Talk:Emo/Archive 4

message: I altered the band lists to fit it, seeing as how everyone's listing what one person says or thinks as what is true. Actually, I think what bands are emo and not is totally opinionated, but I'll play along anyway. So anyway, despite what past articles said, I removed Coheed & Cambria (they are alternative rock, if not metal!), Panic! and FOB (both on the pop scene, and not at all emo), and The Used (half punk half alternative). I didn't add any because I might hurt someone's feelings as what happened to me. No need to thank me --Zanny77 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not helping. The list is fine; people try to change it every day, and it is truly aggravating. Please just leave it as it is; if anything, we should be adding to it. --Chubbles 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there Chubbles, maybe I could help if you would stop vandalizing it w/ incorrect lists (BTW check my page! Wai, a new userbox w/ a message!) So if you would kindly change it and not vandalizing it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :) --Zanny77 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful what you call vandalism. Arbitrarily removing bands from an established list without discussion might just as well be called vandalism. The bands on that list have been placed there with a cited source. If you think they do not belong, you need to enter into a conversation here. You need to either provide evidence or make a convincing argument for why these bands should not be listed in a list that starts, "Correctly or not, emo has often been used to describe such bands". --Chubbles 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I honestly can't tell if you've even ever heard of those bands, but they do not even fit in the category of emo (even though it has been so skewered, that most people don't even know what it is.) I can give up the fight for The Used, I have realized they may just be emo. FOB and Panic! I don't really care about, but the only band  I really want to make a case about is Coheed and Cambria. They are definitely not emo, in fact, if you actually listen to some of their songs, in some they are very heavy (I admit they aren't in some). They are definitely a genre-bender, as they can fit in any of numerous genres, such as orchestrated rock (they like violins and stuff), hardcore rock (pretty heavy, but not heavy enough to be metal), or acoustic rock (they also like acoustics.) I will admit that I am simply a huge C&C making my arguement, but it's not the fact that I'm a fan that I'm doing it, it's because it is what's right. Please at least listen to their songs for once (I recommend The Suffering, Welcome Home, and Crossing the Frame from their latest CD, those cover all of their styles) so you can see my point. And maybe a little feedback from a neutral source? Thank you --Zanny77 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to point out my credentials, but I will; I own two C&C albums and four Fall Out Boy albums, and have seen both of them live. I'm not poorly acquainted with their music. I read a fair amount of music journalism, and I can say with absolute certainty that these bands are often referred to as emo. It doesn't matter whether they are emo or not; the sentence says, emo has often been used to describe such bands. Which is true. If you want references, I'll go dig up half a dozen reviews that use the word. Can we be done with this? It's a silly argument. Who cares what they're called? --Chubbles 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough that you want to include AFI. But can you provide some sources where they have been called this? Even just posting a link here for me would be more than sufficient, I am just curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.172.184.80 (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here ya go:       --Chubbles 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah but in these articles they also calls them metal and goth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.174.165 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys! cohead and cambria experiment too much to be emo, they are progressive rock. their image is not emo either so there =]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.216.97 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helped truly!! 

message: There are some bands who, either here on their own wikipedia pages or by opinions of some group of people on some online forum, are listed as emo. I'd feel alot better if someone else put them on this page, though, as I might get in trouble for editing the page. The All-American Rejects, Paramore, Linkin Park, Good Charlotte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanson209 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one that is sourced as emo is paramore and even that is disputed, the other three aren't anywhere close. --Neon white (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there are some singles on the All-American Rejects wiki that clearly say "emo" as the musical genre. I don't know about any of the other bands besides Linkin Park ((as the other bands are only talked about being emo)), but Linkin Park's song "Crawling" is parodied for its lyrics when people make fun of those who are labeled "emo." I don't know if that is substantional evidence, but it's what I found out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.1.41 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Emo Bands 

