Talk:Emo/Archive 5

message: The section on criticism notes that "Male fans of emo found themselves hit with homosexual slurs". This seemed to me like it also belonged in the "Fashion and stereotype" section, and I made a note in that section mentioning the sexual stereotypes that go along with the emo fashion (as referenced in the song parody: "can't two...or four guys make out without being 'gay'?"). This was deleted as "OR". Debatable, but let that stand for argument's sake. At least be honest and delete the similar remark in the "Criticism" section. Either it should be mentioned, or it shouldn't. My edit was only duplicating information already included (without apparent controversy) elsewhere in the article. To say that it's too contentious for one section but not another is self-contradicting. --Carolynparrishfan (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't comment on the content at hand, but keep in mind that if you add content, people will notice and possibly revert. The existing content may have gone unnoticed by the people who reverted your duplicating it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have been removed as original research because you not did copy the citation as well. in this case it is sourced from this article  so it isn't original research but could easily have looked like vandalism if the text was added without the source. --neonwhite  user page talk 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am changing this slightly as "Homosexual slur" gives the impression that it is a slur to be called homosexual. I think that this should be rectified --liambennett (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypes 

message: Despite emo's roots in the hardcore scene, when one looks at the "emo" themes of today, it seems to me that there's also some kind of lineage back to "post-punk" bands like Joy Division and even The Cure and Depeche Mode. I don't know even remotely as much about emo as most contributors here, but am I completely tripping by seeing this connection? --76.197.242.108 (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you maybe correct. The problem is whether there is a source for it. --neonwhite  user page talk 00:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-punk connection? 

message: The comment at the bottom of the article about the NME needs to be rephrased as it implies that the NME had accused 'emo' of promoting self harm, which is far from the truth, as the magazine has done nothing but support the subculture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.143.228 (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NME comment 

