Talk:Emo/Archive 3

message: I'm sorry but I've never heard anyone call Alexisonfire emo. This isn't just a personal opinion matter on my behalf, I just honestly have never heard anyone refer to them as emo. I'm gonna remove them from the list of bands who are labeled emo until I hear someone tell me that they have heard the emo label attributed to Alexisonfire. --Razorhead 10:08, 27 March 2007
:Come on now.  How hard is it to do a Google search for Alexisonfire and emo? --ChrisB 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexisonfire? 

message: I'm new to editing wiki, but did someone revert the page? I signed up to get rid of the paragraph of yelling at "Emo" people, under the headline section, now its gone? --Nichkoi 08:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, people who patrol recent changes on Wikipedia pretty much catch things rather quickly. --¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good job to whoever beat me to fixing the page. Anyways, I think that this page should probably be better protected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.105.30 (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Emo began is emotional hardcore. Those are its roots. It retains many characteristics of emotional hardcore. Emotional hardcore retained many characteristics of hardcore punk. There is a direct and linear connection there, whether the people here like it or not. I'm not entirely sure why a few people are angry with this connection anyway, because emotional hardcore was undoubtedly more about the music and less about selling a product than what's around today. As far as I know, music was never meant to be about making money, which is what the third wave of emo has become. 
As far as emo being a misnomer... that's ridiculous. Does heavy metal sound like lead? It's a name, for goodness' sake. I've heard the argument that all music is emotional, so no music can be described as emo. Well, by that logic, I can say that all music has a beat, so calling speed metal by that name is stupid because of that. I could say that just because it's faster, doesn't mean you should name its genre based on that. That's stupid. It's very stupid. All rocks are made of minerals, so why are there different types of rocks? All juice has suger, so why are there different types of juice? Do you see how stupid that argument is? 
Finally, a link to art rock doesn't make sense. Emo music isn't art rock. Emo's roots were innovative. It might make sense to call the first wave of emo art rock, but everything after that wasn't experimental at all. The third wave is anything but experimental. I'm not going to bash emo music, but I can tell you right now, I can't tell My Chemical Romance from Fall Out Boy from Panic! At the Disco. I just cannot find any significant factors that distinguish them. I'm sure some of you could and would argue that YOU can tell the differences. But take two bands that fall into the same genre umbrella, The Smashing Pumpkins and Rage Against the Machine (both alternative rock). They're very easy to tell apart. Extremely easy to tell apart, even. But the point is, emo hasn't been doing anything radical, nor is it a characteristic of that genre. Again, the roots may have been experimental, but every genre's roots are experimental, and that doesn't make every genre art rock. I'm removing that link. --Missle-aneous 06:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various arguments 

message: "At the end of the 1990s, the underground emo scene had almost entirely disappeared", who ever wrote this is having a laugh, who says the underground emo scene has dissapeared, it's still going strong, perhaps the reason you didn't notice is because it's underground...PLEASE SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS ABOUT EMO EDIT THIS ARTICLE AND STOP ACTING LIKE THE ONLY "EMO" AROUND TODAY IS ON THE RADIO. geez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eweyewewe (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this article needs some open minded ness

message: Though I doubt this will be read:
The official version contains the periods.  DC is the postal code.
Sources for "D.C.": various dictionaries (Websters, Random House, American Heritage), various encyclopedias, AP Style Guide (view how the Washington Post abbreviates it for a good example).
A unilateral change of this type is not acceptable without prior discussion.  If you feel this change is necessary, you MUST provide adequate sources (e.g., official documentation) and enter discussion.  However, given that nearly all available sources include the periods, you'd have to make a very convincing argument to see the change through. --ChrisB 05:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Response to edit summary: NYC is not a fair comparison, as "N.Y.C." is not an official abbreviation.  "D.C." is an official abbreviation.  Additionally, "everybody uses DC" is original research.  While DC is commonly used, it's widely used because it is the postal code.  Again, this change should not be made without WIDE consensus - it affects countless pages on Wikipedia.  And this article should not be the first place to see this change - the change should be handled on the pages for Washington, D.C., etc, in order to establish the precedent.  At the moment, Wikipedia's standard is "D.C.", and this page should reflect the standard. --ChrisB 23:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper abbreviation of D.C. 

