Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 6

Move to Emo (social group)
It has been suggested that instead of moving this to "Emo subculture", we should instead move it to "Emo (social group)". I think this is a reasonable compromise. Your thoughts? -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a parenthetical is not to explain what kind of a thing it is, but what kind of a term it is. It is a slang term. Examples: Cone (geometry) not Cone (shape). Emo (music) not Emo (genre). This is in accordance with the relevant disambiguation guidelines. I appreciate the desire to compromise, in "downgrading" the claim to "social group," but the title of the page is "Emo" - the (whatever) is only there for disambiguation purposes, and it stands to reason that it should follow disambiguation guidelines, and should not be a point of interest in a content dispute (even though it has been tied to the dispute about whether or not we may include content to the effect of "emo is a subculture" - in that instance, we'd move it to Emo (sociology) or something). I will remind everyone that the redirect at Emo subculture is there to help people find this page, not to substantiate claims that emo is a subculture. --Cheeser1 23:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cheeser here. This is not an acceptable compromise. It is still a misleading use of parentheses, as the article deals with Fashion, Music, Personality, as well as public perception and reception - not just social structure of a "group" (Emo is subculture, not a collective). (subculture) helps bring these together, (social group) would not. And I am still against any move until the article's content is improved. Please put information from these supplied sources into the article and see what we have after the dust settles. --ZayZayEM 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we change the proposal to read "Move to Emo (sociology)"? I would be in favor of moving it to that. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. This would require very genuine sources denote it as a sociological term. I do not agree with Cheeser's assessment that "subculture" is somehow any different level of classification than "slang". And still, I'm currently pushing for article first, name later. --ZayZayEM 05:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Equally fine with me. And I would like to add that I think the move should come before the content; how are we going to decide what to include in the article if we do not know what the article is about? Plus I think Emo_(slang) is silly, it is a group of people first, a word second (you would not have an article on Minutemen_(word)). Also, slang could just as easily refer to the music as to the social group... --Lundse 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And a significant portion of the article does cover emo music. (And the remaining sections cover a stereotype, not a subculture.) --Mdwh 11:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked the guidelines on disamb. and here is my comment on the possibilities we have:


 * "1. When there is another word (such as Cheque instead of Check) or more complete name that is equally clear (such as Delta rocket), that should be used."
 * We could use this to argue for "Emo subculture" (fine by me) or "Emo social group" (a bit unwieldy, methinks).
 * "2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: * the generic class that includes the topic (for example, Mercury (element), Seal (mammal));"
 * This "allows us" to use "Emo_(social group)" or "Emo_(subculture). Note that this possibility has been glossed over before: "The purpose of a parenthetical is not to explain what kind of a thing it is, but what kind of a term it is." is oversimplistic, because the policy cited here clearly tells us that we can and should in some cases use the "generic class" for the parenthesis. Using Emo_(slang) under this policy amounts to the claim that emo is best classified as a slang term, not a group of people. I believe this puts things upside down.
 * "2. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be: * the subject or context to which the topic applies (for example, Union (set theory), Inflation (economics))."
 * Under this, I would propose "Emo_(sociology)" or "Emo_(culture)"/"Emo_(pop culture)" (as in "this term relates to culture/pop-culture", not "this is a culture/pop-culture in itself". Using "Emo_(slang)" under this policy would be saying that there is a subject/context called "slang" or "slang words" and that somehow emo falls under this "area of study" before it falls under any other (such as sociology). I believe the first claim is teneous at best and the second plain wrong.
 * 3. Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.
 * Not useful here, methinks. --Lundse 11:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that emo is best classified as a slang term, rather than a group of people. I would say that the word "emo" comes under the context of "slang". What do people think about Emo (stereotype), by the way? --Mdwh 22:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The stereotype is just a derivative of the slang term. Through usage in slang, a stereotype of "emo people" or "emo stuff" in general is developed. (Stereotype) would restrict our language to that which can be established as "stereotypical" - not something I think we can easily or verifiably discern. --Cheeser1 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem lays in defining what it is exactly, it's indefinite. It's certainly not a social group and i'm not sure there is a sub-culture in the traditional sense. Isn't it more of a media construct, a buzz word? The problem in the age of mass communication is the mudding of sub culutres. There are very few distinct sets of beliefs that differ enough to form a sub culture. --Neon white 00:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can apply the following (from wikipedis social groups page) to a pop culture trend


 * A social unit consisting of a number of individuals interacting with each other with respect to:
 * Common motives and goals;
 * An accepted division of labor, i.e. roles,
 * Established status (social rank, dominance) relationships;
 * Accepted norms and values with reference to matters relevant to the group;
 * Development of accepted sanctions (praise and punishment) if and when norms were respected or violated. --Neon white 00:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

←I am at a loss. The stereotype comes after the slang word for it? People listening to the same music and wearing the same clothes are not identifiable as a group? And a term's linguistic categorization is more important to an encyclopdeia than what the term denotes?