message: I think that the whole term of post-hardcore was built by emo bands trying to evade the term and I therefore propose a merge with post-hardcore. --MOTE Speak to me 10:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Post-Hardcore is a legitimately extant term outside of emo. Bands like Fugazi, Drive Like Jehu, Jawbox etc., while possibly having some degree of influence on today's emo bands, otherwise don't have a whole lot to do with emo. --TheLetterM (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OPPOSE per above. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is badly sourced, whether it can be sourced will probably decide it's fate, though i think deletion is more likely as this article doesn't mention the term. I think it is correct to say it lacks a defintion. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I have heard the original statement above before. It is likely the bands you are thinking of are only bands which became famous in the past 5 years. These bands have been called both by media. What they call themselves I don't know. Older bands who get called both genres are not usually called the other though. As examples, Helmet is not emo and Sunny Day Real Estate is not post hardcore. --Munci (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Maybe I should take this to AfD. This article has no clear definition. --82.45.7.211 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just needs a cleanup and sources. It's difficult to make a decision on a merger with so much of the article unsourced. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I agree it dosent have enough sourceing and I believe it is just a name fiddled around with to be called .. not emo... However if we can find more sources I will change my decicion --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Question, which article is badly sourced? Emo or Post-Hardcore? --71.179.227.101 (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: oopps I posted on that on the wrong topic my bad --71.180.33.165 (talk)(xXxChriscorexXx Signed out) 19:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Is the fact that All Music Guide recognizes Post-Hardcore as a genre not enough to even take it to a stub? If anything, this revision was the essentially the last one before an editor took it upon himself to revamp the article. While I agree with the spirit of those edits, the editor did not add any sources that necessarily back them up. Thus, if Post-Hardcore goes to AFD, I will oppose deletion, but I would rather see the article rolled back to a lower-class article that nevertheless has sufficient sources for the amount of content, than to see it deleted. --TheLetterM (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I agree with TheLetterM --SilverOrion (talk) 09:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Comment Post-hardcore should merge to Screamo. Because it is the same thing, just listen to post-hardcore songs. --189.26.90.118 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose I agree with 13Tawaazun14, it's an absurd claim made with no reasons whatsoever. Even so, it should be the other way around as Emo started being as Post-hardcore and then it began to be called "Emo" (for the introspective lyrics) by the music press. There are various interviews out there with people like Guy Picciotto and Ian MacKaye (yes there is a video of Ian MacKaye with Embrace on YouTube calling Emo pure press BS), where they reject the term. Even so, Emo and Post-hardcore are not the same thing unless proved wrong (Allmusic guide even has Post-hardcore and Emo pages by theirselves in a separate way). --The-15th (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Post-hardcore would be a more general term like post-punk, it is essentially a term for a number of genres including emo, screamo etc in the same way that post-punk includes new wave, goth rock etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already a merger attempt between those two articles which failed, in no small part due to the fact that the genres in question are aesthetically different from each other, and both articles cover very different information. You'll have to do better than "just listen to post-hardcore songs" in order to prove your point. --TheLetterM (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment Well you've got it incredibly wrong, there are two uses of the term Post-Punk. The First one being the one you're talking about, the periodical time in music (everything that came after punk) and the actual genre which is even more clearly defined in the 21st century. Post-hardcore and Post-punk are both genres on their own, both being transitional stages for genres like industrial, alternative and "emocore" but it doesn't mean that Post-hardcore refers to everything that came after Hardcore, it IS a genre on it's own and it is also as diverse as Post-Punk (for example, Big Black compared to let's say Fugazi). --The-15th (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I only agree because post hardcore dosent have enough sources and one good source dosent make an article it takes multiple. And that is because it dosent exist that is why they are the same thing. Sorry for the late resonser --71.180.33.165 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose' Emo is a term far more used, especially in the U.S., and while the two are indeed related, Post-hardcore and emo are not the same thing.  Each deserves its own article.  In addition, my understanding of Post-Hardcore is that it includes several categories of music, one of which is Emo, but is not exclusive to Emo.  Therefore, since the two articles are related, but not exactly the same, I say we keep the current format, assuming that Post-Hardcore is mentioned in the See Also section. --Matt White (talk) 14:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose' Many people get the misconception that post-hardcore is Emo. If you look carefully, many "Post-Hardcore" bands scream, but that doesnt make them necessarily emo. Emo in this perspective is characterized by indeed screaming in music, but they also contain lyrics that would describe suicide, producing pain to one's self (such as self mutilation), or getting overly emotional in the song. In addition, though some so-called Emo bands like Fall Out Boy, Hawthorne Heights, or Panic at the disco would contain a vocalist that would possess a high voice, the lyrics would commonly describe a girl in the song. Some people would percieve this as a sign of depression because, the song would contain a sense of want for a personal relationship with this girl described. In today's pop culture, if these bands were Emo, youths would then show signs of this "emo" epidemic. Though there are many causes, music is one of the factors that affect the lives of many teenagers everyday. It would impact their personality, character, behavior, and psychology. Coming under direct influence of these bands, Emo would not be the correct term for these bands. Post-Hardcore would have a twist of Hardcore Punk and Pop punk. Speaking in terms of these two genres, characteristics from both of them would be a very heavy factor in molding Post-Hardcore. Hardcore Punk would offer the element of screaming and a thicker, heavier, faster rythm. Pop Punk would usually have a general rythm that would be appealing among most punk fans. According to Hardcore Punk it would say that the songs would focus mainly on the issues in today's world. When this element is combined with Pop Punk,Post-Hardcore would be misconcieved as Emo. This is where the general public would use the screaming in this genre as an excuse to classify the Post-Hardcore band Emo. However, screaming is a key element that consolidates many musical genres today, especially Metal. Children of Bodom, Slipknot, and Disturbed would have a more angry mood to their songs making them "Metal." However, because Post-Hardcore possesses the Pop Punk characteristic, Emo is first concieved. In addition, the majority of Post-Hardcore bands do not have and members that are depressed or have thoughts of self inflicting pain, or suicide. Also, the way they dress also has very little to do with who's Emo or not. Behavior and Psychology are usually the parts that are not put into enough perspective. Therefore, there shouldn't be a combined article for Emo and Post-Hardcore are different.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim2Sung (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-hardcore merger 

message: Firstly, I'd dispute the idea that the genre comes from exclusively American roots, and that instead, there is a British element. Secondly, the idea that it is "hardcore" flies in the face of hardcore. It is somewhat like saying that Beck is a heavy metal artist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.219.206 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you back up your assertion with sources? There are definitely reputable sources that say the first few waves of Emo evolved from Hardcore Punk (read: not "is Hardcore Punk"), but I don't know any saying that it had formative roots in the UK. From my understanding, Emo started out as a purely American phenomenon. --TheLetterM (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  America-centric? 