message: Some time ago, heard 'bout some genre called  "Extremo" (I guess it's  som mix between Mathcore an death metal). Why don't we create an article for the emo/Metalcore bands (like thrice, underoath, across five aprils, and a little less, eyes set to kill), and maybe name it Extremo? Zhiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.158.130 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just make up genres and present it as fact. All the bands you listed are Post-Hardcore/Metalcore. --Manupod 22:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, well we actually use the term in the emo scene of my city (as you said, those bands  cross genres and that was the reason for it) , but yes, it's kinda made up heehee, thanks anyway, peace =) Zhiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.52.211.52 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo Metalcore 

message: Can someone please revert back to the last edit by Aiyda? I tried about 10 times and my browser is malfunctioning. Chubbles 19:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, nevermind. I see what happened. Doh! Chubbles 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --Chubbles 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. --User:Rock2e  Talk - Contribs  17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: It seems like this article is focusing a lot more on the punk-rock emo genre, and Bright Eyes is included in the list for the third wave, which seems quite out of place. And futhermore, Bright Eyes has been around for quite a while, and had success in the "second wave", I don't think Bright Eyes should be included in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.81.76 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an "official" list; in fact, it's not even a list of actual emo bands. It's clearly stated that this category of "third wave emo" isn't related to early emo, nor does it have definition. It's simply a label applied to hundreds of bands for about as many different reasons. That list is a more-or-less arbitrary set of a few bands that are called emo these days. That's all. --Cheeser1 21:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it still shouldn't be in third wave --204.210.81.76 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: afi are listed in the third wave and they have been around for 16 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.203.61 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Bright Eyes have been around for a while.  According to their wikipedia article, since 1995.  But I totally disagree with their inclusion in the list of bands in the "second wave" as well as being referenced in this Emo article to begin with.  First off they only released their first studio LP Fevers and Mirrors in 2000, which is well after the second wave ended, and certainly not during it's heyday.  Second, none of their music, including Fevers and Mirrors, contain any elements of punk, which is a requirement for emo whether it be first wave or third wave.  Third, their are signed to Saddle Creek, a record label not known for it's emo bands; and in fact I believe Cursive is the only band that qualifies as emo in all of Saddle Creek's roster.  Third, and most convincingly, even the article for Bright Eyes in wikipedia does not reference them in the emo genre (on the right side where it says "Genre(s)".  I therefore submit that this Emo article should not reference Bright Eyes at all, and certainly not within the list of bands that "emerged from the (second wave) scene".  I could also say, although I won't bother "verifying" it that Bright Eyes does not even draw from similar influences as the other second wave bands as they are not influenced by (in my humble opinion) Sunny Day Real Estate, Fugazi, Husker Du, etc.  Nor were they related to any of the midwest-emo bands of the 90s.  Even though Conor Oberst is from the same geographical area, this does not mean he was in any way related to the second wave emo scene. --Silas, 29 June 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elros14 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bright eyes 

message: Vandalism my friends, somewhere toward the middle of the page, meatspin.com is added in arbitrary fashion.  Please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.3.91 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --SteinAlive | ☎ | ☉ 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meatspin 

message: I would just like to point out the fact that Green Day was not pointed out once in this article as being a huge contributor to mainstream Emo. Does anyone not remember Dookie? What happened? Now they're 40 year-old men playing for 14-15 year old boys and girls who are having a hard time going through adolescence. They so obviously changed their image from punk to emo (much like many others) mostly by only wearing black clothes and wearing eyeliner. This no doubt revived Green Day's career but they lost most of their loyal followers from the 90's because of their drastic change of appearance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SilverTen (talk • contribs) 02:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Green Day are known for popularizing pop-punk, NOT emo. Their style has changed a little over the years, but a band dressing up differently does not change their style of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relyt22 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Green day WAS known for popularizing pop-punk. Now they are known as that band that went from punk to emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.35.32 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Green Day is in no way emo, in any sense of the word. They are pop punk. Their sound has changed slightly since dookie, but they are clearly the same genre and have nothing to do with emo. --Manupod 22:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken Dreams? How is that not emo? --Ninjanity 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article lists Green Day as one of many bands that are called emo, based on the poorly-defined and ubiquitous use of the term. Please read more carefully. --Cheeser1 01:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article shouldn't mention Green Day at all and presently doesn't. --Cedars 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with "Broken Dreams"? An emo would have said "Black Street of Nightmares". Besides, Green Day sounds a lot like basic punk, unlike emo, which sometimes breaks the "three cord" barrier punk usually follows --Gabriel Texidor 22:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Day? 