We are obviously not going to agree on much else, so lets agree to follow the best sources we have. I say sociologists' words come first, followed by related sciences and commentators, journalists and laymen. I don't think we should give preference to the slang-source because it came first... --Lundse 19:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you see, you believe that the slang term describing loosely connected fashions, music, behavior, and style somehow indicates the preexisting presence of a subculture. The claim that it's a subculture is not verifiable as of yet. However, the slang term is known to exist, and describes a number of things that we are outlining in this article. If it's ever established as describing a subculture too, then we'll include that in the article. You continue to insist that your sources are "best" and thus that we should "follow" them - why don't you consider for a moment that these are highly contested sources that quite conceivably fail WP:RS on its face. Insisting that we disagree, therefor we must follow your sources is ludicrous - it is not agreed that your sources are reliable either. --Cheeser1 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I no longer see a definite proposal before us. While "social group" is not inaccurate, "subculture" best distinguishes it from other items at the Emo dab page, I think, and as stated earlier I think that's not a special kind of classification so different in kind from "slang" that nonspecialists can't make the determination. There's already Emo (music), leaving this article to cover both fashion and the youths who self-identify as Emoists. I continue to favor doing what was done with Punk and Goth--making the analogue of the Punk subculture and Goth subculture pages. The sources establish the fact that people have come to view Emoists as analogous in this way, and I am reaching the same conclusion that was apparently reached by the people writing the Punk- and Goth-related pages. At a quick glance I didn't see hand-wringing over "subculture" in the discussion archives there. --JJL 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Other article can never be used as justification for decision making on Wikipedia. The reasoning there could be just as flawed as your reasoning here. Wikipedia cannot cite itself, nor can you use claims one article to substantiate some analogous claims in another. And that doesn't even touch the fact that goth and punk are not emo. Why not spin off subculture articles for swing music, reggaeton, and house music? The fact that it wasn't brought up there doesn't mean it shouldn't have been. Furthermore, if people call it a subculture, then we need a redirect. That is the purpose of a redirect. There is no precedent or reason behind "this is what it's (erroneously or unverifably) called, thus this is what the title of the article should be." You claim that "the sources esablish the fact that people have come to view Emoists [??] as analogous" but the sources we have are unreliable, they do not establish much of anything, and none of them speak to any sort of analogous cultural status. You may think that "subculture" is "not a special kind of classification" but it is. Undeniably. It is a specific kind of classification in sociology. The fact that the term is also used (and misused) in common parlance is irrelevant. --Cheeser1 04:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These articles are not being used as sources. They are being used as examples of an accepted community standard of article nomenclature across Wikipedia. I have used similar reasoning for uniformizing article nomenclature for Avian influenza, Canine influenza and [{Equine influenza]] (bird flu, dog flu and horse flu).
 * You are really pushing for "subculture" as some special kind of term. this is your interpretation. You have provided no basis for this, whether reliably sourced, or by prior precedent. This is really becoming crank-like (sorry just read ). You are creating an argument from a non-existent basis while pushing your expertise in the area above others. there is no precedent in wikipedia that "subculture" is some kind of special term that requires extra-special reliable sources to use as disambiguator. The old "Ferrari (car)" analogy resurfaces, you don't need a reference for the obvious. --ZayZayEM 03:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll thank you not to accuse me of being a crank. No one would object to the notion that canine influenza is properly called canine influenza. If you have a source indicating that the contents of this article are properly called "emo subculture," feel free. But you don't. You have unpublished, unreliable, or non-authoritative sources. That's not going to cut it. "Standard of article nomenclature"? That would be an argument to use, maybe, if I said "we are never allowed to call an article ____ subculture" - but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that in this case, there is no evidence. The fact that other articles do something similar is irrelevant. I could go raise complaints over there (but I won't, because I respect WP:POINT). However, there is no evidence to support the conclusion "punk is a subculture, thus emo is a subculture." You may see the two articles as similar, but you can't introduce analytical claims into an article based on those in another article. Blatant violation of WP:SYN. --Cheeser1 04:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence has been supplied. And dismissed by you as not good enough. Yes you have cited wikiepdia guidelines, but the interpretation of these guidelines has been disputed. That the other articles use the word subculture without a reference is relevant. It shows that "subculture" is not some amazingly technical term that needs extra special citation. Its like calling a Ferrari a car. Noone has said punk is a subculture, thus emo is a subculture - we have said emo is a subculture, just like punk. They are parallel examples not genealogical. --ZayZayEM 05:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But those other articles clearly describe a subculture. This article just talks about a stereotype. If this article can be changed to describe a subculture, I believe only then does it make sense to rename. --Mdwh 10:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is fair. ZayZayEM makes some very good points, but it is reasonable to ask to see more about the subculture in the article. I am not so concerned about whether it's done before or after--If you build it, They will come (and edit it)--but there are now several sources talking about (worrisome?) aspects of the group's attitudes, such as that by the psychiatrist, and more of that should be in the article. --JJL 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute about those sources, and apparently there is also a dispute about what is obvious. Drawing your own analogies between punk and emo is not convincing. Citing other Wikipedia articles isn't doing much either. The fact is, there are legitimate concerns being raised about the sources for this content (either in the article, or in the article's title), by several users, for valid reasons. To think that saying "a subculture is a subculture" is any more convincing or would be agreed upon is silly. You already know people are raising concerns, and brushing them off with "everybody knows it's a subculture" or "it's obvious it's a subculture" or "we don't need a citation for this information" - it's no answer to the concerns of other editors, it's an outright dismissal. When you propose bold changes, consensus has to form. That means addressing people's concerns, not dismissing them. --Cheeser1 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As i wrote above, i personally wouldnt call it a subculture in the traditional sense, i don't think the beliefs are distinct at all, i couldnt even describe the beliefs, standards, morals, behavious etc. of someone claiming to be part of said subculture, i certainly believe that you would find a large variety and also a large part in common with mainstream pop culture. Culture itself and the way cultures and subcultures (if they can be said to still exist) are develeped is changing considerably since the onset of the 'communicateion age'. My overall views is that i have not seen enough evidence to back up claims of anything more than a stereotype. My belief is simply that the research doesnt exist. --Neon white 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (re:The Ferrari analogy) In this case it is not obvious. The arugement is valid as their is little evidence as yet to suggest a subculture is in existance --Neon white 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article cannot be considered to describe a subculture. At this stage it only mentions music and fashion. There are no mentions about any distinct religious or poltiical beliefs or similarities based on ethnicity, gender, race or sexuality that would be required for something to the be classed as a subculture. If such things exist they to go in the article before anything else. --Neon white 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

←Cheeser please consider your comments about dismissiveness to your own debating tactics. And noone has cited the article subculture in recent history. --ZayZayEM 00:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's also interesting to note that Subculture mentions Emo (slang) in passing. JJL 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC). Add this to the fact that everyone is making claims based on "but we have punk subculture and goth subculture" and I see a significant problem with people citing Wikipedia articles to make claims in other Wikipedia articles (without even any basis - goth can be a subculture even if emo isn't). --Cheeser1 01:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, subculture and the punk and goth articles are relevant in the way you mentioned here and here ; they indicate that "subculture" is not a trademarked term usable only by licensed sociologists. I don't think there's any need to further argue that point. --JJL 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article certainly needs more work to be a good Emo subculture article. Moving it would likely spur some of that work and so I have mixed feelings on this, but it is not unreasonable to expect to see more of it now. We have evidence that the phrase is used but have not put much of it in the article--e.g., the suicide concerns would be a possible criticism. --JJL 13:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but if you think subculture has a non-sociological definition you better provide reliable sources to prove that. Otherwise all you're doing is citing Wikipedia, which is not valid. --Cheeser1 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Evidence that the phrase is used" is exactly the conditions under which we create a redirect. It is not justification for a move. --Cheeser1 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser, this is creating a false dichotomy. "You can't prove me wrong, I mustbe right." Why does something being a scientific term disallow us from making assessments. "Animal" is a biological term, "Acid" a chemical term, "Archway" an architectural term. Dictionary "subculture" . I like this one
 * You don't have to be an anthropologist to assess these criteria (common activity, age, status, unified by taste in music, fashion, mood - used to describe deviant groups). As pointed out, sociology is a very soft science. --ZayZayEM 01:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The claim that emo is a subculture is one of a sociological nature. Furthermore, it is an analytical claim, which requires not just a reliable source, but a reliable secondary source with analytical authority. This is the basics of WP:RS. Accuse me all you want of saying I'm right, but don't forget: You are arguing for inclusion, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to prove it isn't a subculture. I just have to point to the opinion that I and many other share: there are no reliable sources to support such a claim. Stop side-tracking the discussion by longwinded and irrelevant citations of the dictionary. I could pull out a dictionary and quote you "prime number" and then say "2157 is a prime number because lots of people would look at it and guess that it is," but it isn't. Even regular claims on Wikipedia require reliable sources - analytical ones, especially those that are contested and not supported by consensus, must have published, reliable, authoritative sources, not the Google cache of an unpublished paper or a conference abstract of a manuscript, neither text of which we even have access to. You can argue around in circles, and I'll continue to raise the same objections. Saying "you're wrong because it's obvious" or "you're wrong because we have a majority" or "you're wrong because we dislike you" is not going to get you anywhere, and is not how we build consensus. I contest any bold edits of this nature that have or will occur until I see reliable sources. I am not the only one. If you (and others) want to contribute constructively, maybe you can redirect your time into improving the article we have now (which is the status quo and thus is supported by consensus - it just needs better sources), instead of trying to introduce even more tenuous claims into it. --Cheeser1 02:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why are you free from burden of proof to show that "subculture" is a term that requires sociological verification. It doesn't. Anymore than I need a source to say "Ebola haemorrhagic fever is a disease". --ZayZayEM 02:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was no reliable source to show that Ebola was a disease, then we wouldn't call it one. However, there are such sources. If something is not contested, a source may not be provided, but if it becomes contested, it must be. See also WP:CK, which I've already cited several times. Subculture is known to be a sociological term (if nothing else, according to the definition you provided). To make analytical claims about sociology, one requires a source, not simply what you conclude. That's WP:OR on its face. I don't have to "prove" a reliable source is needed - that's just a matter of policy. You disagree? Then there's a disagreement - that means no consensus for your changes. Once again, I am not the only one saying this. --Cheeser1 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Shared tastes in fashion and music amongst teen groups dont natively constitute a subculture. That would be class as popular culture. As of now we don't seem to have any evidence that there are any more shared beliefs, political, religious, ethnic or otherwise to link people who happen to enjoy the same music. --Neon white 00:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Now What?
It has been several days since this talk page has been edited, and yet there was no clear resolution to the name debate. Personally, I feel unsure of which way consensus went, although the fact that the discussion died out unresolved could mean that there was no consensus to move and it should be left be. So what do we do now? Do we leave it here until someone else opens this can of worms again? Do we try to conduct a straw poll? I am not trying to revive debate so much as see what the result of the debate was. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 23:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Because there is no clear consensus, the page should remain at the status quo. Editors involved should probably decide if they actually want to contribute to the article itself (which is what wikipedia is for), and then return to this discussion at a later date. This is not a consensus that "slang" is okay, but a lack of consensus for anything else. --ZayZayEM 01:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. If there is no consensus, we default to the previous consensus, which is the page as-is. There was consensus for how the page is, and that's more than we can say for any new proposals. --Cheeser1 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The best thing to do is to improve the article's content. --Cedars 12:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As i mentioned above, the stalling point is the lack of evidence that there are any shared beliefs, political, religious, ethnic or otherwise to warrent the tag 'sub-culture'. --Neon white 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources for emo being a subculture
The first two are good academic sources which meet V and/or SPS. The third is a good source for how sociologists use the term (also by policy). Then comes a few less-reputable ones, just to show that this is not just a few hits, but a general usage of the word which authors, journalists aong with sociologists use the word in this way. Is the internet great or what?