message: There's some spam at the very bottom of the article. Could someone remove it? --81.226.252.221 (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam at bottom of article 

message: we cant say the inquest 'stated' because it didn't the witnessed did, so we need to say the inquest 'heard'. however because it was stated in a court and therefore under oath, i think it is fair to say that is verifiable and can be stated as fact. The source is  and also  which isnt used in the article. --neon white talk 16:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense, I agree that "heard" is better to make it clear it's what the witness said, not the inquest. Just to be sure though - do we have a source that tells us that the word "cult" came from a witness statement? (The claim of "self-harming emo cult" has been thrown around the media, but I haven't seen an article which directly attributes this to a statement given at the inquest - given the sensationalism and dubious claims being thrown around by the media, I think we need to be careful here.) --Mdwh (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't really matter if the word was used in court or not, as long as it comes from second party sources, it should be fine. The Telgraph source writes "A popular and fun-loving schoolgirl killed herself after becoming involved in a self-harming youth cult which glamorises death, an inquest has heard." whereas The Sun writes "A girl of 13 hanged herself after leading a secret double life on the internet as a member of a self-harming "emo" cult." suggesting that it was testimony. --neon white talk 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between saying that an inquest has heard this, and a newspaper has branded something a cult. Whether something is a cult or not is obviously a highly POV issue. Attributation is important, and I don't think the fact that more than one newspaper uses the word "cult" is evidence (newspapers often pass similarly worded articles around, and branding something a "cult" is an obvious thing to do, whether or not the claim was heard at the inquest). Even if the claim was made at the inquest, it is still useful to know who made this claim. Otherwise we just participate in spreading the claim of some "Internet Emo Cult" without knowing where this claim started from. --Mdwh (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we have a reliable source saying that the inquest heard she was part of a cult, which is the case here. We can write that fact. The claim comes from The Sun and The Telegraph both verifiable sources. --neon white talk 13:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular section of the article also labels My Chemical Romance as an emo band, which isn't exactly true. Could someone fix that? --69.92.43.59 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hannah Bond inquest 

message: I'm not quite sure how to properly add things to the talk page, if there's any sort of formal structure as to how to do this.  I apologize if I'm doing this wrong.  This article is locked, so I'm unable to make a minor edit.  At the end of the "criticism" section, it states that fans defended accusations that it promotes self-harm.  This should be "defend against accusations", unless they were trying to confirm that emo does indeed encourage self-harm and suicide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.8.171.113 (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I've made the change. --Mdwh (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "defended accusations" 

message: in the infobox it says that emos stylistic origan is from Hardcore punk and more specificly Melodic Hardcore... I'm not ging to debate whether or not it's from Hardcore Punk because that's a no brainer (we know it is and it's sourced), but may I see the source that says it's from Melodic Hardcore? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melodic Hardcore 