message: Why is the only emo-related (emo referring to the cultural phenomenon in North America and not the oil company, the Blink 182 song or the people with "emo" in their names, or anything else on the disambiguation page) article on Wikipedia about emo music?  What about emo clothing, or emo people in general?  It's perfectly reasonable to give them a page on Wikipedia. Emo social groups are distinct from other ones and have a definition - people know what makes a group emo as opposed to preppy, goth, punk, or anything else. An article like this even used to exist, but it is now either gone, or I cannot find it. Have I missed something? --Dark Green 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Types of high-school cliques are not verifiable or reasonable things to appear in an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 04:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the 'Fashion and stereotype' section it covers fashion stereotypes associated with the music. I don't believe there is such a thing as an 'emo person'. There is no evidence currently that there is any such thing as an 'emo social group' and if one should exist i doubt it would be notable enough for wikipedia. --Neon white 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying, but it is certainly a part of youth culture. I think that it should therefore be included, just as we have articles for various fads. --Dark Green (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when it's verifiably a "culture" then we can talk about that. The fact that some unqualified people think that "preppy" and "punk" and "emo" fashions among high-schoolers all constitute youth cultures does not make it an encyclopedic fact. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what makes a culture a culture? Emo, prep and punk have social norms, distinct manners of dress and behaviour and, perhaps most importantly, we have names for them. If we can divide people into any named group, particularly when there is discussion as to what is a part of that group and what isn't (as there is with emo), does that not make that division a culture?  That is to say, we can divide people into groups by their choices in behaviour and dress: does that in itself not make emo a culture? --Dark Green (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And when you have a degree in sociology, you can write a paper about it. If your research is sound and your paper winds up published and accepted by the academic community, then get back to us. Armchair sociology doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. But no, how you dress doesn't magically set you apart into a culture. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it an element of current pop culture and i think the article covers that. I just can't see what info you could include. I don't personally see any distinct shared behaviours associated with this genre. --Neon white (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I have in some way offended you, Cheeser, I did not mean my question to belittle anyone's achievements in sociology - I assume, from your statements in your last message, that you are not an "armchair sociologist", but have a degree in that field.  I meant only to ask a question. My rebuttals to your answer were only to clarify the subject in our minds and the minds of other editors. Purely academic, you see.  I am not inclined to change the article, necessarily, but to test it, in order to strengthen it - which is, after all, the point of Wikipedia.  If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to use my talk page. --Dark Green (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a degree in another scientific field. The point is not specific to sociology, but moreso to original research in general. Things might seem a certain way, and we might think something is true, but to make a claim that falls into the bounds of the theory of sociology (or [insert your favorite subject]), we need reliable academic sources and real academic authority. There was a lengthy debate on the old Emo (slang) page about this, in which there was a great deal of speculative/unsourced stuff people wanted to put into the article. I'm not offended, I'm just a bit tired of going over WP:V with people. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - when does a group of people become a culture/subculture? We have a couple of "sociology persons" (one student, a phd and a professor) believing emo makes whatever grade they use. Me, I think the consistent usage of the term in varying media says something too... I encourage you to check out the discussion Cheeser mentions and the links I recently added and forming your own opinion. --Lundse (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only Emo Music? 

