial music, which was more of a post-punk thing, or very different indeed. For example, Ministry were an industrial band who started, after a while, to incorporate heavy guitars into their music; on the other hand, Fear Factory were a death metal band who after a while incorporated parts of industrial into their style, along with dance and other electronic genres. It's largely a POV thing, yes. Between how industrial Manson is, and how goth industrial is, and what exactly constitutes goth... you can get a lot of confusion. -  Swi tch t 15:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?
And what is up with this global-conspiracy nonsense at the end of the first paragraph:

"Even though it is a group of kids it has leadership that resembles a monarchy. The knowledge of this is very discreet."

Don't make factual assertions, especially far-out ones like this, without some kind of support for your assertions. If you have some evidence of this global emo-conspiracy, post it. If not, take it out.

And unprotect this page while you are at it. --Jjobrien3 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The page was semi-protected to prevent edits such as the one you mentioned. It was semi-protected so that most users may still edit the article but apparently that's not really working out. The last thing we want right now is to unprotect the page and unleash a swarm of vandals (especially vandal-only IPs). The edit you mentioned has already been reverted, so you don't need to worry about that. If anymore vandals strike, users who still have the privilige to edit the article, such as myself, will fix it as soon as possible. // Sasuke  -kun  27  18:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with the statement "there is no significant evidence of any correlation between emo and self-harm." Aside from the fact that the author uses no evidence in his claims throughout the article and calls for evidence here, there is a strong correlation between the two. Yet anyone who knows about statistics can tell you that correlation does not equal causation (see Pirates and Global warming proof.) There are lurking variables that can affect the two, as in the case of the Pirates-global warming the lurking variable is time. While it is near-impossible to determine if listening to emo music causes self harm, one can determine there is a correlation. As such I have repeatedly deleted the above said statement. This may have caused the protection of the page, but I stand by it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.135.112.49 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The correlation may be that a teenager whose social life revolves around his own melodramatic interpretation of his own social life is also the type of person who is likely to attempt suicide, either as a cry for help or as a final decision. --BlueNight 22:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This page seriously needs to be reverted to a less insulting version. It has been locked on a version of the article that is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia. I request that it be unlocked so that someone can revert it to a better version (for lack of a better term) and then locked again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.41.87 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Merge this page with main Emo article
This article seems to serve more as a magnet for vandals than a useful information source at the mo, and is lacking in sources and verifiable facts. Any useful material would, IMO, benefit from being included in the main Emo article, which deals with the music scene, and would put the "emo lifestyle" more in context, perhaps. --Hyperspacey 13:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In principle, it is a good idea; but doing so would degrade the main article, while unnaturally juxtaposing the content of this article with incongruous content. The two subjects are different: they only share their attachment to the emo theme. An article on Metalheads and one on the Heavy Metal scene, for instance, do not necessarily form the same subject matter, even though they are connected. It is better to keep this article separate in its substandard form. Improving it is the best option, in my very humble opinion. --Rintrah 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, on closer inspection, the Emo (music) article wouldn't benefit. There's a lot of redundant info from it duplicated in this article; odds are it'd be best to strip this down to a look at "emo style" (clothing, hair) and and reference the teeth out of it. I'd like to comment on what people consider "emo culture", but it'd probably work out as a lengthy description of a stereotype. Suggestions? --194.73.163.108 15:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea. If you can write an article based on the "emo style" with abundant sources, you will greatly improve upon the status quo. "Emo culture" is more difficult to define; a very brief description sourced from a few articles would be ideal, say perhaps magazines, if better sources do not exist. If you made it longer, it would be butchered by those who hate it, and other drive by editors would inject their own ideas into it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 15:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I think this article should certainly be enhanced with more content, but I fully disagree with stripping it of content or rewriting it to exclusively focus on "style". Style should definitely be included, but this article should be a collection of all elements of emo that are not directly related to the music.  The redundant content between here and the music article is intended to provide the origin of the non-musical element.