 * 1) Emo Music and Youth Culture.
 * 2) *Clearly states emo is a subculture.
 * 3) * claims this guy has a masters. Everything suggests that he is reading for a phd. and that he has taught for Yale (but do your own search on the guy). It has been published.
 * 4) Authenticity, Subcultural Capital, and the Rise of an Internet Scene
 * 5) *It is by "J. Patrick Williams, Ph.D. Department of Sociology." (now he is an assistant professor).
 * 6) *"The punk subculture and its offshoots, including hardcore, emo, and straightedge, have been conceptualized primarily as music- and style-based subcultures..."
 * 7) *It is selfpublished (or counts as such), but that is fine since he is published in the field (see [WP:SPS]).
 * 8) Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures.
 * 9) *The title and abstract make it clear that the authors think this word is unproblematic to use about emo. One of the authors is a professor of sociology. It has not been published, but seems peer-reviewed and was ostensibly good enough for the American Association of Sociologst annual meeting.
 * 10) *This would make it a selfpublished source WP:SPS, which is OK by policy because it is written by someone published and educated in the field.
 * 11) Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo (Paperback)
 * 12) *If someone have this book or has ever bought a book at amazon, they can check out what else it says on page 37 besides "...course of getting to know them I discovered an entire subculture-and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." Or on page 58: "...what was once a subculture…is now something completely new and unexplored: a national subculture dominated by those too young to have their voices heard, but savvy enough to make their presence felt".
 * 13) *It is written by Andy Greenwald and the amazon link is here: [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312308639/ref=sib_books_pg/104-4993413-7331169?ie=UTF8&keywords=emo%20subculture&p=S01G&checkSum=a%252BlvUBkVxqK%252F7pzMcw330KgLfBxJM9Q6%252FnnDc4Bh8M0%253D ].
 * 14) Music, Youth Subculture and Self-Harm.
 * 15) *Research done by University of Otago, Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences. Specifically, the Canterbury Suicide Project, a "research study of suicidal behaviour in people of all ages". It is pretty clear in its use of the term: "...the “emo” subculture emerged...", "...its existence as a youth subculture...".
 * 16) *Selfpublished by an organisation
 * 17) Debates of Artistic Value in Rock Music: A Case Study of the Band Weezer, 1994-2001.
 * 18) *A bachelor thesis by Jeff Rosenfeld affirming the claim. Self-ublished.

--Lundse 14:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are a few more (I was brought here by RFC).
 * [ http://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Hurts-Essential-Guide-Culture/dp/0061195391 Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture]. According to Booklist, "Simon and Kelley describe emo culture slyly in this perky lifestyle guide."
 * ANN NGUYEN. "'YOU ARE SO SCENE!'; IT'S NOT JUST THE CLOTHES; Once outsiders, fashion has helped push scenesters into the mainstream; Finding Emo." The Houston Chronicle, September 19, 2006. ("If you were to ask a true emo, he or she wouldn't call it a type of music or clothing. No, it's a lifestyle. The grunge of the millennium, emo has reach-ed heights grunge never did. ... Kids once labeled as emo are now being called scene-sters. The more modern term of emo kid has blended into the same definition as a scenester. ...the subculture has forever sunk its claws into American pop culture.")
 * Barbara Mahany. "Be savvy about emo culture." Chicago Tribune (May 22, 2006)). ("What started out as a devotion to a particular music has evolved into a subculture all its own.")
 * and a presumable companion article: Barbara Mahany. "Finding emo: Angst spreading from older teens to middle-schoolers." Chicago Tribune (May 22, 2006)). (" Now emo is a subculture with a dress and drama all its own. According to kids, teachers, and therapists, it has become the latest cool thing in junior highs, where cool is everything. ... You can find the ever-more-youthful emo trend in cities and suburbs. And it has spread, thanks to the Internet, ... . ... You can Google "emo" and find step-by-step pictorial guides for "emo makeovers." That is, how to transform a geeky guy with a pencil tucked behind his ear, working at a copy store, to a "bona fide emo boy," who is shown dying his hair black, ditching the smile, slipping on a black T-shirt and scarf and, in the final photo, putting razor blade to wrist, from which something red is spilling.")
 * Rebecca Christian. "Trends tough to keep up with, or understand." Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA) (July 29, 2006). ("Emo is a term for the fashion and music of a youth subculture, like Goth of yesteryear.")
 * --Calliopejen1 22:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note that #1 ("Emo Music and Youth Culture") was published int he Encyclopedia of Contemporary Youth Culture,, which would seem to be a pretty definitive source on this sort of thing. --Calliopejen1 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources unreliable
I've already made most of this clear, so I'll try to be brief:

