"Cotton Dockers. One would be harder pressed to find a person who doesn't wear those items of clothing... 

 If it isn't reworded within a few days, I'm cutting the entire section.  

 :: The section is about a popular stereotype (as the title suggests) and is sourced thoroughly and properly according to wikipedia guidelines, there is no mention in the article that the stereotype is indicative of anybodies lifestyle or indeed mentions any individuals or groups. It is purely about a stereotype associated with a style of music and no more.    

 :You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I'll give you a few pointers. Sign your posts by typing ~~~~. Place new comments at the end of a talk page. And as for your comments, while your input is appreciated, you shouldn't be making an ultimatum. If you want to reword it, reword it. If you want to cut it, cut it. Be bold, but if your changes are reverted, you'll have to build consensus. Demanding that people change it based on your (flawed) analysis is inappropriate. I say flawed because nowhere in the article does it say that these clothes are ""indicative of the lifestyle"" or that any such ""lifestyle"" exists. It's simply a short section on fashion associated with this music and the young people associated with it.    

 ==Invalid sources for ""emotive hardcore""== 
 1) http://atb7789.newsvine.com/_news/2007/09/07/948405-emo-the-color-of-my-soul 

 This article cannot be used as a source.  Seriously, it says, ""Emo actually stands for ""emotive"", coined by Ian McKay.""  First, it's spelled MacKaye.  Second, MacKaye reviled the term.  He had NOTHING to do with its coining. 

 2) http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/barbwired/read_story.php?storynum=224 

 This is essentially a high school newspaper.  It fails WP:RS: ""Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight."" 

 Furthermore, the author of the article failed to do enough research.  Sources contemporary to the establishment of ""emo"" refer to it as ""emotional hardcore"".  In fact, the first usage of ""emotive hardcore"" that we've been able to find is from a 1996 newsgroup posting by a record label. 

 I cannot comprehend the driving need by some people to rewrite history.  But the historical record is irrevocable - the term originated as ""emotional hardcore"".  The usage of ""emotive hardcore"" only came within the last decade.     

 :: Barb Wired is an online newspaper for New Zealand secondary school students. It is produced by Cognition Consulting Ltd and is edited by Phil Coogan., it has an editorial policy and therefore is verifiable. There is enough use of the term for it to be noted regardless of when you consider it to be have been first used. It isn't given any more prominence over the term you favour. You are missing the point. We do not get to decide what is true. Some other sources , there are also a good few record labels using the term and i think the most verifiable has to be the warped tour. 
    

 :::Having an editor and having an ""established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"" are two entirely different things.  Considering the nature of the site (and the nature of the newspaper - which is to provide an open forum for high schools to see their work published), there's no evidence of any fact-checking of the articles whatsoever.  Providing a source is not enough - the source has to meet the threshold of the claim. 

 :::That doesn't even touch the problem of using that source in that sentence.  The term ""emotive hardcore"" WAS NOT USED within the DC scene of the 1980s, which is specifically what that sentence is describing.  Even if ""emo"" now ""stands"" for ""emotive hardcore"", it's irrelevant to the opening paragraph, which is talking about the 1980s DC scene that spawned the genre.     

 :::: It is irrelevant when or where you think it was used or first used, we have multiple sources that prove it