message: 1. Emo is short for emotive hardcore, not emotional hardcore. 2. It's the people who actually listen to this music genre that don't want bands like Fall Out Boy considered emo, not the other way around. Why? Because it was obviously co-oped by the mainstream music industry, something that the original "first wave" bands were trying to avoid with the popularity of their DIY ethic. 3. As far as being verifiable, not truthful, I think that's just bullshit (and I can verify that's what I think); it doesn't make sense that something which aims to inform would cease to care about truth information. Just another reason why there are stupid people walking around all over the world... If I ever go crazy and shoot 20 people, I'm blaming Wikipedia. --68.74.124.27 15:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read wikipolicy (WP:V) and check the dictionary... Emotive: characterized by or pertaining to emotion. Emotional: pertaining to or involving emotion. They're the same word. Deal. People work really hard to make articles that are truthful (as much as objective truth can be ascertained), verifiable (as much as it can be verified), and unbiased (as much as an article could be). Sure, they're never perfect in any respect, those three included, but anonymously pissing and moaning and threatening to shoot people (what the fuck??) will not get you anywhere. --Cheeser1 01:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always enjoy it when people claim that we don't "know the truth", and then proceed to misstate said truth.  The term "emotive hardcore" didn't even EXIST before 1996, and, even then, it wasn't prominently used.  In fact, it wasn't used in any regular capacity until (very) recently.  (And, as a reminder, "emo" started in 1985.)  So if you want to step in and tell us "the truth", make sure you know what that truth actually is. --ChrisB 17:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay for me there are mainly two types of Emo, 90's and now.  Now I know that some may not like that, but it seems quite true.  The difference between the two is that 90's emo, early 90's is more about the sound the combination of hard songs with "emotional" lyrics or "soft-esq" lyrics, but still pretty damn hard-core because it was done as "here I am, take it or leave it"; and the more recent emo is more of an image of pure immitation of a depression or emotions, the people who play the now emo are more like the dicks that you find trying to get the record label, with a rich family, spoiled, and still find a way to complain about how no one loves them or how they never get what they want.  And 90's emo was known for a metal or core-grunge while the emo of now is more of a pop rip-off of the revolution of the 90's while trying to be "punk" by copying what they've seen on t.v. or magazines. --User:Enthnd03 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While your input is appreciated, you should know that contributions to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Your opinion or understanding of a subject may be well informed, but you are not a source of verifiable information. Thanks, and happy editing. --Cheeser1 03:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article Has So Many Mistakes 

message: How is Emo different from other punk genres? If anyone can tell, please write it down. If not, tell me so I may attempt at a neutral classification. --Gabriel Texidor 21:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emo is different from other punk genres in that the lyrics are often more introspective, as they were a reaction to hardcore punk's straightforward ranting. Many of the early "emo" bands (quotations because if you talk to any member of those bands, they will probably detest the term) started out in hardcore punk bands but decided to go in other musical directions. Please note that I am referring to what is known as emo's "first wave", and not the dreck that it's often labeled as today. If you want more info, see Fourfa, as this site has the best categorization and analysis of this music that I (and many others) have seen. --TheLetterM 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this talk page is not a forum for discussion of the topic of this article, as indicated clearly at the top of the page, in bold. --Cheeser1 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction from punk and other similar genres 