All in all, none of these sources have enough weight on their own. They reflect the fact that some people use the term "subculture" loosely. Emo kids are not reliable sources of information about emo - not analytical information anyway. Unpublished papers by undergrads or grad-students that have not been accepted in the field of sociology are not reliable sources, and are NOT written by experts, and could easily be misusing the term, due to its rampant misuse elsewhere. To somehow weave into the SPS loophole, you'd need to have an EXPERT - not an unproven grad (or worse, undergrad) student or random journalist. Certainly, there is a teeeeeeny body of unpublished work in sociology that might be academic in nature, where the author uses the term "emo subculture." But these sources are themselves unreliable. Further, I might say this is a fringe theory, except that it isn't even a theory - it's just a few (literally, I could count on one hand) sociologists using the term when describing this group. The fact that very very few people, none of whom are established in the field, use "emo subculture" in unpublished/unreliable sources is totally unconvincing. I'm sorry if I can't magically prove that the consensus is the other way, but I am arguing against inclusion (see my inclusion/exclusion comment above). It's not up to me. Until there are reliable, accepted, authoritative works that establish that emo is a subculture, we can't make that claim. --Cheeser1 05:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The grad student's paper - According to the publisher of this book, its content "rang[es] from academic to autobiographical." This is not a strictly academic source. The author was a graduate student (at the time of writing), and if you read the article, it is puerile, speculative, vague, and totally non-empirical. To be verifiable, it must be an EXPERT in the field writing something that is ACCEPTED in the field. Not a grad student writing in a book that has never been cited, it barely shows up on Google, barely shows up on [ http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-5956820-1500465?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=encyclopedia+contemporary+youth+culture&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go Amazon] (under a different title, so this may not even be our book), and it's not in any library as far as I can tell. Sounds to me like this work is hardly accepted in its field yet. And why is this paper hosted on a radio station page? This source seems very fishy to me. AND even if we accept it as a reliable source, it says Emo, which seemingly started as a somewhat “agreed-upon” collective subculture, has in fact become a highly contested set of meanings. Sounds to me like it's not much of a subculture now, and not the emo our article is about.
 * 2) The Google cache of an unpublished paper's abstract - This is a Google cache of the abstract of an unpublished paper. Not reliable in any way. Plus, like with Source 1, there's no way to know what emo he's talking about. He might be talking about 1990 emo, which Emo (music) is about. He only mentions emo in passing, as far as we know, and this article should not necessarily even be considered a source of information about emo - it's about straight-edge and the internet.
 * 3) The conference abstract - "Seems peer reviewed"? Seems? We have no idea if it was peer reviewed. We have no idea what kind of peer review it had - was it similar to the review published papers get? We don't know because this is an the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript, which are decidedly not reliable sources, EVEN when the author is a research in that field. The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case. And, of course, "expert" is a relative term. The authors appear to be relatively green - one is a grad student, the other two were PhDs 6 and 3 years before writing this. Note that it's been 4 years since this paper was written and 2 since this conference - it still hasn't been published.
 * 4) [ http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312308639/ref=sib_books_pg/104-4993413-7331169?ie=UTF8&keywords=emo%20subculture&p=S01G&checkSum=a%252BlvUBkVxqK%252F7pzMcw330KgLfBxJM9Q6%252FnnDc4Bh8M0%253D A personal account with no analytical authority] - Andy Greenwald is a primary source of information, and cannot make analytical claims (to make such claims requires authority in the field, which can only be found in secondary or tertiary sources). This also, by the way, tackles any claim that since "people in general" or specifically "emo people in general" call it a subculture, that we should too.
 * 5) A medical organization's self-published, non-sociological musings on self-injury - Self-published by an organization that does not study sociology. Furthermore, their claim that emo is a subculture is totally speculative and is based entirely on the conversation between two DJs on a radio station. Not reliable in any way.
 * 6) An undergrad's paper - This is all you have for this one: "A bachelor thesis by Jeff Rosenfeld affirming the claim. Self-ublished." I don't think I need to say much more. Totally unpublished, no scholarly authority, and the claim that emo is a subculture isn't even established here - the term is used once or twice in passing, talking about the band Weezer.
 * 7) [ http://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Hurts-Essential-Guide-Culture/dp/0061195391 A gossip-column style how-to-be-emo book]. "Simon and Kelley describe emo culture slyly in this perky lifestyle guide." Nuff said. Totally unreliable, no scholarly authority (no authority of any kind, really).
 * 8) ANN NGUYEN's newspaper article - No scholarly authority, and claims of subculturality based on "if you asked an emo kid" - this assertion is made by a primary source, and is not reliable (see Greenwald book above).
 * 9) Barbara Mahany's newspaper article - No scholarly authority. Might as well be citing this. Emo makovers? How reliable do you consider a source that gives emo makovers?
 * 10) Rebecca Christian's newspaper article - I'm sure the good people of Dubuque, IA appreciated the heads up about emo, but this author also has no scholarly authority. Random human-interest and/or "watch out for suicide!!" newspaper columns carry no sociological authority, and to be honest, can even make this claim based on this Wikipedia page, which used to call emo a subculture. It does happen (my guess is, often without acknowledging Wikipedia as the source).


 * Correct me if I am wrong but the current citation for emo being a slang word is a news radio site? Given the context, I am really struggling to understand how you can make the claim that none of the sources carry enough weight. Can you cite any source (more authoritative than the ABC one) that makes the claim emo is not a subculture but just a word? You seem to be just defending a point of view that you believe is correct, not attempting to reach a reasonable conclusion on the matter. --Cedars 10:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Cheeser, where are these definitive sources on emo? I used to enjoy reading the latest writings on emo (accurate or not). If there is some authorative source out there that backs up your point of view and is more definitive than any of the above, please point me to it. Cheers. --Cedars 10:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And (one last thing) even the ABC NewsRadio site mentions the word subculture. --Cedars 10:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I've stated, the burden of proof does not rest on me. I do not have to disprove the claim - the claim is included only if one can prove that it meets the relevant policies. I don't have to dig up sources that state "this is not a subculture" - one tends not to find sources listing everything that things aren't. Furthermore, if the article is not "upgraded" to subculture status, it remains an article on popular culture and slang. It is unreliably sourced as-is (lots of blogs), and those need fixing. But to make a claim about slang is not an academic claim, it's a claim about usage. That kind of a claim requires a source of a particular authority, and news articles fit the bill. And yes, it uses the term "subculture" as follows: One unkind website says that "emo" is "an entire subculture of angsty teenagers with fake personalities." It's quoting an "unkind website" with no sociological authority, and which is clearly not meant to be taken as reliable. --Cheeser1 13:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And to make a broader point, this is not a "subculture is better than slang" discussion. If someone wants to argue the merits of one title based on the fact that they don't like the other, they should remind themselves that additions to an article require justification for what you put in the article, not just for what you take out or replace. If I find an inaccurate statement in an article, I am obviously allowed to remove it. So if we grant the assumption that (slang) is not the correct parenthetical (I am not doing so, this is hypothetical), then we would use a different parenthetical. One cannot argue "slang is not the right term" in order to somehow hope that if it is removed, "subculture" will magically be the automatic replacement. --Cheeser1 13:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you see the irony in you setting yourself up as an authority on the qualifications of sociologists in order to argue that they're unqualified to be authorities on sociology. Looking especially at your 1. above, it seems a quite broad and harsh judgment and I'm not sure you're qualified to make a judgment that a graduate student's sociological work is "puerile, speculative, vague" and so on.
 * You grant that the use of the term subculture to describe Emo is "rampant" above. But you're stuck on insisting that there can only be a main entry for Emo subculture if it's truly a subculture in a technical use of the term. This might be true for Emo (subculture), but not for "Emo subculture" the widely-used phrase. To me, you might as well be arguing that there should be no entry for the Nintendo GameCube because it is not actually shaped like a cube. Rather than get the opinion of a mathematician whose qualifications meet your standards, I'd accept that that's what it's called even if it's a misnomer. Would you eliminate the firefly entry because fireflies are technically beetles rather than flies, according to biologists? The phrase "Emo subculture" is well-attested and is, as you grant, in wide use. Insisting that this is unacceptable because it's a mis-use in your mind when it's so commonly used by those describing members of the group is a little like insisting that Doctor Who be renamed Mr. Who because we haven't been shown his medical credentials.
 * I'm not convinced that subculture is only a technical term, and I do think that referring to adherents of Emo as being part of a subculture is reasonably accurate (at least as the term is commonly used w.r.t. music-based movements), but in any event I don't find this a sociological question. People who are into Emo are widely described as being a part of the Emo subculture in a variety of sources. It's a phrase that has entered common usage and describes a group of people. American Indians aren't from India and Japan isn't the land where the sun rises from my point of view, but I accept that those terms exist and are in use. --JJL 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I grant that the term "subculture" is misused by unqualified people, in many different circumstances (emo being just one example). Your examples are bizarre, irrelevant, and not analogous to this situation - please don't make them (Doctor Who is the name of a TV show - if there were a show called Emo Subculture I would not be arguing this point there). They could be interpreted as belittling and inflammatory. "Emo subculture" is sometimes used - how frequently is unknown, but what is known is that it is used virtually only by people with no sociological authority. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's not our job to redefine technical terms based on common usage. If you want to discuss this rationally, feel free, but I'm not going to address two paragraphs of bizarre, inappropriate analogies. I am not making any claims about my authority on sociological sources - WP:RS and WP:V make this very clear. And finally, "common usage"? Upon what do you base this claim? Examples of misuse that you consider "rampant"? There is only one definition of subculture - using another, based on how you perceive it to be "commonly" used is not how we write an encyclopedia. "Japan" is the proper name of Japan. "Doctor Who" is the proper name of the show Doctor Who. "GameCube" is the proper name of a video game console. "Emo Subculture" is not the proper name of anything - saying this asserts (without any sociological authority) the existence of "emo" as a subculture. --Cheeser1 13:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you're making an argument based on the fact that a redirect exists, you should remember that (1) Wikipedia is not a source for itself, you can't cite the existence of a redirect as proof of the term being valid and (2) redirects are intended to point people who search for a particular term in the right direction - they are not there to validate any particular term. One cannot go to L'Hôpital's rule and claim that the correct spelling is L'hopitals rule, based on the existence of a redirect. --Cheeser1 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The choice of the word "rampant" was yours, in the first entry under "Sources unreliable" here. I was quoting you. As to misuse, I contend that your implicit assertion that "subculture" has only a narrow technical meaning and may properly be used only by sociologists is incorrect in the context of a phrase like "Emo subculture" (vice a claim that Emo is a subculture in the sense used within a sociology paper, or as would be implicit in Emo (subculture)). When journalists covering the music/fashion scene write of a musical/fashion subculture, they're using the term in an accepted way that may not agree fully with the technical usage of the term by sociologists. The phrase gets 846 ghits and more on Yahoo!, many of them news articles. I chose obvious examples as that seemed necessary; my point remains that the phrase "Emo subculture" is widely used and that even if you feel that it is incorrect when parsed down to its component parts--the old joke that "military intelligence" is an oxymoron--that doesn't change the fact that it's in wide usage, making it a name like Doctor Who or GameCube (or more like firefly, which was assigned from ignorance rather than by a company). It's like the old Mike Myers "Coffee Talk" skit on SNL: ""The Progressive Era was neither progressive nor an era. Discuss." There's an entry for Progressive Era here. You're wikilawyering every source as being insufficiently technical in your judgment, but I feel you're missing the big picture that the phrase is widely used and concordant with similar uses for Punk, Goth, etc. whether it makes sense to you or not (and it does make sense to me). Since we agree that it's either "rampant misuse" (your term) or "rampant use" (my veiw), rampant is rampant and hence notable. --JJL 14:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And all of that is exactly why we have a redirect at Emo subculture. None of that justifies the misuse of a sociological term, because (despite your perception of some "common usage") it only has one definition - as a precise sociological term. I would point out that this is essentially the purpose of many redirects, this one included. --Cheeser1 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that while "monkey" is often used to describe an ape, the article monkey doesn't split hairs - it is a biological classification, and is treated as such. On the other hand, while a peanut is not a nut, it is still properly named a peanut. Unless you want to argue that the proper name of this group of people is "emo subculture" (this is absurd), I don't see what you're getting at. --Cheeser1 15:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [The graduate student's paper is] A very poor article. It seems to center around a music genre and misuses the term sub culture to describe a music genre, it also makes a number of very speculative claims and many contradictions. --Neon white 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [re:SPS] Reread the policy, please. You will find, as I have pointed out about 7 times now, that the policy against abstracts only goes for math, medicine, et al. Also, I find it funny that a published sociology professor is "green". And of course it has not been published, it was written for the conference and not for publication. --Lundse 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [re:Andy Greenwald] So no journalistic sources on wikipedia at all, then? And of course we cannot assume he knows anything, nor has talked to anyone with professional opinions? And hundreds of people using a term is no indication that it is a valid way to use that term? --Lundse 17:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [re:Google cached abstract] So the fact that it is written by an independently published phd in sociology does not matter? And since he does not write a paper on "emo is a subculture" (which _everyone_ but a few lone voices in here seems to take for granted) then it cannot be used as a source? --Lundse 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [re:the Grad Student paper] Right. So if the cource says something we do not like, it must be talking about something else, then? And I am sorry, but I do not agree that given a choice between no sources for "slang" and a handful of sociologists word for "subculture" we should choose the former because the sociologists are not sufficiently published, or EXPERTS enough. Also, I wonder how you judge whether something is ACCEPTED in the field, since this is apperently something else than writing in the field and having a phd or teaching in it...
 * And misrepresenting the source is just sad, really. Anyone following this discusion should read the first paragraph and make up their own minds about what this source is saying on emo. The "contested meanings" secion is also interesting, it talks about who are emo and what they mean by that (not, amazingly, whether it is a subculture or not - but then, every source we have come across with just a hint of authority on the subject seems to take this for granted...). --Lundse 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Article's current sources
The articles current sources are an absolute joke compared to the ones being provided here. These may not be the best sources available, but they are accessible and an improvement on what we have got. I see no problem as long as they are attributed and not pushed beyond what they are worth. Wikipedia is a perpetual work in progress, shooting down improvements because they aren't perfect is not very progressive or productive.