message: so i saw that alot of people say that emo is a subgenre of hardcore punk!!?? Ok maybe some people know this better then me but still i find this claim insulting to everything punk stands for!!! Punk is an anti-astablishment form of music that talks about the problems of the people (not like martin luther king but still...) on the other hand emo is more personal and talks about teenage issues of soe kid who is thinking about killing himselfe!!! il be honest with you i dont respect emo people or their music. now before you stic me on a cross listen to my thoughts. i feel like they are chooseing the easyer way out of their teenage problems! they have problems and they solve them by cutting their veins and not talking or when they talk they say things lik:"i hate this life" or "i wish i was dead"!!! OMG!!!!! people wake up and smell the joy of life and youth!!! And now to return to the topic at hand. emo is an insult to all music genres and when you compare it to punk u just make a fool out of your selfe!!! i hope that people dont get toooo ofended by this little tekst and if they do dont send f..k u messeges and dont expect an apology because im not apologizeing for saying what i think soo.... oh an btw sry about the spelling and grammar im not a native speaker.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.128.61 (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are roots for the subgenre and it is proven to exist you are commiting POV in the most obvious manner. It is a subgenre that dosen't mean it has to be like Punk or it would be PUNK. And before you insult emo do some research as your claims are not accurate to any extent. And also the fact you stereotype the kids obviously shows you have never met one and you are going with the establishment called "The Media". If you cant except someone for there diffrences you wont get far in life. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I have anything to do with anything, nor is this the right place to bring this up, but I know a lot of emo kids that actually do cut themselves. Evaunit♥666♥ 23:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No you're wrong dude, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all -- Sheish 04:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, i know you dont want the way you are and act like to be thinked of as a simple genre that has “gotten expanded on” or “was derived by” but you have to admit that it has vast similarities to goth,punk and and other variations of these genre's --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Evaunit: Correct this is not the place to bring it up. See WP:NOT. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: @ Sheish: No he is correct. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: @ Grimmjow: As has been stated, wikipedia is based on varifiable and reliable sources. Emo has it's roots in hardcore punk, however emo has evolved as most genres do, this is why it sounds very little like the original punk. Hell, modern emo bands sound little like Rites of Spring just like modern Pop punk bands sound very little like The Ramones. Genres evolve. Sources state that it's roots are in hardcore punk, thus it stays that way on wikipedia. See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo has no roots 

message: I repeat, Emo is NOT connected to punk. Emo is a virus that claims deep songs from the punk era as Emo. Emo is about as Punk as an Orange is Lettuce.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkumaTrypp (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes it is. So says all sources and anyone with a knak for the obvious. Don't claim this because you don't like Emo. --[Special:Contributions/71.179.227.101|71.179.227.101]] (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: as above, you're taking the modern post-hardcore for the true emo, true emo is as punk as hell, while the new "emo" scene shit ain't at all --Sheish 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And you don't have a damn source to back up your claim do you? Read WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V. All sources say it is so as far as wikipedia is concerened, it is. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OH-KAY, what is your defination of a TRUE EMO? I can bet that your answer has no source or accuracy only it being your opinion in which it doesnt count according to the rules of wikipedia. Simply put you have no factual claim,no source and no truth to what you are saying only your opinions,Grimmjow E6 (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who, me or him? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheish and others that keep using that as a way to make simple discussions longer than it should be not you...... --Grimmjow E6 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for clearing that up. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo is not connected to Punk 

message: Is there any significant media related to emo other than music? For example, emo related movies? --herorev (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  other media 

message: I was wondering why the 'criticisms' within the Time Magazine article were not included within the wiki criticism section for EMO? LA Weekly summarizes the criticisms itself, here:  It makes the statement that this trend is mostly an Internet generated phenomena; and that it is something that which only has become known at all within the last 3 or 4 years; and that EMO as we know it today, especially in foreign countries is mostly a fashion fad. It also has criticism of pre-existing "subcultures", i.e. punk, goths, and their dislike for EMO for reasons mentioned above; and there's also the criticism, referencing a professor, that most of the EMOS, in Mexico in particular, come from the upper middle-class, etc. I linked to the LA Weekly article. So I would like the editors of the Wiki Emo page to take a look at it. I would summarize it myself, but no one is allowed to edit the Emo page anymore, it seems. LA Weekly has always been a hub for Indie music news, information; a very credible publication.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.187.71 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, those are good sources. Get a username (it costs nothing btw) and add them. And also sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~). --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will sign up later on when I have more time behind a computer. I just want to point out that the "editors" of the Emo page are responding to other topics on this discussion page while ignoring this particular thread. And I notice that other posters here are continually butting heads with them over precisely the points confirmed in the sources I scite above. I said, Time Magazine is undoubtedly the most important publication to do on article on Emo, and the article actually contains valid criticisms; the same applies to the LA Weekly article. --206.170.104.56 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been speculation about mexico's serious class divide but we have to careful not to go off topic. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time, LA Weekly Criticisms should be included 

