Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 5

message: Good article, keep on pushing bcz you're doing great. Suggested linkable "encyclopedics": "a posture that recalls Beat culture", "literary and Romantic orientation" (check original definition of romantic, it's there), "asexual and anti-glamour, in contrast to seductive and theatrical Goth style", also check angst and 1800s German poets. Maybe there's something in some CD liner books? You probably shouldn't point out that those sneakers really make your feet hurt, which enhances the aura of suffering, but it would be funny. I can't add to this article cz I'm old, this is your deal. I wanted to know, and the dictionary wasn't doing it for me. Good job, thank you! --Otterpops 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well Done 

message: A respectable article now. Good work! --Mattisse 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article looks good - you have improved it a great deal! 

message: Since arguing this point here is just not getting us anywhere, I say we open an RfC on this article, to determine how the community feels about this. --J-ſtanTalkContribs 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, but I don't have a lot of experience with the procedure... --Lundse 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC? 

message: From Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald , pg.37: "...and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." From Authenticity, Subcultural Capital, and the Rise of an Internet Scene by J.P. Williams  : "The punk subculture and its offshoots, including hardcore, emo, and straightedge, have been conceptualized primarily as music- and style-based subcultures." From Editorial: On suicide and subcultures by Graham Martin
in Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health (AeJAMH), Volume 5, Issue 3, 2006 : "There have also been suggestions that influences may not have been just personal, but rather that identifying with Emo culture may in itself influence toward suicidal behaviours. / We should really begin by examining whether any subculture increases the risk for suicide." and "...is said to be high in the group, and a key feature of Emo culture. Of course, such associations with suicidality are not just found in youth subculture...." --JJL 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One is a primary (nonobjective) source, and not a sociological authority. We are supposed to use reliable, authoritative, and objective sources. Furthermore, to characterize the group of people as a subculture is an analytical claim - one that cannot be made in a primary source (only a secondary source will do). See here for the relevant part of OR policy. The other is an editorial by a psychiatrist. Editorials are not peer-reviewed, and are not considered accepted research in the field (which would be psychiatry anyway, not sociology). --Cheeser1 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're fortunate to have such an authority on authorities here. --JJL 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but in either event, I'm just here pointing out what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, it's not like I'm any sort of expert, since all I'm doing is typing Wikipolicy out to everybody. --Cheeser1 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources for subculture 

message: I am making a sub-heading to clarify a point: I am not arguing that emo is not a subculture. My position is this: we have not established that it is a subculture. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. My argument is that there are no sources to justify including the statement "emo is a subculture". My argument does NOT advocate including any content, and I do not need to present reliable sources to prove that emo is not a subculture - that is not my claim, and I do not intend to include such content in this article. I will no longer respond to anyone insisting that I "prove that emo is not a subculture." I do not intend to do so, and need not do so. --Cheeser1 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. If you think anything I have ever said goes against this claim/point, then you have not read my arguments right. I am fully aware where the burden of proof lies, I just think it has been lifted. That said, there is good cause to compare the proposed title to the current title - if it is better and/or better sourced then it should be changed. --Lundse 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was meant for me :) --J-ſtanTalkContribs 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was. --Cheeser1 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion vs. Exclusion 

message: I fail to see why this can't just be included in this article with a link from a redirected page to the appropriate subsection. As long as it is APPROPRIATELY referenced (abstracts are generally not peer reviewed, but published articles are). By definition, it is a slang term. If there is more than one thing it can portray, but they are related, then it should just be included in the basic article...maybe even as the opening subsection after a short history section? It certainly doesn't need its own page though, IMHO. --— BQZip01 — talk 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the RfC