Suggestion: Editors use information from these sources to improve the article, if this results in an article more about a subculture, a move will be more likely accepted by the community. Moving before changing content is innapropriate, I think this was part of the message from the last RM.

--ZayZayEM 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Current sources:
 * Self published flash website How to dress emo 2.0. It's vanity and he has zero credentials in sociology (which is the field relevant to pop culture trends like slang).
 * Several music genre orientated articles in webzines (which are unreliable,a nd generally "selfpublished") KnotMagazine Incendiary about.com
 * Self published Emo FAQ site by some guy who takes photos What the heck *is* emo, anyway?
 * Newspaper's Blog that references wikipedia. Strict no-no.
 * University newspaper opinion piece written by some guy Cheer up Emo Kid, It's a Brand New Day Might have some POV issues:
 * The *good* ones:
 * Daily Mail EMO cult warning for parents: a tabloid scare piece that confuses Emo as a subset of Goth (wait, if all Goths are part of a subculture, and some goths are emos... ^_^)
 * ABC News Radio "Emo" segment entitled Word Watch - pretty superficial investigation to explain it to the conservative old types that would rather listen to John Williamson.


 * I think you're missing the facts that: (1) less reliable or less authoritative sources are slightly more appropriate when the topic is pop-culture/fashion related and (2) using different unreliable sources is not better, just because they are making claims that normally require more authority/reliability. The way to fix this article is to find reliable sources, like the cleanup tag (which has been there forever) says. Either we treat this article like it is now, and hopefully find better sources, or we "upgrade" it to making claims that require more authority (in which case we will have trouble finding any sources at all, given that the exhaustive efforts to scour the web for reliable sources turned up dubiously credible sociological work and/or unrelated scholarship). Are the sources we have now good? No. Does that justify using sources that are also unreliable to make a claim that requires more authority? No. There is a bar that's set, that we have to meet. If you want to talk about a subculture, you raise that bar - the fact that the new sources can "jump higher" is irrelevant - they can't get over their bar either. The unreliability of the sources we have now is immaterial - it does not change anything about the sources you're trying to introduce. --Cheeser1 06:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That last comment might have sounded like I'm disagreeing, even though in great part what I said was agreeing - I probably should remember to be more clear about that. I agree that we do need new sources. However, I believe attempting to introduce new sources intending to change the focus/content of the article in a particular predetermined direction is nonNPOV and is poor form. There seems to be a clear desire, on some parts, to make this article about a subculture. I'm all for removing the bad references and getting better ones in there (I've been a strong advocate of that from day one), but replacing them with slightly more reliable sources doesn't help if the claims those sources make requires even more authority. If I have a family of 5 and can't feed them, a small raise in my salary won't help if it requires me to adopt several more children. I hope that analogy makes sense (if it doesn't, do not make this a discussion about analogies you don't get, just ignore it). If we're going to replace these bad sources, we should do it with better sources, not with sources that still lack the adequate authority to make the claims we're using them to support (even if those claims are more lofty). --Cheeser1 06:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) Is just wrong. This article cannot avoid RS issues (especially with regards to slef-published material by non-notables, and articles that reference wikipedia) than any other. Your argument contains some brain-crushing logic for someone who is fighting to uphold RS.
 * I am saying these new sources are better. There is no bar they have to cross. That bar was set by the previous sources and is practically non-existent. Improvement is improvement. I advocate these new sources are an improvement.
 * Pop-culture and slang are sociological topics. They require sociological references as much as subculture articles.
 * (No your analogy doesn't make any sense.)
 * I am arguing to improve this article before any resurface of a move. The idea of moving to improve the articles direction was very poorly construed. The article should be improved, and then, if needed a new move proposed. As the article improves it may apparent not to move, or to move it to a different article (say emo (fashion) or emo (epithet) not supporting these, just hypotheticals) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you don't get what I was saying. Maybe being concise will help: Replacing unreliable sources with (supposedly) better unreliable sources is no improvement, even if the new sources are trying to make loftier claims. Doing so with the underlying intention of shifting an article's content to reflect personal beliefs about what it should be about? That's out of the question. Journalists can report on popular culture - analytical claims require more authoritative sources. For example, if a journalist reports "emo is popular" - this is fine. If a journalist reports "emo is a vast American subculture" - this is analytical, and requires a more authoritative source. --Cheeser1 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What Journalists? Sorry. None of the current references aside from Daily Mail are written by Jouranlists. The San Diego blog might be as well, but it references wikipedia, ergo - unusable. Oh, and the webzines are about Emo (music).
 * Wikipedia can use newspapers for analytical claims, as long as the claims are attributed to the newspaper. Eg. "Emo has been reported as an emerging youth subculture by many media outlets [cite] [cite] [cite]". Just the facts ma'am. --ZayZayEM 01:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The point about journalists was an example - analytical claims require a qualified, authoritative source. Journalists have no sociological authority. Emo has been reported to be the cause of self-injury by media outlets. But we routinely remove such content because such claims are not substantiated by real authorities in psychology or psychiatry. --Cheeser1 02:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So sources by published authorities within academia, sociology students and teachers is no better than some guy's blog?
 * Please also note that the "new direction" towards actually writing about the people out there is unavoidable; unless of course you are saying there is no emo phenomenon and it is just an empty word denoting nothing... So please do not paint me in the light of "wanting" this to be about a subculture - I want it to be about whatever the phenomenon out there is, not just about a word. I think the name should reflect this.
 * And I do get the analogy, BTW, it is quite clear and good at illustrating your point. I just do not agree that it applies. --Lundse 18:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The conference abstract as a source in itself
My claim is that this is a good source, in that it meets SPS, on its own merits. Not as a academic paper, but as a source from a published sociologist who says that emo is a subculture. Note that I am not talking about the paper, but the text that we do have. This is clear from the WP:SPS policy: This clearly tells us that the reason we cannot use selfpublished sources is that we cannot trust selv-proclaimed expertise. This is the only reason given. Here we are given the logical extension of the general ban on selfpublished sources, that if the expertise is established independently, then the source is fine. This is the case here, this is a professor of sociology and he is published in the field.
 * "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]"
 * "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