message: the biggest problem i can see with this article is that it completly ignores all emo music made since 1994 in favour of indie rock music and adding bands such as dashboard confessional and weezer (who aesthetically have nothing in common with emo) based on the sake of a few articles by lazy medai types. let us not forget that this page is about emo the music, not the subculture based on the word. this is the problem!
on the subject of emo fashion, what the hell is this doing here? this is supposed to be about music, the fashion stuff belongs elsewhere. also the criticism. if this is a music page then why isn't the criticism about music?
let us start a vote please, if the page protectors want to keep in stuff like dashboard confessional, then fine do so on an Emo (subculture) page. let's keep this place about a music style that is miles away from choruses and easyily audible lyrics. please guys? 
conclusion: this is a music page, if anyone can show me the musical lineage between dashboard confessional and indian summer, then fine keep it.
chris b and neon white: you are essentially acting like bullies here...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly wikipedia is not a democracy, we dont do things by votes, secondly content is based on verifiable sources whether you agree with them or not. The article is about anything emo, music, fashion, hair anything as long as it is sourced. Please stop the disruptive editing and personal attacks or warnings will follow. There is no evidence of a subculture existing. --neon white talk 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Neonwhite, Why doesn't this article mention the Emo Rangers TV show in England? I mean, couldn't even that be put on SOMEWHERE on that page? Btw, Neonwhite is right, wiki is not a Democracy... In reality, if one simply takes control of the page, he can shape along any lines he wants, so long as there's a reference, (even if those reference are contradicted or superceeded by other references, and vice versa). And, as you notice, even though I have tried not to edit the page myself, I have gone down here to try to reason with Neonwhite, but he doesn't budge. I will now for the first time ever try to edit or add a part on this criticism section. We'll see how that turns out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy the Dressmaker (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, obviously no-one has put it in the article, if you have sources then there is nothing stopping you adding it.  --neon white talk 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  the major problem with this article 

message: Many people think they know exactly what emo is just cause they can read the first paragraph of the wiki.
So everyone has to scream in my face that emo is just a music...therefore subculture/fashion/stereotypes should either be a whole new section or higher up on the section.
Apperantly were all illiterate so we dont go as far as section 10 or so it might be.
and as divorce rates go up and people have worsened lives we should better fix that before we get crap about be humans being music groups.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.175.244 (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why I am working on getting an article publishable on wikipedia. Note my discussion above yours i'm working for a non-biased article about us! But you are right people stereotype by the first lines of wikipedia. --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not responsible for things that happen in real life based on what is (and is not) contained in the first paragraph of any particular article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the fact that the fashion stereotype is hard to source it only commands a small section not really that important enough to warrant a mention in an article summary. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When the heck was emo ever a fashion? IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GENRE OF MUSIC.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.68.171 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo, only music to preps 

message: emo is not a style of hardcore punk. embrace is not hardcore punk.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.16.75.172 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, yes it is.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We all should know by now that Emo derived from the early hardcore punk movement. Which doesn't make sense as to why bands like Dashboard Confessional are in the emo article. These bands are not emo, in the least bit. Emo, Emoviolence, Screamo, etc. are all forms of extremely chaotic music, with roots straight from hardcore punk. It's not a fashion, and it has nothing to do with cutting your self. Wikipedia is an unreliable and misinforming site, as to find the true meaning of emo. What are true modern emo bands? Hiretsuken. Envy. Circle Takes the Square. I Would Set Myself On Fire For You. Funeral Diner. Gospel. Etc. It's not hard to look that up, and see that screamo/emo bands are still around, and still play chaotic music, that should be appropriately called "emotive hardcore".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.253.71.184 (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, but emotiove hardcore is so different to that fashion called "emo".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.6.71.75 (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardcore punk? 