message: "Emo" is not emotional rock, because all music has some kind of emotion it is expressing. The original post-hardcore music that was referred to as "emo" (which was a name given to these bands by other hardcore punk bands such as minor threat as a joke) was called emotive hardcore which meant describing "the process by which emotions are managed and shaped, not only by society and its expectations but also by individuals themselves as they seek to express the inexpressible" so it was just another way of punk music critisizing society. Then almost 9 years ago people started using "emo" to describe the girly crying kids that were coming around and MTV then picked it up and "emo" was given a whole new definition entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizardking69zoso (talk • contribs) 02:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find one source from the 1980s that uses the phrase "emotive hardcore" rather than "emotional hardcore", then a change is in order. Otherwise, this is just speculation. --Chubbles 02:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though Emo most likely did stand for Emotive Hardcore, I can find no reference to say so. The most refutable reference on Emo music is Fourfa, which says Emotional, so it could be kept as is. --Manupod 22:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything you say here is correct except for the "most likely" part.  Speaking as someone heavily involved in the emo scene of the mid-to-late 90s, the term "emotive hardcore" simply was not used.  There is not even room for "could have been" - it simply was not.  It became a "popular" term only in the last few years.  My take is that "emotive hardcore" is being pushed by the more elitist members of the current scene to separate themselves from the pop culture confluence of the terms "emo" and "emotional".  And I think that's proven by the arrogance and belligerence of those folks on the issue, despite the fact that the evidence clearly does not support their insistence. --ChrisB 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These days, the term emo is used to describe any band playing guitar-based music that is emotional either in approach, lyrical focus or affect. 2003 brought the diary-like hit Dashboard Confessional and since then, indie-rock cross-overs Bright Eyes and Death Cab For Cutie have become successful pop acts while maintaining -- if erroneously -- the label emo. In addition, more emotional pop punk bands like Brand New, Avenged Sevenfold, Taking Back Sunday and Thursday are all ascribed the label regardless of whether they claim it for themselves. Today, "emo" can describe almost anything emotional. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.91.204 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having been around the scene since the late 80's I have to agree that the term wasn't in common usage on the east coast until late '92 or early '93 and I have never heard anyone (until just now) refer to the DC scene as the birthplace of emo. There were a lot of bands from everywhere that all popped up around the same time that got the "emo" label and no one back then saw it as a "DC style." In fact, all of the "emo" bands I knew of were from Syracuse, NY down to Philadelphia including NYC and NJ. Outside of that there were a handful of bands from California. And as the music started to get down tempo with bands like Texas Is The Reason and Kill Holliday '94 or '95 is the first time i remember hearing the term "screamo" which was used to identify similarly inrtrospective lyrics but with screaming vocals and normally harder music. As well no one ever called it emo because people were emotional onstage. It's punk/hardcore, people have always been emotional. It was called emo because the songs, the lyrics that is, were about emotions and relationships and looked at the usual punk issues through the lens of one's own emotions.  I had never heard anyone say that it was called "emo" because the bands were made up of particulalry emotional people until 1999 or 2000, and that was only from people who were 19-21 at the time which means they would've been 12-14 years old when the term "emo" was first getting tossed around. It was also understood, by the mid to late 90's, that people in the DIY punk scene were abandoning the genre because of the "Mall kids" it was attracting. By the late '90's "emo" bands had become to the east coast what pop punk bands are to the west coast. The sounds are slightly different but the issues and the fan base are mostly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.5.95 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Death cab for cutie is Indie Rock and the music is not emotive in a depression form. Death Cab and the other Indie Rock Bands are NOT EMO and this should be summed up... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skankyyoda (talk • contribs) 06:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotive not Emotional 

message: isnt emo a stereotype??? --<FONT FACE="Rockwell Extra Bold" COLOR="#FF0002">  ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓  ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) </FONT> 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes look at Emo (slang) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.174.165 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, but this is talking about the genre of music, as stated above, look at Emo (slang) --Iluvmesodou 07:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stereotype? 