 * The real problem is that there aren't (m)any decent sources. Most articles written about emo style are best guesses written by journos or college folks.  There is no specific emo style - while "emo" style includes certain elements, there's a myriad of varying versions thrown under the umbrella. --ChrisB 21:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The style subject is most easily verifiable, whereas the others are bewilderingly subjective. It should be the foundation of this article because it is most objective; it is also the most prominent aspect of the non-musical element of emo. I agree, the origin is also important.


 * Best guesses by journalists and published academics are better than best guesses by random wikipedia editors. --Rintrah 10:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That statement makes me think you haven't read some of the articles on emo in the popular press. --Cedars 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
We need a criticism section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.195.190 (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Comment
This article doesn't seem to reflect what emo actually is, just stereotypes. Emo isn't "self-hating, crossdressing mopers who love post-hardcore." The original emo fad was art meets hardcore. (For example, a punk rock-loving poet may be emo.) And depression certainly doesn't constitute "emo-ness" either; if your only emotion is sadness, you're not very emotional, are you? &mdash; Phantasy Phanatik | talk | contribs 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! Find sources for your ideas, and amend the article accordingly. You might also want to keep in mind, This is not a forum for discussing the article's subject. --Rintrah 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A new approach?
I think it's been clearly established that emo is one of the most ambiguous labels we've come up with in the world. Our current attempts to get a good definition of it aren't going real well. I suggest we take what we have done in the article, and merge relevant information into other articles (such as editing the Goth article to include any relevant emo information). I believe this label is currently beyond the scope of an encyclopedia in its current state, and we should wait unil our culture can create a more unifying idea of what emo truly us. Thoughts? --Nodnarb232001 19:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about what happens to the article at the moment (when I get the chance, I'll go through it and post my thoughts afterwards). What I really want to talk about is the talk page. Before I archived it, it was almost 80 kilobytes long and the only reason it was that big is because people keep posting all of this useless crap that doesn't do anything for the article or Wikipedia itself. If it weren't for that, the talk page would probably be half as long and we wouldn't have to archived it (although when editing the page, it would have said something about how long it is and tell you to archive it). So unless you have something to say that could benefit the article, like what Nodnarb232001 wrote, please don't post anything at all. // Sasuke  -kun  27  20:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As a "user", I was after info to help understand what my teenage son was on about. Currently the article does not quite match what I've been hearing here (in New Zealand). Could that be because, as a youth culture label, the term 'emo' is constantly changing or evolving? I'm not suggesting the current article is wrong, just not complete or up to date, or there are regional differences. I've also been told that the evolution of Emo has some connection to MySpace (As a means of sharing the look?). Any thoughts of these ideas? --Alisterb 01:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply because our world culture has yet to specifically define the term doesn't mean it is invalid and should be merged. For example, the United States population is having a major conflict just defining the "war in Iraq".  The term is definitely legitimate slang for a cultural subgroup (at least in my part of the United States).  It may be used differently in different areas but in my location I could easily define "emo".  It may not be uniformly used across the world but certainly in certain regions it has a clearer definition.  In any case, I don't think the term should be removed/merged. --67.21.19.23 16:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this article sucks. No, emo has nothing to do with goth. Part of the problem is you're trying define "emo" the word, not the "emo" scene/subculture/whatever. --Cedars 20:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, emo has nothing at all to do with goth, gothic subculture, music or anything. --Deathrocker 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Emo" simply has too many accepted/disputed uses and definitions. (e.g., Where I come from, "emo" is only a noun when talking about a genre--not a person. "Emos vs. goths" would be grammatically incorrect.)  I used to be emo about four years ago, and what I was told set me apart as emo was the fact that I didn't acknowledge being emo. It wasn't about self-pity but about being a romantic as well as finding others superior to myself. I was horrified when magazines began telling people "how to be emo" and Dashboard Confessional became the poster children for what was accepted as "emo." Emo was not about popular images or popular music, and that is what it has become--a popular image with connotations of unpopularity. However, for people like me, that view of "emo" is incorrect in our minds. We should recognize how many views of this term exist and accept them all as true in different contexts. --AngelProjekt 05:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "emo" is a neologism that isn't set in stone for any part of speech. The word is not academic, nor foreign-derived, so it doesn't make any sense to speak definitively about its correct usage. For all your clear personal experiences, you are just entering into speculation. The article has been for a long time searching vainly for credible sources, while posters mostly have been concerned about what they think, without any uncertainty, is the correct definition. We are not getting anywhere. --Rintrah 07:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have heard it used "emo" is a noun; a person who is unreasonable depressed and gives no further reason as to why he/she is depressed than "their's so much pain and suffering in the world." The small clique that I have become friendly with views "emo" as a cancer, people who hang-out with other emos eventually become emo themselves'. I have, actually, observed these particular kids, who are labeled as "emo", seeming somewhat gloom and rather sad. Slang words and subculture or rock culture words aren't the easiest to define; they really can only be descriptive definitions. --User:Randy6767 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the article seems to say being an Emo means mainly having hair on one eye? on ANY forum when talking about emos, its clear that emo is synonymous to "suicidal youth who believes him/herself to be misunderstood by society", their haircut, dressing and even music is of secondary importance(thats only in public mind, but, considering Emo is only general public term, public image is true image). btw you got some vandalism here - see references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.84.133 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Emo" = Undefinable
"Emo" doesn't exist except in slang, but having that out of the way...The reason no one can find an exact definition of "emo" is because the group of members that are called "emo" differ in many different ways(redundant, I know). Let me explain this...the "emo" group is accepting to whoever wants to join. Anyone that feels they fit in no where else turns to the "emo" group looking for something to be a part of. Poets of many sorts usually do not fit into any other group but are accepted as "emo". Self-harm is highly disrespected in other cultures/subcultures, that is the reason why those that choose self-harm turn to the "emo" group for somewhere to go to. Seeing as how the "emo" group was formed in the early '80's, many of the early members that participated in self-harm or saw it from a person-to-person level grew up accepting self-harm in their lifestyle. Musicians knew who they wanted to get their message across to and knew how those people felt on things and included self-harm and depression in their music. Since this music had gone mainstream, media had linked romance related depression in some "emo" classified music to all punk originating music that contains romance, the struggles of life, or any struggles at all, for that matter. Media had widely spread the looks of the top mainstream "emo" musicians(who may or may not have been linked in any way at all to the original "emo"). This look had been the tight jeans and the hair flipped to one side. This brings me to my next topic, looks. The mainstream "emo" look, though it varies from person to person and region to region, is as follows...hair flipped to the side, somewhat tight shirts and jeans, and Converse Chuck Taylors or skate shoes of different forms. This is only a "scene" version of "emo" but it is widely spread and commonly accepted. Basically, whoever that feels the need or wants to be "emo" can be. It is a very broad term even though "scene emo"(mentioned above) looks are high associated with the "emo" title. So, no matter how hard you try and how long you work tryin to define "emo" beyond the media-filled, mainstream, "scene" image that has been produced, it is impossible. --CWark323 03:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you read my last comment or the one at the top of the page? --Rintrah 03:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will post citation when time permits it, but most of this info is from a first-hand experience and from speaking with many of my friends...I know this is unwanted because it is shown as not reliable, but I have webisites and magazine articles that also agree with me. I promise I will post later. --CWark323 04:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