message: There's a bit of an edit war going - or at least there could be, if things keep up. Let's try to talk this out instead. The text currently reads "homosexual slurs" - editors have been changing it to read "anti-gay slurs." What is the problem with the old version? What is the objection to the new version? I honestly think they are virtually equivalent in meaning, but the new version seems to make more sense (we don't say "race slurs" or "black people slurs" we say "racist slurs" - anti-gay is the grammatical/structural equivalent, and the link is helpful). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the source doesnt say anti-gay or homophobic then the article shouldn't either, as there is no evidence that the slurs in question are such or meant as such and suggesting so would be introducing a point of view that isn't neutral, as saying something is homophobic or anti-gay is passing a judgement that the source may not have made; only described the slurs. It is my opinion that a wikipedia article should describe not pass judgements. If a source were to say that racist slurs were made then it would be ok to include that in an article however, if the source did not describe them as such we cannot make the judgement that they were racist in nature. This will all depend on whether we have a source that specifies this. I'm unclear as to whether the source is claiming homophobia. --Neon white (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the line from the source. it is not uncommon for males perceived as “emo” to be derided as “emo fags.” How should this be included? The article is describing an 'emo' backlash so wouldn't the insult's intention more 'anti-emo' than anti-gay? --Neon white (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must admit I don't understand what you're saying. If a slur is directed against gays (or as one might put it, "homosexual slurs," despite how awkward I think it sounds), then it is "anti-gay" and also homophobic. Clearly, we can't make up the nature of the slurs, but that seems to have already been determined. BUT I think I just discovered your concern. That entire paragraph is plagarized (from here). We need to either rephrase it to reflect an original writing of this information, or we need to quote it properly! If that is your issue, then I do understand, but I suggest we rewrite it anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "Fag" is an anti-gay slur. Tacking "emo" onto there doesn't change that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My main concern is the introduction of potentially judgemental and perjorative terms which could affect the neutrality of the criticism section. I see a significant difference between the terms 'homosexual slur' and 'homophobic slur'. The former is descriptive, it's merely an adjective to clarify the nature of the slur and, in my opnion, is more neutral whereas the latter is judgmental in that it specifically implies a hatred of homosexuals which is not necessarily implied in the source as the reason the for the slur. I agree with the rewriting, i think the sentence has a number of problems and deosnt reflect the source that well. --Neon white (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "homosexual slur" is a slur that has sexual attraction to a slur of the same sex. It's a nonsense phrase, incorrectly substituting the term "homosexual" for "anti-homosexual" or "anti-gay." Remember, neutral POV doesn't mean no POV. It's obvious and well-known/well-documented that terms like "fag" are anti-gay. There's no need to dance around that. The slur is directed against emo people, by redirect a slur against gays (or "anti-gay slur") towards them. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh but wait a minute. How does it not reflect a source? It's copy-pasted from a source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem lies with the colloquial misuse of the term homphobia creeping in to wikipedia, there have been discussions and controversies before about it being misused as a substitute for anti-gay and it being used as an accusation. Homosexual is an adjective that can also mean 'pertaining to homosexuality', so the term 'homosexual slur is correct english. In my opinion it seems more objective, less accusatory, less negative and therefore more neutral than the alternative. If the term is usually known in common usage, however incorrectly, as a 'homophobic slur' then that may justify it's use. The latter part of the sentence largely a reflection of the style of dress popular within the "emo scene" and the purported displays of emotion common in the scene isn't sourced and seems to be original research. We should also add the other slurs that are mentioned, namely, accusations of immaturity and gender. --Neon white (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting. From Chords to Culture: The Evolution of Emo claims to quote Tom Peotto's "The Relentless Force of 'emo'"  but i cannot find the passage in that. So it appears the text is based on a misquote. I'd base a rewrite on Tom Peotto, at least that is reliable. --Neon white (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be noted that the phrase 'Homosexual slurs' is commonly used in the media   so as not to incure the potential law suit that might come from implying that a person is homophobic. --neonwhite  user page talk 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually should be noted that there are no valid WP:BLP concerns here because no living person is named in this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless it still should be neutral. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree that it is clearly anti-gay, it's not aimed at a gay person so how can it be anti-gay? Using the word 'gay' as an insult does not necessary mean the insult is based on anti-gay sentiment. To suggest so is us making our own judgement about that rather than leaving the reader to judge for themselves whehter this kinda of use is anti-gay or homophobic. If we are to include terms like 'homophobia' or 'anti-gay', i think it should be as the opinion of the source and should also include the others slurs mentioned along side it in the source. As he writes the songwriters are derided as effeminate and juvenile, lacking in virile self-control. One of the most common denunciations towards those perceived as “emo” will be “be a man” or “grow up.” I think we have to look carefully at this as Tom Peotto seems to be basing his remarks on entries in urbandictionary. --neonwhite  user page talk 01:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I called you the n-word, but you were white, it's not a racist term anymore? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexual slurs" 

message: emo labels are more complex than the small bit this music artical tells us.we should bring back the emo (slang) page.anyone agree?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are "emo labels" and what new information do you have to add to the discussion that might add verifiability to the deleted article? Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a list of neologisms. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well said,but dont we have seperate articlas for punk fashion and,i would assume,many other pages on fashions and stereotypes based on or centered around music genres?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And those are separate issues decided elsewhere. Punk fashion has been studied, there have been books about it, and it has existed for three decades. "Emo fashion" appears to be a neologism, a trend in modern fashion, and more or less indefinable. Each article is judged on its own merits, and due to lack of verifiability or reliable sources, the meager content from that article was merged here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you state that punk is different because "it has existed for 3 decades,books have been written about it,its been studied." emo has existed for 2 decades,books have been written about it,and its been studied.just because you dont know the whole story doesnt mean you have to be unreasonable  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before slinging around "you don't know the whole story" you should try reading Talk:Emo (slang). Consensus there was established, independently from other articles (as is appropriate) that the merge should take place. I won't be responding to continued antagonism along these lines. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well maybe that last bit was a little uncalled for but you cant ignore the facts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has had little to no new info added and no new sources have materialized since it was merged so i disagree.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There has been no real significant accounts or studies by reliable institutions that i know of. Anybody can add sourced info to the article and if the section becomes large enough it may be split. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this needs to be 2 pages again 