message: Emo is it's own genre. It isn't a subgenre of Rock, if anything it's a subgenre of Pop. Most emo songs are softer and don't compare to Rock, as established by AC/DC, Lynard Skynard, Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne, Black Sabbath, Poison, Metallica, Van Halen and others. It compares more to pop bands of the mid to late nineties. Calling emo a subgenre of Rock is a slap in the face to the above mentioned Rock Bands and to the whole Genre of Rock. --Raditude 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what you mentioned is metal or hard rock. Those bands are from different subgenres of rock, and are thus not exactly the same as emo - that doesn't mean both can't be rock. You really, really have no idea what you're talking about. If you did, you could find sources these claims. You can't, and thus we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Unsourced claims have no place here. --Cheeser1 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any sourced claims that it is rock. --Raditude 03:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What is LiveJournal? I thought it was an online newspaper or something. Then again Wikipedia isn't a source since people can just go in and randomly change and vandalize stuff. --Raditude 03:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to have no idea what Wikipedia is or how information in Wikipedia is sourced. See: WP:RS, WP:REF, WP:OR, WP:NOT, and WP:A. --Cheeser1 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And live journal is a blog. --Zazaban 01:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Punk is a subgenre of rock music. Hardcore is a subgenre of Punk music. Emo is a subgenre of Hardcore Punk music. Emo doesn't just simply come straight out of rock and roll. There's a long list of transitional genres that built up to its influence. --Relyt22 22:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Come now, Reylt22, if X is a subgenre of Y, and Y is a subgenre of Z, then X is a subgenre of Z. Logic! Good heavens, what do they teach them in schools these days? --Cheeser1 01:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL (no mockery intended), interesting Cheeser1, but when I thought about what you said, that equation on how "a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not a square" came up. --Iluvmesodou 07:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub Genre of Rock? No. 

message: have made a small change to the bit on dbc, making clear that his music was vastly different to second wave and first wave emo. the previous edit didn't say this so this was confusing. new bit reads: "2003 saw the success of Chris Carrabba, the former singer of emo band Further Seems Forever, and his project Dashboard Confessional. Despite musically being more aligned to the singer songwriter school, Carraba found himself part of the emerging "popular" emo scene. Carrabba's music featured lyrics founded in deep diary-like outpourings of emotion. While certainly emotional, the new "emo" had a far greater appeal amongst adolescents than its earlier incarnations. [12]" --eweyewewe 20:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dashboard confessional 

message: Is there really a song named "Emo" by Death Cab For Cutie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.23.180 (talk • contribs) 
:Apparently not; i removed the entry, for now. --Piet Delport 15:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a song called "Emo" by Blink 182. Emo stands for Emotional Rocker, get it right before you talk about it, please. I, and my friends, may be offended by what you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.53.93 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emo" song 

message: Is emo vs. metalheads mention spam or actually needed mention. I thought, because, allways when i go to, forums (topics), youtube, last.fm, i see many, metalheads, wroted hatefull comments, about emo, like "Emo Sucks!", "Emos, should be dead after, mighty vikings come to slaying them down! Stop being Emo!", or Emo bands, tagged as "Emo Shit", "Teen Emo crap", or contest, between Emos and Metalheads, when metalheads win. Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.0.131 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's any actual Reliable Sources about this derision between the two subcultures, it certainly could have a place in the article. That being said, while it's certainly noticeable, anything sourced to sites like forums or youtube which thrives on user-provided content is no source that can be relied on. See WP:OR. --TheLetterM 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metalheads hate Emo 

message: Based on discussion at Emo (slang), there is a consensus that the article be redirected here (with a small amount content merged into this article). It seems quite apparent that this would allow a sensible move from "Emo (music)" to simply "Emo." This may happen - just wanted to give you guys a heads up. To talk about the pseudo-merge / move / etc. see Talk: Emo (slang). --Cheeser1 02:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about to make the move, and I've got the talk page from where this article's about to go below, so that it isn't lost. --Cheeser1 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: As I understand it, there is a category for Emo musical groups, but why do the avid Emo article watchdogs see it necessary to add bands to the article that aren't emo in any way? Especially in a section that is reserved for the description of emo bands of that period.
I believe that bands and the dispute over their emo status should be in the criticism section. We should try to keep the criticism of the bands/genre/stereotype in its own section rather than have it strewn all through the article. --Jonathontree 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The bands in the "emo waves" section 