better picture
that picture of the "typical emo hair" is totally, totally, off base. i'm emo, i would know. it's more like the hair covers one eye and the other eye is left uncovered. i have a better picture, should i upload it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.18.3 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and upload it. If it is agreed to be accurate, and it is of good quality, nobody will delete it. Don't delete the other photo, because I disagree with you about it being inaccurate, and nobody has expressed that they believe it is inaccurate before. Just add yours as photo #4, or photo #2 if you prefer it to be next to the other. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 01:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, if possible, could we get a long shot of you, clothes and all? We need pictures of emo fashion in general, not just the hair. That would be great. --  Swi tch t 08:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Article completely rewritten.
I just spent about 2 hours COMPLETELY rewriting the article. I did not use a single sentence from the original article. My reason for doing it this way is that the whole previous version of the article was unsourced. My version of the article has no unsourced statements whatsoever. If you wish to add information from the old version, please feel free to do so, but ONLY if you can cite a good source, and ONLY if it is completely non-point-of-view. Some may argue that some of my sources are unreliable. My response to that is that while they are not absolute sources, they need not be. This article is about a slang term which is VERY ambiguously defined, and is the center of much debate. All sources are mere opinions, which is quite acceptable since this word was "invented" in the last 30 years, and isn't even in dictionaries. We here at Wikipedia are merely reporting that these opinions exist. Please keep this article well-sourced and NPOV. Let's not let it get out of hand again. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding edits... adding to the top of an article doesn't protect it. You have to ask an admin to do that. And it says in WP:FOOT that "(Foot)Notes and citations" is the preferable title for footnote references, for two reasons: "References", where possible, should simply list resources used for the whole of the article (as in the article on Rage Against the Machine), and footnotes can be used to explain the text in greater detail where necessary (as in the article on Alternative rock), not only for references.
 * The rewrite is great though. The article has never looked better. --  Swi tch t 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks a lot. I didn't know, but now I do. Can you ask an admin to semiprotect this article for me? It was just yesterday. I don't know how to go about asking for that. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the page is semiprotected. log out and try to edit it. I added the tag back. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contributions) 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for using my sources. --Rintrah 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for providing them! --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 16:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Emo is a stereotype
Add this to the article when it is no longer locked.