message: Pitchfork (formed 1986)  and Drive Like Jehu (formed 1990)  (both featuring John Reis/Speedo from Rocket from the Crypt and Hot Snakes) were both from San Diego and huge influences on 1990s emo--should someone add this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.40.170 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but as with many things, Pitchfork is totally clueless in this regard. DLJ were never considered to be emo in their day. If pressed, Pitchfork couldn't cite that statement. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitchfork and Drive Like Jehu 

message: I was just thinking perhaps we could give a section about what the music sounds like. I found a good source.  It gives a pretty good idea of what it sounds like and would maybe help anyone that would lets say form an emocore band, etc. Would write more gtg --XXxChriscorexXx (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a self published source, not verifiable unfortunately. --neon white talk 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you find this stuff out.. oh well I tried, im just saying it would have been useful sourced or not. --71.180.33.165 (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This source is pretty weak and somewhat subjective. --Mnbeer (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: Sounds like 

message: I think this article does a great job explaining the history of the genre and the way the usage of the term changed following the popularity of Dashboard Confessional and Jimmy Eat World.  However, I think some extremely important wording is poor:
"As a result, the term 'emo' became a vaguely defined identifier rather than a specific genre of music."
A term can't be a genre of music, it is used to describe a genre of music.  Also, using "defined" and "identifier" so close together is both redundant and confusing.  I would suggest a rewrite such as:
As a result, the term "emo" found common usage, yet became increasingly vaguer in meaning. --216.49.149.39 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, because when i read the original which is currently in the page, i could not get my head around what it meant, but now that i have read this user's rewrite, i understand the sentence. Not everyone who reads wikipedia are clever enough to understand such complex vocabulary. --Speighticus (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Concern 

message: Emo is supposedly going to have restrictions on it in Russia. Can someone add this to the wikipage?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.213.119 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the correct link for Emo to be banned in Russia. It comes from NME  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.59 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why hasn't anyone included the gist of this NME article? I'm busy enough dealing with the Roundtable translations, which will be coming soon, my friends. All sourced. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --Enric Naval (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restrictions on Russia 

message: Last month I went through and added citation needed tags where there were possible instances of original research, hoping that this would spur editors to find sources for the statements. However, since that hasn't happened I'm going to add an OR tag to the article. Maybe there's OR in this article and maybe there's not, but with so much of the material unsourced its really impossible to tell. Hopefully this will finally convince editors (including myself) to find and cite the necessary sources to help improve this article. --Aurum ore (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this. I noticed this quite recently as well. I know that Neonwhite or Cheeser1 were the probably collaboraters of this mythical "Third Wave" of Emo which has absolutely little documentation. In fact, 80 percent of that whole section are all unsourced statements! It's all conjecture, it's all personal opinion then, isnt' it(???) It's all ORIGINAL RESEARCH, no(????) I smell a double standard. I say, going by Neonwhites strict enforcement of sourced statements, that the whole Third Wave be deleted. I was amazed by this irony since Neonwhite constatly puts down any suggestion that Emo is a subculture or that we should never bring up Emo/Scene. There was also an article done by NME about Emo in Russia. EMO is called a subculture by NME!!! NME is reference nearly half dozen times by this Wiki Emo page. Isn't it time we do a subculture or fashion page, my friends? --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a subculture of sorts and not just music.  For a rather sarcastic view see:  --WonderWheeler (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR 

message: This article used to be nice, long, and informative, but it seems to be only a tenth as long as it used to be.  Plus, Jimmy Eat World's song "The Middle" (and their whole Bleed American album) is not what I would call emo...  This stuff about "Modern Emo" is crap really, Emo died around 2000, now everyone left in the genre is either scattered or is with Deep Elm :P. --98.26.61.168 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a re-write? 