message: I am planning to remove the stereotype paragraph from the fashion section. First, I have a problem with the notion that the stereotype is associated with the fashion. Second, I take issue with the credibility of the source for that paragraph. --Cedars 00:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When your bold edits are reverted, you are supposed to wait until consensus is established. You are not supposed to revert a revert, except in cases like vandalism or blatant copyright violations. Note that I even explicitly told that I would be perfectly happy to discuss it in my edit summary. I do realize that this small paragraph could use a little work, but it's hardly an over-the-top or highly dubious claim. "I have a problem with the notion that the stereotype is associated with the fashion" - that's all well and good, but you did more than delete that part of the first sentence. There is obviously a great deal of ambiguity surrounding this stereotype, but there is one. It exists. Just because we need a better source doesn't necessarily mean it's not verifiable. --Cheeser1 04:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An opinion piece is not a reliable source, see WP:RS. Because of this, the section has been removed for not being properly sourced. If you find one that works, you can re-add it, of course. --Gscshoyru 04:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just reverted a revert, again. Can you take the time to read the policy please, before you keep edit warring? Also, please note that I have not based my argument solely on the fact that the current source is reliable. --Cheeser1 04:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles are written from a POV, the source is completely verifiable and is a good citation for the paragraph. Please do not remove it again or it will be considered disruptive editing. Gaming the system by misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines is also bad etiquette. If you would like to explain why the UK's second biggest selling national newspaper which has been in publication for over 100 years is not verifiable then do so here. --Neon white 14:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Now please don't shout at me for this, but I am a regular user of Wikipedia. I saw this article as it stands now, and I saw the Emo (slang) article before it was presumably deleted. If one is going to have an article describing a label that can be applied to both fashion and music, one must at least do something about the presentation; I find the Emo article at the present moment, including both the fashion and the music, to be extremely messy, and I propose it be cleaned up. Wikipedia isn't paper, after all.
Now for a suggestion that will really make everyone shout at me. I think that, as Wikipedia has a section on fashion and stereotype, and no-one can find any good academic papers published in third-party sources, Wikipedians should instead scour the forums and newspaper columns. At the end of the day, emo is to do with society and society will define what constitutes emo, not the intellectuals whose views you seek.
Of course, you are allowed to ignore everything I have just said and denounce me as an ignorant, time-wasting oik/vandal. I would, in fact, prefer that to being shouted down thoughtlessly. I admit that you may find my logic holey, but please take the time to think about what I have said and rebutt me in full instead of answering with a big, fat, unexplanatory no.
I will now leave the talk page, as I have aired my views. --91.106.20.100 19:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, what is this business about how we're all going to "shout you down"? Starting a discussion by presuming that we are hostile or in the business of attacking you is not very productive. I'm not sure what you mean by "forum" but web-based forums are not reliable sources (they are self-published and generally first-person accounts). There are several citations of journalistic sources in that section (small as it is). I don't see what your complaint is. The problem with academic sources had to do with academic claims. The stuff presented here is not academic, and relies on perfectly good news sources. Also, do you have some sort of complaint about the merge? There was a tiny' section created near the end, with only a couple paragraphs, and as far as I can tell it integrates pretty fine with the rest of the article (which was unchanged). --Cheeser1 23:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Err... 

message: We are having some difficulties. There is a lot of background to this issue. Including a number of complaints from an editor, Cheeser1, about the quality of sources me and a couple of other Wikipedians provided at the now defunct Talk:Emo (slang). I can't help but feel a little cheated that he is now trying to add content citing a Daily Mail article that is widely acknowledged to be alarmist. At a deeper level, there seems to be concern about whether, apart from the music, emo is just a stereotype or whether there is something more substantive to talk about in the article. I'm not good with RfCs and I don't want to get drawn into some lengthy discussion/mediation. So please post thoughts on how we can move forward and improve this article here. --Cedars 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two sources for a single sentence which makes a non-analytical statement about the fact that emo is associated with depression and/or suicide. That tiny part of that small section is more than adequately sourced, especially given its size and the non-analytical nature of the statements. --Cheeser1 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles are both verifiable, your personal opinion about them has no baring here, neither do things that are 'widely acknowledged' yet have no sources. Emo (slang) was a completely different case, this is not about points scoring. If a citation is verifiable it stays, if it is not it goes regardless of who wrote and who removed it. --Neon white 23:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The simple fact here is that the paragraph in question is stating info about a popular stereotype and those sources back up the existence of such a stereotype. By definition stereotypes are often inaccurate. What is notable is the fact that the stereotype was reported. I have added the term 'in the popular media' as i think this might enable a consensus to be reached, it makes the paragraph more accurate by specifying where the stereotype exists. --Neon white 23:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and such 