First and foremost, "emo" is a sterotype. "Emo" is often confused with punk. If one is to dress "emo", that does not nessessaraly mean the one in question brings harm to ones self. Emo often means a certian clothing style, hair style, or music genre. A person that harms ones self is simply someone who has false ways of relieving stress, not an "emo". A small word of caution to readers, don't call someone "emo" because of they have "unexplainable scars". It's a harmfull steriotype, and it hurts feelings. Do you not thing these people suffer enough? Not all "emo" people harm themselves, and not all people who harm themself are "emo".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AFTL-Kale (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, but sorry. This is entirely unencyclopedic, unsourced, and it gives orders to the reader. Not to mention the spelling and grammatical errors. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Emo poetry
I just discovered, and linked to from this article, the emo poetry article. I'm not sure it should exist, but real work has gone into it - unlike emofication, which I nominated for speedy deletion for being an attack page - and it uses sources. Some of those sources could even be used for this article, while others already are. Anyway, it contains some public domain text and images this article could also use, although the picture of a "typical emo girl" doesn't look very "emo" according to our sources or my opinion. Anyway, just letting you guys know. --  Swi tch  t c   g 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube video
I missed when this video was readded in the "reorganise a bit" edit a few days ago. Can someone please explain how this is appropriate here? If the video was an article, it'd be tagged db-attack within minutes. It only exists to disparage the subject. Is it funny? sure. Is it necessary for this article? I don't think so. --Onorem 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources and links don't have to be NPOV, only articles. Why exactly do you think it should be removed? --  Swi tch  t c   g 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it should be removed because it's a 3 minute attack on Emos. I don't see what encyclopedic value it holds beyond what's already stated in the article. Should every YouTube video that makes fun of Emos get a link in this article?  Why exactly do you think it should be in the article? --Onorem 13:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good example of how "emo" is perceived in a popular context. That's why I think it deserves to stay. Maybe that What Is Emo? video, too, could be added. Emo has barely had anything said about it apart from criticism. I'm not vehement about it though, so if you feel strongly remove it. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with SwitChar. I think that the "Emo Song" video a well as the "How To Be: Emo" video should be included in this article. This is because both are very well-known, and both present information about the subject of this article, and insight into a subculture. While the "Emo Song" is 100% criticism, satire can provide insight into a subject, even though it is biased. Are you also saying that we shouldn't have the "EMO cult warning for parents" article as a citation because it is biased? On the other hand the "How to be: Emo" video is quite informative, and while it pokes fun at the subject, it is actually very insightful. Additionally, the "How To Be: Emo" video even has its own Wikipedia article. If another person agrees with me, please add both videos to the article. Here are the links:   Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 15:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * External links to YouTube are usually (but not always) frowned upon by WP:EL. // Poetic Decay  15:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that this instance constitutes an exception for the reasons I mentioned above. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 15:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the video cannot be traced to its original source; if it can, we shall link to there. The How to Be: Emo video can definitely be linked to its original source, and probably should be. --  Swi tch  t c   g 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Emo poetry
Please merge any relevant content from [ Emo poetry] per Articles for deletion/Emo poetry. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. --Quarl (talk)07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Emo song.
Should it be mentioned? Most people know what I mean you can find it anywhere, but ill post a link later. That song (if not true) is still better than the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.116.40.13 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I have no objection to it but others do. If you post a link to it, it will probably be deleted. --Rintrah 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the "Emo Song" is like a part of the emo phenomena, shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that there is a connection between emo and myspace as well as it being common for "scene kids" or "emo kids" to wear girl pants? --172.166.35.118 03:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "phenomenon", but it's not really the right word either. People do keep bringing up the connection of emo to myspace; I am starting to believe there is something substantial to these rumours. Yes, tight jeans are popular — surely, no one is going to deny this? The article does have a problem with the lack of sources, however; so we should be hesistant at adding rumours and unsourced assertions. There should be magazine articles which describe the emo subculture — has no one found any of those? Emos strongly stand out, but so many people whine on this page how it is impossible to pinpoint them — yeah, sure. --Rintrah 14:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why the two should be seperated, Emo's attempt to live UP to their stereotype, they don't try and turn down those views unless they're doing it for more attention or because it's something they can feed off of for emotional pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you mean "The Emo Song", as featured on YTMND, it is a mocking satire of the phenomenon, and as such, posting the lyrics ("Dear diary...") is POV. However, mentioning that the "song" exists is NPOV.  As for the Myspace connection, perhaps a mention of melodramatic blogs and other Internet postings in general is in order instead. --BlueNight 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But can anyone find references? Do they exist?! Re unsigned, anonymous poster: just as the taste of diesel and mould can be separated, so can emos and goths. --Rintrah 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also mention Tickle me Emo/Elmo please. =D --Berserkerz Crit 21:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we mention "F*** Emo" by the Nihilists then? Just to give a well balanced argument.. Waffle247 --90.152.12.130 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Emos and Self-Harming
I believe you have got the wrong idea about emos, yeah, some emos self-harm, but theres a reason behind it, they don't follow along with other trends (the whole point is to stand out and be different) and so they get bullied for it. They then become depressed and start self-harming. If you believe that all emos self-harm, you are stereotypring all of them. Most of my friends are emo, and I'm goth, and I believe that you have got it all wrong. This 'definition' of emo is unfair and maybe if you spoke to a few emos yourself, you would realise they're not people who sit in corners in darkened rooms listening to depressing music while slitting their wrists, thats just sick. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherri.om (talk • contribs) 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).