I have seen no clear argument against this, except a plea to use a policy intended for "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine". Even if we conceeded that we should treat a sociological claim as a mathematical one (and I see no reason why we should do this), then the cited policy states that another policy is at work if we treat it as a primary source, which is what I am advocating here. That policy says: So a person reading the abstract should be able to surmise himself, without expert knowledge, that emo is a subculture. I think the "... the specific case of “emo,” a youth-based musical subculture..." is pretty clear.
 * "For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

Again, I urge anyone who finds fault with this logic and use of policies to state explicitly where the fault lies and what policies apply. Specifically, I would like to know the reasoning behind: And To which I have to add that the presenting author is a published associate professor of sociology. I would like to know what level of education is required before one is no longer "green"... --Lundse 10:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case."
 * "The authors appear to be relatively green - one is a grad student, the other two were PhDs 6 and 3 years before writing this."


 * I think we need to focus on changes not discussion. If the desired change is to move the emo page then we need to have some sort of vote to see what consensus there is amongst us. The vote should allow each person to briefly summarise their position and IMHO does not need to be externally arbitrated or announced. This discussion is going nowhere and I am no longer able to follow Cheeser's arguments. For the record, my beef is more with the content of the page not the title. I'd have to think a bit more about the move but I probably would support it. --Cedars 10:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thought, maybe we should just start an Emo (subculture) page, build up some good content and then decide whether to redirect later. Alternatively (and to be honest this is my preferred solution), maybe we should just start rewriting this article and forget about moving for the moment. --Cedars 10:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My main beef here is actually that the discussion is going nowhere, and for some odd reason I seem to think more discussion is the solution... :-)
 * Seriously, then I am becoming irritated because rational arguments are not being heard and mainly because I am being strawmanned time and again. I am losing faith in the wikipedia process because a single individual who refuses to discuss matters rationally is able to block the improvement of an article... So I guess I am really trying to prove to myself that the system works, by trying again and again.
 * You are right that the article's content is more important, but I think it is problematic to ask people to edit an article about a slang word when there is nothing more to write. I would have a hard time finding motivation for editing against the title of an article, knowing that any editor could delete everything I made, claiming it is irrelevant and being right. This is the reason I believe the move comes first - there is no place on wikipedia to write about the emo social group! --Lundse 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the first suggestion, fully. --Lundse 10:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "The exception to WP:SPS is explicitly ruled-out in this case" comes from the Wikipedia's policy regarding conference abstracts. This is not a primary source - appealing to that policy would be nonsense. This is an analytical claim, requiring a secondary source. Sociology is a social science - the policy on academic/scientific sources is clear. This is a sociological claim, and insisting that there is "another" definition of subculture aside, there's nothing you can do to change that. I've made my case repeatedly - every time you repeat yourself, so do I, and you expect to make progress by doing it some more? Attempting to "make a new discussion" or anything of the sort is, what, an attempt to hope that I don't speak up any more because you've started this entire thing with a thinly veiled personal attack against me?? Read up on Wikipedia's conduct policies and etiquette guidelines. You shouldn't be going on tirades about how "a single individual who refuses to discuss matters rationally is able to block the improvement of an article." You are violating several policies here. Don't forget that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and while you've argued that this means you are allowed to ignore people who disagree with you, it actually means that even if an opinion has a majority, the minority viewpoint must still be considered (not rejected as "irrational" "problematic" etc, just because you consider it irrational or problematic). You haven't let this discussion die since the move request months ago, and the bulk of the time we've been discussing the exact same source. If this claim were accepted in its field, you'd be able to find published work supporting it. That's what it all boils down to. Digging and digging gets you some primary sources (unable to substantiate analytical claims), some self-published ones (unreliable), sources with no authority to make sociological claims, and a few more with other dubious qualities. Time and again, I've been attacked as "blocking" the "progress" of the article, but I don't believe your opinion of progress is necessarily right. You shouldn't either. Respect the fact that people can disagree, and instead of attacking my character or accusing me of "Wikilawyering" or "strawmanning" why don't you accept the fact that I'm making a somewhat reasonable argument based on several relevant policies. Your argument is based on what you want the article to say and what you think should be allowed to be a reliable source. I've still given it plenty of consideration, but I disagree. --Cheeser1 14:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: the "arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts" policy then I think I have pointed out three times that it deals with the harder sciences specifically. Why are you still making this point?
 * Re: primary source. Of course it is. Everything can be regarded as a primary source, although not everything is a secondary one, obviously (a biography on X by Y can be a sec. source on the life of X but a prim. source for the writing style of Y). You seem to be claiming once again that we can accept no sources except academic ones... Are you really convinced of this? I am not trying to make a sociological claim, I am simply claiming that sociologists use the word in this way. For this, I have an excellent primary source of a sociologist using the word. Please stop mudding the issue with your talk about academic papers, which is quite unnecesarry (but would be nice).
 * You also reiterate your claim that if "emo is a subculture we would have source saying so". Did you not read my comments on this? It is arguing from ignorance and there are a thousand possible reasons why such a claim woud not be in the literature (that is is obvious, would be one - just like you never found that source for 124 follows 123). Please do not see this as an invitation to once again claim that I am saying we have no source for the definition of integers, these are seperate claims and need seperate sources (unless you want to synthesize from the latter claims).
 * About attacking your character etc. at the end of your post, then I think you have had plenty of time to prove me wrong. You have repeated your misunderstandings and misrepresentations of my points, time and again. This is strawmanning and calling you on it is not against policy. I know people can disagree and I am all for respecting the minority view. But wikipedia and I should not be forced to respect a viewpoint you are not willing to argue for. And repeating your irrelevant counterarguments to some argument I never made is just not good enough. --Lundse 21:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to belittle sociology into a "soft science" to make your argument, I suggest you find better grounds. Social sciences may not be physical sciences, but they follow the same standards as other sciences. Furthermore, if you want to make a claim about how sociologists use particular words, you'd better check WP:OR one more time. You have looked up some papers, and you have decided that this means "sociologists use the term in such a fashion," which is a claim that you are making. And for the last time, there are hundreds of texts in mathematics that explicitly define the natural numbers in terms of successors. You are making bogus irrelevant analogies, and you accuse me of strawmanning and attack my character? Read up on Wiki-etiquette, and get your facts straight. --Cheeser1 01:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sociology is a prime example of a soft science. Dictionary.com describes it as a science that studies behavioral patterns in humans - society. It even lists sociology as an example. Also, we have looked up papers (which is not included in the wikipedia definition of OR) which show sociologists using the term. We have not "decided" this means sociologists use the term this way, we have proven that this term is accepted in sociology. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (re:Cedars' suggestion sto start a subculture page) Me too. Suggest doing a draft in a sanboxspace and putting a well referenced article into the articlespace. --ZayZayEM 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody other than Cheeser seems to be arguing the abstract is unusable source. I think that is consensus that it is a reliable source. --ZayZayEM 01:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We should hold a poll (note: the word intended here is "vote", but people seem to frown on using that word). -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 02:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And what you prove is OR, by definition. Note that the dictionary does not say "soft sciences should be treated differently" in any fashion, nor is dictionary.com a source of Wiki-policy. Sciences are sciences, and we have policy telling us that conference abstracts are unreliable. We also have guidelines telling us that unpublished papers are unreliable. --Cheeser1 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, by all means, let's have a vote, instead of discussing policy. Majority rule is not consensus-building, and unless I'm mistaken, WP:RS doesn't say "take a vote to determine if a source is reliable." Consensus is supposed to consider how we read WP:RS, not on how to overrule WP:RS. Asking that you use a published source is not unreasonable, especially when there are no authoritative published sources supporting your claim. Like WP:SPS and WP:RS make clear, if you have to resort to using unreliable sources to make your claim, but assert that the claim is accepted or verifiable, you should wonder why it hasn't been published or accepted in its field. Ignoring WP:RS and the objections of a minority is not what consensus/majority building is supposed to allow. --Cheeser1 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cheeser, you need to tone down the sarcastic attitude. Just understand: you are staring down the business end of a majority. You don't need to lash out at us just because we (when I say we, I mean those of us who want to move it) are trying to build consensus in favor of our argument. We are trying to discuss this in the most civil way, and you are bordering on incivility. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 02:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