message: The following external link brings up a 403 error: International Emo Community -  May I suggest altering this to another popular online emo community such as  --91.84.74.148 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Broken 

message: This article seems to have focused more on the indie rock scene of the same name that is VAGUELY connected to the music present-day emo kids listen to. To hipsters who were really into scene this article might be good, but to 99% of the population, emo is a CURRENT TREND, and that's what this article should focus on. The old article makes it seem like emo has been a popular genre for the past 20+ years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains all elements of emo and does not focus on any particular period. This is part of neutrality policy. Any rewrite of the article needs to be discussed first and based on sources not personal views. --neon white talk 08:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neonwhite, the article should focus more on the 2000's, since the sources identifiying emo are lopsidedly of the last 5 years. The attention on Emo in the last 5 years is so vastly disproportionate that this article should reflect that considering that it is comrised of SOURCES. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The trend of today(2003+), and the trends of the 90's are so different it's almost like a whole different genre.  When SDRE was around, I don't think anybody associated "Emo" with, black clothes, straight hair, depression, and all this stuff that seems to be it nowadays.  People who are fans of the 90's movement (myself probably included) think this newer stuff just doesn't quite make it.  Listen to some Sunny Day Real Estate, and compare it with Falloutboy.  There is a HUGE difference.  I think people should try to separate these two movements as much as possible, so people who sit here and say emo sucks don't shun a completely different style which may be to their tastes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samushi101 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encylclopedia it's not the place to voice your opinions on the subject. A blog is the place for that. --neon white talk 08:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neonwhite, doesn't the unsourced material on the "Third Wave" constitute material unfit for an encyclopedia? I will be waiting a few weeks before I take that down. By the way, I hope you read through the Emo "roundtable" debate on Jexico's Telehit. IT IS SOURCED. It will soon be supplanting the fairy tale of the Third Wave of Emo which, as a New Zealand Newscast suggested, Emo as we now know it today is tied more to a fad based on FASHION. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I changed it 

message: I think it would be appropriate for "Bullet for my Valentine" to be added to the little bit about screamo in the section about the third wave.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.24.9 (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? They don't seem to be a band of any major importance. --neonwhite  user page talk 05:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding? In modern day theyre one of the main bands classed as emo/screamo. Just because you dont like them or havent heard of them doesnt mean they deserve a place in this article due to their popularity in the current emo scene.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.24.9 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They just arent that important. They aren't that popular and regardless popularity does not equal importance. Find some articles that cite them as an important or notable band within this genre. Even if they are known by this genre which their article suggests they aren't. --neonwhite  user page talk 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Neonwhite they never achived mainstream success unlike the other bands that are classified in the article. --XxtruemoxX (talk) 22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet for my Valentine 

message: My Chemical Romance is not emo in the song Famous Last Words it says "I am not afraid to keep on living, I am not afraid to walk this world alone."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.254.156 (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whatever meaning you explicate out of the band's lyrics, that doesn't mean at all that the band is emo/not emo. Multiple reliable sources describe the band as emo, and fact-checking on Wikipedia is predicated on reliable sources, not original research. --TheLetterM (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused as to how a random song lyric has any relevance? --neon white talk 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: how my chemical romance is emo,but not, That has to accept what he said gerard way is not emo and that it classified as emo does not understand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockero34 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Chemical Romance is not emo! 