 * "Some definitions of emo hold that a typical "emo person" is likely to inflict self-injury..." This is what the article reads, and it is a matter of fact that some definitions do hold that as "emo." Go get 10 randomly selected people and ask them if they think that an emo person is likely to self-injure. Many will say yes (see sources cited). Wikipedia is not here to create an ideal definition, merely to report the definitions which already exist. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 21:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's get this straight here....Emo's are wannabe punks who can't be like us. And you spelled stereotype wrong. Emo's brought it on themselves. All emo's are are goths and punks combined. Besides everyone hates them and preppies..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.112.191 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No one will believe anything you say unless you give a source. --64.121.36.5 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Historically I don't recall the emo fad being mentioned, I'm sure the Greeks would have jotted something like that down somewhere, so how do you get a source that says emos aren't into self harm? I don't think it's likely to make the news headlines e.g. "No suicides reported in nice emo teen sub-culture dominated town" or "Emo does not kill himself over breakup" - it's not exactly riveting, edge of the seat action is it. Waffle247 --90.152.12.130 15:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Subject change
You need to change the title of this, because people need to learn that 'emo' is not a trend, or a fashion, but an emotional state, scene on the other hand is EXACTLY what ya'll are saying is EMO!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demonhunter10 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The same was said about goths.... but many post-goth people don't claim the same thing. If 'emo' is nothing to do with fashion why does it have it's own sub-genre of clothing? --Waffle247 15:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