←Well you've already made up your mind - you want to move it. The point of discussion is not to build consensus for what you want. It's to discuss policy and come to conclusions and compromises about what content we include and what sources we can use, based on policy. If you want to vote on what to include based on what you'd personally prefer to have in the article, I'm just going to bow out of this nonsense now. You can wreak as much WP:RS-havoc on this article as you'd like, if you're going to point your shotgun-majority in my face whenever I object. That kind of browbeating is exactly what you're not supposed to do when people disagree with you. I'm done with this absurdity. You and Lundse can pat yourselves on the back for "making the system work," as he so obtusely put it, by I'll remind you that this is the opposite of how things are supposed to work. --Cheeser1 03:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur that there is consensus. The only hold-out is someone who is convinced that he is always right. Be bold. Note, the article will need some work to change the tone post-move. --JJL 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears we have a consensus that there is, in fact, a consensus. Nicely put, JJL! I do agree, we need the article rewritten. Now that Cheeser1 has left the discussion, we can start using "subculture". -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't it interesting that you misunderstand consensus so poorly that you'll use it to justify drowning out dissenting opinions? It appears that my RfC has generated several outside opinions that also object to the move, on reasonable grounds. --Cheeser1 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have made it clear that I do not believe consensus is achieved by being in majority. I believe it was achieved when you and others against the move stopped reading, understanding and/or responding lucidly to my explanations for how the conference abstract in itself was a source. Noone has presented an argument against it, only reiterated old arguments shown to be based on a fallacious reading of policy. Hence, we have noone actually arguing against the move. Hence, we have policy.
 * I am not pointing a majority at you. I am pointing my arguments at you. I would love to hear you counter-arguments and discuss them with you, but if you persist in mis-representing me and not answering my claims and arguments, then you have taken yourself out of the process. And there does come a time when it has to move on without you... --Lundse 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, and while you've decided that I have a fallacious reading of policy, the rest of the Wikipedia world works by building consensus, making edits based on reliable sources, and including only information accepted in the field of study. Now, we disagree on that. The fact that we read policy differently doesn't mean I'm automatically wrong. You seem to be under the impression that your reading of policy, despite others' disagreement (particularly those brought in by the RfC), is magically correct and that your sources are reliable simply because you believe them to be. --Cheeser1 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The consensus is at the bottom of the page and is that the article should remian as is because the article is a) needs rewriting and b) there is no evidence to suggest a change. --Neon white 16:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a consensus. There's a clear lack of consensus. Appropriately, things are in a holding pattern. Certainly it's true that improvement of the article is a more pressing need than renaming it. --JJL 03:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you realize that the status quo version of the page has consensus a priori. Lack of consensus for change defaults to the prior consensus, even if some people wanted to change things. --Cheeser1 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for my revert of your good decision
Sorry about my revert. I saw the earlier delete discussion. I then saw the later one and attempted to undo what I did, but Cheeser1 beat me to it. I watch several pages on the psyhology of emotion, which is how I got to this page. There DOES seem to be a sociological phenomenon, but not much by way of reliable sources. You've probably made the best decision, though I would have liked to find out about a youth culture phenomenon like that. --DCDuring 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, it was an honest mistake. --Cheeser1 01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

After all that...
After all the discussion that has gone on here, i actually looked through the article with a fine toothed comb and found if you were to removed all the bad and unreliable sources, the OR and weasel words, we really arent going to be left with too much that isnt covered in Emo (music). The only section that is properly cited is the music history. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the whole article should be deleted unless someone is prepared to do alot of work on it. --Neon white 17:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The real problem is that there aren't reliable sources writing about any of this. Even the superficial, non-analytical claims we want to make about this subject are barely sourced, if at all. --Cheeser1 21:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, maybe we should just be rid of it all for now. Maybe someone will write a published source about it, but maybe we should open an AfD. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say give it a bit of time - people should have an opportunity to take note of the discussion here and contribute. If no progress is made in finding any sort of substantial coverage in a reliable source, then I can imagine we'd make steps to make the necessary changes without concern for someone being "out of the loop" or anything. --Cheeser1 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think an actual AfD would get more of a response, but I'm not in a rush. I have actually edited his article more than any other article. I have 67 to the actual article, and 80+ to the talk page. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree that the AfD will get a response. I just meant wait like ... a day or two maybe. Give the people who regularly update this article to see what's been going on, so that they don't come back to find the thing halfway to deletion - that might make some heads spin. --Cheeser1 00:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's been given more than enough time. This article contains very little verified substantiated information. It can't even really decide how to focus the topic. Contains some very very dodgy references (such as those that are based on other wikipedia articles). --ZayZayEM 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If others think it should be up for deletion, I would agree. If people want to AfD it now, that would be fine with me. I just didn't want this to catch people by surprise. --Cheeser1 02:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems unanimous. Go right ahead. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the options are either merge it with Emo (music), in which case most of it is redundant seen as it seems that article is the source for the info here. If the article is to center on the fashion elements which does have some verifiable sources even if they are reporting a stereotype, then the article should be recategorized as fashion or just delete it. I still believe there is a slang usage of the term but the article is not about that and it simply does not fit with any of the other words in the category. It seems to be an attempted to establish the term as a sub-culture, that either doesnt exist or is not documented enough to have an article, using nothing more than original research. The main problem, and this seems to be widespread in the slang category, is the lack of reliable sources that arent self-published. There are many slang dictionaries but most are SP. --Neon white 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing with making it about fashion is that most of the verifiable sources are from news programs warning about how if your kid listens to emo music, he will kill himself, and the emo teenagers defending themselves and looking stupid for the adult-controlled, adult-targeted media. Power to the children! Ahem. Maybe it should just go. Few if any neutral reliable sources. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 15:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