message: Whatever's going on there is starting to get annoying. We need to find pictures that work and keep them, instead of having people continually insert their favorite scene-kid picture from myspace every 4 days. It's not productive or helpful. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is policy regarding verifiability of images? How do we know what is there is an accurate representation? I believe there has been controversy before as the whether it constitutes OR. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, there are no OR concerns, it's just a matter of what's productive or worth constant editing over. Image policy is fairly loose (for example, allowing user-drawn caricatures so long as they are illustrative and relevant), but I don't see how having a bunch of myspace pics doing unending musical chairs in the image spots in this article is going to help. Especially when this happens too. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is far too sketchy in my opinion. It leaves it open to all kinds of abuses and controversy and this could well be a case of that. Assuming good faith the changes may be by someone who believes the image not to be an accurate representation. I assume it means the image used would have to be decided by consensus. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the picture(s) in the "fashion & stereotypes" section 

message: Although they did have some effect on emo, they are definitely not on the same level as Knapsack, Mineral, Jejune etc. should this be altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.11.142 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a good idea --Hereitisthen (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  should Cross My Heart be mentioned? 

message: Is there any way we can incorporate the famously hilarious t-shirt with a picture of a lawnmower and the caption "I wish my grass was emo so it would cut itself" into this article? --EAE (Holla!) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's hardly encyclopedic content. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wish my grass was emo 

message: WTF happend to the article?! It now looks like it was written by someone who listend to the song "Emo Kid" way to many times!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the article was vandalised by Roblew, but luckily this was caught by ClueBot, and it is now back in it's full glory! --Jimpaz (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: this article has undergone extensive changes since my last post.it was previously a one page slur on emo and not a factual depiction. --Raycore (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: your last post was 8 hours ago the article has not changed at all in 2 days and has had no major changes for months. --neonwhite  user page talk 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: possibly a malfunction on my computer, but I swear this article was vandalised yesterday morning. also, you are way too into this. --Raycore (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, yes it was vandalized and therefore changed. No malfunction. Someone mucked with it and it was just a one page slur on the term based on the stereotype of emo(you know, my life is a black abyss, I like making out with people of the same gender, I dress in drag, I cut myself because life is too hard, that kind of crap). Oh and btw, you could add that picture, but only under the stereotype section to give people a better understanding of how some people feel about the steroetype of emo. --72.81.226.247 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  attack not an article 

message: While I know Linkin Park are not emo, they are often called emo by the haters, which is why, and probably everyone else, realises they should be listed in the third wave section --Titan50 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure "the haters" constitute a reliable source (or a source at all). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is interesting is that while the non-emo haters call it "emo", the linkin park haters who consider themselves "emo" say that Linkin Park isn't emo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.234.10 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkin Park 

message: I have added the point of view of established British bands on the arrival of Emo in Britain. This is backed up by an article regarding the issue from the BBC. --Stealthorpe (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I refactored it. Please note you can only write what the source says. See WP:SYN. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! As you can tell I don't know what I'm doing and need a little guidance sometimes! --82.45.100.175 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome. This page might help. If you need help then you are welcome to ask. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to criticism 

message: Since when did emos wear hoodies? It just doesn't happen. --81.129.214.72 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it. It is a misinterpretation of what the source says. Mr. Reines of Drive-Thru added: "It's not only the music, the fashion starts in New Jersey, too. Say every kid is wearing a track jacket, and other kids are wearing hoodies. In six months or a year, the rest of the country will get into it. That's what people think." He's explaining a hypothetical example of fashion. --Neon white (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That may be true, but it constitutes original research. If you have a particular reliable source with which you could verify your claims about emo and hoodies being related, you could integrate it into the article, but you are not a reliable source - and if you were, you'd still be a primary source, which isn't generally considered appropriate. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fashion 

message: Now the genre of post-hardcore appears a fusion genre of emo...and it is completely wrong, emo derivates from Post-hardcore and not the other way around and I am truly disturbed about this misinformation...I could find references to prove this information wrong, but please, change it...At The Drive-In and Fugazi are very different things to Rites of Spring and Sunny Day Real State. --The-15th (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles does not say that. Please be more clear here. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear The-15th, what? --72.81.226.247 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This information appears on the genre box...and I think it's clear enough that emo derivated from post-hardcore to understand that IT POST-HARDCORE IS NOT A FUSION GENRE OF EMO. Emo shouldn't even exist at all, here look at this vid:  So is anyone gonna change the information fo the genre box? I'm going to keep discussing this until it GETS CHANGED. --The-15th (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it is considered they both evolved from hardcore punk. Though both terms are incredibly ambiguous. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another problem with Post-hardcore 