The Typical Emo College Student?
I don't see what relevance this photograph has. To me it looks like general vandalism. There is no description of it on the page, but it could be just someone putting up a picture of their friend to wind them up. Remove? --Coldcroc 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * yes! Please remove it. While your at it Explain this SCENE thing please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Raine (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, I'll explain the SCENE thing. Before I start, allow me to inform you that I am a 17 year old male who attends high school so the only credibility I can offer is the fact that I'm exposed to teenage trends on a weekly basis. Scene kids (or scenesters as they are sometimes called) are kids who dress up in a particular manner that emulates the common fashion trends of a musical subculture so others will think they are "cool". Usually they'll listen to the popular stereotype of the music that claims to be part of the subculture they're trying to fit into examples include Good Charlotte or simple plan for punk scenesters, senses fail and 18 visions for the Emo/hardcore scensters, and bands like korn and disturbed for the metalhead scenesters. (note: while people may dispute whether these bands are emo, punk, or metal between themselves, there's no denying that they've made money by generalizing themselves as such). Now when most people familiar with the term "scene kid", they tend to think of the stereotypical "emo kid" because that is the particular subculture of today that is "different" and "cool to be a part of" so its the most emulated scene kid fashion. As far as I have seen personally, not many people (at least in my town) are aware of the difference between scene kids and emo kids, and I'm assuming its mostly the same elsewhere in the U.S.


 * Basically, Scene kids are the new "posers", they try to fit in, but only for attention and acceptance, not because of personal beliefs or ideas.


 * Scene kids do tend to share much in common with the emo stereotype though, regardless of what subculture they're trying to fit into. One of these similarities is the belief that most emo kids are from well off middle class families but they pretend to be poor and act as if they live a harsh life. This is usually the case with scenesters as they are typically well off middle class, or even blatantly rich kids, who are cashing in their allowances for their own emotional security (once again, based on personal experience).


 * The term scene kid is appropriate because that's what they spend their time doing, trying to find a "scene" or subculture to fit into, yet never really embracing it or becoming a part of it.


 * If anyone thinks that my info is solid enough I'll write an objective article regarding the subject and send it to whoever would like to review it and possibly post it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.142.58 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * With all due respect, you haven't "seriously cleaned up that section" at all; you made five minor edits, most of which only turned references to emo as specifially a music genre or subculture into some all-encompassing concept without definition. Otherwise, you removed the writer's somewhat fair - and common, though not often in reliable sources - comparison to nu metal (and in the process made a grammatical error), changed "members of the emo subculture" to the vague or pejorative "emo kids" and linked needlessly (and in a manner that seems to violate NPOV) to the Emo (music) article. I don't see any improvement at all.
 * I also fail to see exactly which soures you would like to see used. In case you hadn't noticed, the rest of the article at current is sourced with less reliable sources if anything - the Daily Mail op-ed piece which is certainly more poorly written and factually incorrect than the Fairfield Mirrors is a standout, and the others are along the lines of Urban Dictionary and independent' op-ed pieces. Publishers are not likely to publish hard news stories on youth subcultures, so op-ed pieces are about the limit. That's just the way it goes. I find it a little suspect that you wish to entirely remove the section on criticism, but have little to say on the equally-troubled remainder of the article.
 * When the clear majority of the only sources at all that can be found relating to emo paint it with a negative slant, I'm not entirely certain you can justify a claim it is "exaggerated if not entirely imagined." I find it difficult to take your comments on the article seriously when your only activity involves the removal of any and all mention of negativity. --  Swi tch  t c   g 03:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