message: basically I noticed that most of the rock bands that are united with the "emo tag" have only one thing in common, the fact that they have depressed/suicidal/heartbroken lyrical content, even despite the fact that bands play on an alternative rock, new wave, power pop style, they are still labeled as emo because of the lyrical content. If a whole genre is mostly defined by the lyrics rather than the   different aesthetics that these bands have, then so help me grunge would fall in the technical definition of metal, or nu metal would technically just fall into place with whatever topics they usual fall on, anyway does anyone get my point? I'm looking for serious answers so don't just pathetically troll around on this subject.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.98.243 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In response... I agree.  But I think it should be said that people often forget that Emo means "emotional," which all good music should be.  Anything however, that stands out as Emo, is now usually EXTREMELY emotional.  And then you get into the human psyche analysis...why does depression seem to be the most extreme emotion?  Everyone will always have their own definition.  Personally I consider all music Emo to some degree, the question is: HOW Emo is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.96.173 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree as well, as a music major and a big fan of emotive hardcore, it is more then a little disturbing to me to see what is called "emo" nowadays. and by the way, "emo" is shorthand for emotive hardcore, it does not mean "emotion" . that was a base misassumption of 2000's music listeners which has in my opinion caused the mislabelling of today's music as emo. emotive hardcore is a dead genre, it hasnt been around in a long time, with the notable exception of fugazi. the pop rock and pop punk scene nowadays that is referred to as emo has been labelled so because of it's music listeners alone, not because of any musical influence or musical/lyrical content. i have never editted or given input to wikipedia before, and i am doing so now in the hopes that this article will REMOVE new age "emo" from it's list of related music as it is simply NOT TRUE. teenage angst alone does NOT make music emo... being sad does NOT make music emo. and most of emo has a politic base for lyrical content, something that is wholly missing from today's mislabelled emo. for christ sake man... emo stemmed from political influences and the "counter punk" sociopolitical scene of 80's washington dc. anyways thanks for listening to my "anti-emo" diatribe, hopefully i might have enlightened someone enough to change this very very wrong article. also, as an addendum, i like pop-punk and pop-rock quite a bit, i am not biased against them at all.. indeed my favorite band currently is Taking Back Sunday.. but i do not want to see real emotive hardcore become a forgotten and abhorred leper of a new age sound.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.157.193 (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What really defines emo now?(2000 - and on..) 

message: This article, and also partly the discussion, is becoming opinionated dribble. People arguing which bands are emo, which aren't, people changing the actual article countless times so that their idea of how emo a band is fits in, and to be quite frank, it is p*****g me off. Everyone has their own opinion on their favorite music and the music they dislike. This is probably the most debated article in the entire of Wikipedia. This is probably the most difficult term to define. This is probably the most difficult article to source. That's why it's semi protected. So that it can still be changed by the knowledgeable, and can't become what it slowly is - opinion rather than fact. I have personally disagreed with the "Emoness" of some of the bands mentioned in the article, such as Jimmy Eat World. I have also included some bands in an earlier post on the discussion page which i consider Emo, and others may not. Therefore, i believe that we should correctly define and source the current definition of Emo as a musical genre before any bands are so much as mentioned. I also advise to remove (also on a temporary and source based basis) the inclusion of what other genres it has evolved from and includes elements of, as you cannot do so without naming bands which are Emo and include elements of these genres, which returns to my point that Emo music should be defined and sourced before all bands and advisably all associated genres are included, for example, i would say that Enter Shikari are Emo, but incorporate elements of Emo, Metal and Techno into their music, meaning Enter Shikari should be included in this article and that Metal and Techno should be too. However, this is my opinion and is not sourced, so this cannot be included. This demonstrates the predicament. Correctly define Emo music and source it before including bands and associated genres, and even then make sure that they are sourced. Sorry for going on for so long and repeating myself, but at least you all get the message. Oh and sorry if i'm just paraphrasing someone else here, it's a very long discussion to read and its 1 AM. --Speighticus (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an opinion to share here, even though you don't want any: EMO music died in the late 90's. Even though the genre was a bit tenuous at best. EMO in the 2000's is primarily a fashion thing having nothing to do with Emo Hardcore music except in name. In fact, Emo Phillips the commedian is perhaps even closer to moden Emo than the Hardcore Emo, since the comedian had an "Indie" look going for himself. My absolute statement here is that this page should be split from the music page, creating one dealing with the fashion. I've said it before. I'll say it again. When you say that this is the most disputed page on Wiki, I wouldn't doubt it. But I don't give a damn about the music side. I don't post on any Fugazi or Rites of Spring page. I don't post on any Hardcore or Post-Hardcore pages. I don't care about that shit. What the problem is, is the fashion side or this Emo subculture which is a different subject all together. Just my opinion. --Tommy the Dressmaker (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Emo fashion was adopted from Gothic and Punk rock fashion, but the fashion style has now since entered the mainstream, I could remember back like 3-4 years ago, kids we're trying to dress like gangstas and rappers, with basketball jersies and "bling-blings", right now its the mainstream trend and a lot of people are trying to dress up like that, and its probably most annoying when you see boybands and pop artists dressing up like this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.109.74 (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, No More Opinions!