message: A section explaining how the term "emo" was related to cutting ones' wrist and ankles would be nice. I've always wondering this. Plzs && Thnks. --Firewithinfreak (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't, so no section needed. This is already covered in the stereotype section. --Mdwh (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting Yourself 

message: emo is NOT a style of rock music. who put that in there? --24.110.170.109 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, see here. TL;DR emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk, which is a subgenre of punk rock, which is a subgenre of rock music. --TheLetterM (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: whats wrong with just saying emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk? Sounds more accurate than a style of rock --24.110.170.109 (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean that emo is influenced by pop or R&B, as opposed to rock? Just because a band described as "emo"- say, Rites of Spring doesn't draw resemblances to a band like The Pixies or Devo or hell, even Motley Crue doesn't mean that all of these bands don't draw from certain foundational elements- guitar/bass/drums/vocal instrumentation, a usual (but not always standard) reliance on 4/4 time signatures, etc. etc. etc. The differences lie within talent, skill, aesthetics, and rather importantly, stylistic preferences. In short, as Cheeser put it, "if X is a subgenre of Y, and Y is a subgenre of Z, then X is a subgenre of Z." --TheLetterM (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's put it this way - why does the article cat say that it is a mammal? It could be more specific and only tell us the genus or species, but that would be far too specific. The fact that it is a mammal is important, even if it is a very broad category. Emo may be somewhere down the genre-tree but the root of it is rock music and that is important, easily identifiable, and understood by the largest audience. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  rock? 

message: "In the mid-1980s, the term emo described a subgenre of hardcore punk which originated in the Washington, D.C. music scene." I find it very difficult to believe that ANY musical movement could've originated in Washington D.C.  Austin maybe, but certainly not Washington D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.251.213 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The allmusic page should hopefully be enough.  --Munci (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, your personal issues with DC are irrelevant - read up on Rites of Spring, Minor Threat, etc. to get an idea of how emo and hardcore punk fell into DC at the time. Not to mention hardcore punk itself has a section on the DC-hardcore period. Allmusic is notoriously unreliable, and in this case is flat out wrong. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you say specifically what's wrong with it? --Munci (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The information it presents is false, it has poor editorial oversight, and is hardly known for its fact-checking process (if anything, it's known for having a very poor fact-checking process). --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not specific enough to describe why 'in this case is flat out wrong' though. --Munci (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of allmusic is potentially self published. It has a large number of contributors and there has never been any guarantee of it's accuracy. This particular article doesnt even have a named writer and it reads (poorly) like a puff piece written by a fan. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. Read WP:RS please. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What does 'Yes it is' refer to? You're both being quite vague. Which exact things stated in the allmusic article on emo are inaccurate? --Munci (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: That doesn't answer my questions. I'm not arguing either way as to whether allmusic is reliable or not. I'm trying to understand which exact statements on the allmusic article on emo are considered incorrect by yourself. --Munci (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting they were incorrect but merely an opinion without much credibility or verifiability. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You yourself are pointing to the fact that the allmusic page does not state that emo originated in DC, whereas we have reliable sources to verify that it did in fact originate there. Allmusic is wrong about that, and has a track record of being wrong about things because it is not reliable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it does. it says "Emo emerged in Washington, D.C". Line 10. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then I have no idea what the original complaint was: "I don't believe it came from DC, and here is an unreliable source that doesn't support my position"?? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i'm confused too. --neonwhite  user page talk 02:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get the problem now. Some unsigned IP wrote the first two lines of this section and I gave allmusic as a (however unreliable) source that did say it came from DC. --Munci (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources for this statement? 

message: Is there any reason why verifiable print sources that contradict the assertions of ChrisB are not used for this page? For instance, he insists "emotional hardcore" was never used prior to 1996 (according to online sources), but it was used by Ian Mackaye in a live Embrace set recorded in 1985. HeartAttaCk and MRR would also go far as verifiable source. I have a hard time accepting he is approaching this page with a neutral point of view when reliable print sources are discarded for unreliable online sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.143.226 (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said that "emotive hardcore" wasn't used before 1996.  Emo stood for "emotional hardcore" for most of its existence.  The whole "emotive" thing didn't happen until recently. --ChrisB (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Print sources