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


 * There are no "members of the emo subculture" until you establish it is a subculture ... Explain how a fashion trend adopted by trendy, well-to-do, white-America adolescents constitutes a subculture.
 * Are you aware of what a subculture is? A link to a genre of music is far from a defining feature, let alone necessary. The angry young men constituted a subculture. Musicians constitute a subculture. Any group of people with a shared ideology, aesthetic or activity constitutes a subculture.
 * Find me something that actually demonstrates any of these claims that your additions to the article make, and not just someone else's opinion that perpetuates unfounded stereotype and anecdotal nonsense. Lack of information is better than unreliable information ... I'm fed up with this idea that if you perceive something to be the case, it belongs in Wikipedia (so long as you find an op-ed in a random college newspaper that agrees).
 * How about these Google searches? 3,540 for "emo is crap". 5,570 for "emo is shit". 33,600 for "emo is crap". 40,000 for "I hate emo". 62,200 for "emo sucks". This !!!!emo sucks!!!! group on MySpace has almost 700 members, and there are other groups I didn't check. That's demonstrative, but it's not anything approaching appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm doubtful that you are actually unaware of the prejudice surrounding emo. It's just too blindingly blatant. You can buy anti-emo clothes from major outlets (see the Vans sticker above; it also comes on shirts). There are bands singing "Emo Kids Fuck Off!" at shows.
 * It is odd to me how you want to add a negative slant and then accuse me of bias when I remove it, even though I've clearly cited the policy under which I do so. Don't tell me that I "have to delete the whole article." I'll do whatever the hell I want, and if I'm not removing all the unsourced material, that's no case for keeping the garbage I'm trying to clean up.
 * It's very hard not to question your actions here. Very few people will publish academic papers on recent youth subcultures, and people write even less on what is already apparent. Those papers that are published will be of limited circulation. I'll certainly have trouble finding them. Your requests for academic papers are unreasonable. I'm not trying to "add a negative slant" to the article. I'm trying to document the negative reaction that emo has faced, and one that pervades quite strongly. This article is vandalised dozens of times a week just for that reason. When you take issue with even the slightest mention of criticism of emo, but are happy to have independent online magazines and Urban Dictionary as sources for the rest of the article, you just don't come off as acting on behalf of the policy. You seem to be using the policy, where it suits you, to keep the article in the state you want it, and then simply ignoring the inconsistency in your actions when they are pointed out to you. I never said you "have to delete the whole article" - I challenge you to show any of us where I said that. All I request is that you act with consistency.
 * I'm not going to get involved any more ...
 * Liar. :P
 * Listen, mate - I'm not the one throwing the tantrum here. Since you arrived here you've been aggressive in your activity, which (again) consists solely of removing any negative view of emo, or even mention thereof. Your first comment here was a sarcastic attack, and you've kept the attitude up. Me personally, I think most bands cast into the "emo" stereotype - My Chemical Romance et al - are the worst music fad I've ever seen, but I know those bands aren't really emo, and I hate the stupid anti-emo push at least as much. My only interest in this article is that I'm more or less objective, and I want to see it as comprehensive and accurate as possible with the limited soures available. Speaking of which, I found another, but it's just another stupid anti-emo rant, and worse than the ones in the article now. Op-ed pieces like this are about the limit of our resources. Requiring academic papers is all well and good for the maths articles you normally work on, but this is a different field entirely. We simply don't have tha kind of research at our disposal. I know of one academic paper that has been written, and it may have been published. If it has, I'll use it as a source for the article. I've contacted the researcher, asking them about it. But as far as serious, reliable studies go, that's the only one I know of or can find, and I wouldn't place too large a bet on its usefulness. --  Swi tch  t c   g 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


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

←Two words: Chill. Pill.

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

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

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

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