←I'm always disappointed that journalism turns out to be so blatantly unreliable on so many topics. Sure, they can cover the war or the election or whatever, and maybe deep down there's some covering-up or bias, but this is just too obvious. "OMG UR KIDZ WILL COMIT SUISIDE! ... tonight at 9 on channel 3 news." sigh. --Cheeser1 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah :) Well, maybe it should get put up then. Also, a few harsh words were exchanged during discussions here, and I was not always extremely civil, and I wanted (now that all the discussion will be for nothing) to apologize to any I have ever offended. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 21:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's what i meant by a stereotype, it's the only thing there is reliable sources for and maybe a stereotype is all the term actually is outside music. --Neon white 23:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I too would support the deletion of this article as there is no useful content in this article at the moment. Merging with emo (music) would be unacceptable though. The whole point of this article was to get this rubbish out of the other article. --Cedars 06:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the best step is deletion/merge to emo (music), develop a section in that article about related fashion/poetry/anti-cliques and media/political response to this and see if enough material can be spun out to need a seperate article. --ZayZayEM 08:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There would be no point in deleting it, it would just be re-created (but if you wait long enough it'll get salted) so it would be reasonable to created a protected redirect to emo (music) and merge the information. --Oysterguitarist 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - redirecting this makes a lot of sense. I'm also in favor of a pseudo-merge. There are a few things here worth salvaging. --Cheeser1 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As a precedent the Grunge music article has a section titled 'Presentation and fashion' which touches on the fashions associated with that particular music genre. --Neon white 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should redirect, but there is some info that can be moved to the music article. Emo (slang) as a title is too specific to be able to refer to an article about music. We might be able to move Emo (music) to Emo now that we don't have to differentiate. Maybe we don't even need to AfD. All the regular editors seem to agree on some form of removal. If we do decide to delete instead of redirect, we could just prod it. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the plan as I see it taking shape (with progress updates): If that sounds good to everybody, I suggest we get underway. I've dropped a note at Emo (music) too, so the move won't take them by surprise. --Cheeser1 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Move Emo to Emo (disambiguation).
 * 2) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Move Emo (music) to Emo. - Thanks to Haemo for moving this, since it was move-protected.
 * 3) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Merge any salvageable parts of this article into Emo.
 * 4) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Redirect this article there (not move or delete). (Have we decided exactly what we want to do?)
 * 5) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Clean up mainspace links that point here.
 * 6) [[Image:Check_mark_23x20_02.svg]]Clean up mainspace links that point to Emo (music). - I've got all the redirects and templates fixed. If anyone thinks it necessary, you could go through all 600+ regular articles that link there.


 * OK, but instead let's redirect this page to Emo (disambiguation), which is more ambiguous. Good idea putting the regulars over at Emo music on notice. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 03:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as i can see there is the music page and what we appear to have left is some fashion stereotypes. What is worth keeping from this page? --Neon white 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * if Emo (slang) is deleted then a redirect is unecessary, everything will just go to Emo (disambiguation). --Neon white 16:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe a few fashion stereotypes are notable, but this page is unnecessary. I think we should delete. There's nothing here really warranting another article. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so things are underway. Right now we need to merge whatever we want from here into Emo. We can also start on the last step, if we want, since the Emo (music)&rarr;Emo move is done. --Cheeser1 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I merged some stuff in this edit. Everything else is either music or criticism related, but merging some criticism points might create too large a criticism section, starting NPOV problems. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What we have in the criticism section here seems pretty poorly referenced anyway. I've merged some more over here. I believe that's really all we need to move - if a few more people agree, then we can blank this page and redirect it to Emo. That would get us most of the way there. --Cheeser1 23:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * DONE - I've finished cleaning up mainspace links to this article, and I think we've merged as much as we're going to get out of here. I've set up the redirect. NOTE: if you want to merge more or anything like that, feel free. This isn't an absolute "we are now done forever" - just look through the history of the page, pick out what you think needs to be merged to Emo and put it there. Best to all. --Cheeser1 00:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit - Okay, right as I went to create the redirect, I noticed this: Have we decided exactly what we want to do? Have we? I was under the impression that a redirect made the most sense. This is a relatively popular article, and is referenced many places outside of Wikipedia. It's better, based on how I read this, to leave it in place not just for Wikipedia's sake but for the rest of the Internet. Regardless, there's alot of history here that is helpful. It includes alot on the talk page, etc. The alternative (deletion) leaves us with none of the revision history - which may prove helpful at some point - and more importantly none of the talk page, which would be a problem: alot of issues have been resolved here, and if we delete it, we'll loose all that consensus building. I'm going to be bold and assume that a redirect is better than deleting the article. If someone disagrees, feel free to suggest deletion. A redirect existing in the meantime won't hurt anything, will it? --Cheeser1 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, ok. I thought it would have been awkward to redirect a page with a title that seemed very specific, but seeing it in action, it works fine. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 02:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Templates
Now that all this page is is a redirect, do we really need to have the templates at the top? -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't need the fashion one - I've removed it. The others seem worthwhile - deletion records and talkpage archives are helpful, and the one about "this is a talk page, please follow the rules" could stay or go - I don't think it's necessary but it couldn't hurt (this is still a talk page, after all). --Cheeser1 15:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it mentions that this is for discussing improvements to Emo (slang), but we can't really improve it. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Couldn't it be revived if someone actually found some good secondary articles on the cultural phenomenon? There's something out there, just not encyclopedic yet - and maybe not ever. --DCDuring 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In theory, yes. Until then, it's a redirect. -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take any new discussion
Please take any new discussion to the Emo page please. Discussion on *dead* pages may be hidden from interested editors. --ZayZayEM (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Could it be?
I seem to have stumbled upon a published, reliable source. This would certainly warrant bringing back an article, if we deem it acceptable. Thoughts? -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This source has already been discussed at length above. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we cannot use that source as it is not academic enough. Never mind that it is among the best sources we have, and that we have zero sources contradicting the claim that emo is a subculture. Also, to hell with the guidelines saying we can use non-academic sources and even self-published ones in these cases. --Lundse (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Laying the sarcasm on a little thick eh? This discussion is so over that this entire article was deleted without objection weeks ago. Let it go. --Cheeser1 (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Compare the "Now What?" section above with the one following it. After agreeing to leave the page "as is" (per your own comments there), less than one week later a few editors decided to delete it despite the lack of consensus to do so and the clearly stated consensus to leave it as is. There was no objection because it was apparent that the process had broken down and it would be pointless to argue with someone who was ignoring the consensus that "the page should remain at the status quo" (to which you had responded, "Exactly"). So, your declaring victory seems a bit silly now. --JJL (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah it does, even though I wasn't accepting any victory :) That discussion was what, like three months ago? I can't remember what I said yesterday, much less three months ago :) -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait sorry, not directed at me. Guess my problem isn't remembering what I said a few months ago, it's whether I said anything at all :) -- J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am "laying on the sarcasm" because I think it is relevant mentioning that although the source has been discussed, noone ever tried answering the points raised about what way the sources as a whole pointed, nor what the policies said. The discussion being over, what you think the outcome was and what happened next is pretty irrelevant.
 * I have "let it go" as consensus has been effectively blocked at this point. I am done arguing for now, as I do not think it will do any good - but I am going to inform people that there was an argument and that certain viewpoints prevailed (ie. those I mentioned above). I am also going to check in on this page to see what excuses will be marshaled when the next source pops up... --Lundse (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus blocked? Several people objected to the references and to the claims you were drawing from them. Until you convince us to agree on these sources, you are the one working against consensus. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that would be me working against majority - which is something else. Consensus has connotations of everyone agreeing, and certainly of everyone having formed an informed opinion. Not responding to the policies I brought up which showed clearly that we could use those sources is blocking consensus, as it means the discussion stalls. --Lundse (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)