message: does anyone want to mention in the stereotype section about Rob Dobi's illustrations? (maybe it was already mentioned i dont know) but here's a link..  and the new book that came out, Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture ...
I apologize if someone already mentioned this stuff.. --Hairsprayqueen 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can comment on these images unless they've received significant third-party coverage. We also can't include these images, say, to illustrate some sort of stereotype because they're copyrighted. --Cheeser1 21:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something more about the stereotypes... 

message: so the protectors of this page want everything to from a source? Someone please tell me where the terms First, Second and Third Wave came from? as Wikipedia is the only place I have heard them. eweyewewe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll notice that "first wave" (etc) isn't capitalized.  Those aren't terms - they're markers to distinguish the different (cited) periods of emo.  We are allowed this kind of leeway, in the same manner that band articles are often split by headings such as "early years", "popular era", etc.  What would you recommend instead: "first period"?  "First era"? --ChrisB 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: to be fair it would probably be better to do it by genre (very roughly e.g hardcore, indie and pop variations), as one of the problems this site has is people arguing about what emo is, or disagreeing with the bands, if ther bands wre clearly lined in genres then no one is gonna complain that taking back sunday are listed as a pop-emo band. though this is all speculation and a huge task to undertake. though the way the article is set up makes it seem as though once one wave had finished, that was it for the style of music, which isn't true at all. would be hard to cite, but i don't think it's going against the spirit of wiki to tweak it slightly to remedy this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.68.224 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a good idea  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.6.76 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major problem 

message: That is totally wrong, I'm absolutely sure that Emo evolved from post-hardcore. --The-15th 18:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-hardcore a sub-genre of Emo? 

message: This sections is pretty bad. The fashion listed is very poorly chosen. Even if these articles of clothing are what the emos are wearing, it is not indicative of the lifestyle...
Tight Jeans (men & women)
Tight t-shirts (men & women)
Belt Buckles
Tightly Fitting Sweaters (Men & Women)
Button-down Shirts
Trackjackets
Hoodies
Those are ridiculous, because that type of clothing is worn by probably the majority of the United States. They shouldn't be listed when personifying a specific group. It's like saying pedophiles wear 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.38.49 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --Neon white (talk) 04:33, 17 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)
thread_title:  Fashion/Culture 

message: It seems people are getting the wrong idea. The bands listed near the end of the article (AFI< MCR< FOB, etc) are there because they're often called emo, not because their music style is emo. Which is why I'm removing Coheed & Cambria, and putting in the list Linkin Park, Lostprophets and 30 Seconds to Mars --Titan50 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who changed it back? They're always classified as emo, morons --Titan50 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note strongly worded indication that this list of bands is not around for people to tweak or play with whenever they feel like it. Calling people morons for following the consensus-established guideline concerning this list (which is in ALL CAPS, how can you overlook it?) is not going to help anyone resolve this issue. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K, I see what you're getting at, sorry. I'll leave this here for debate and for people to respond. --Titan50 (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed bands 

message: you need to add Silverstein, Aiden, Bayside, Atreyu, Anime Fire, On the Last Day thx --Kelzarrak (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it. --Neon white (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new bands 

message: Can a mention of the subculture be added?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrayl (talk • contribs) 16:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no reliable sources on any subculture of this type - it's exitence cannot be verified. So in short, not really (unless you have a wealth of sociology sources tucked away that none of us have seen). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article needs to talk about somewhat "emo-indie" bands, such as "Camber", "Emerson" and "Ariel Kill Him"...they remind me of "Christie Front Drive" and "Sunny Day Real Estate". I think the article needs to show all the true "emo genre" fans that the indie emo is still alive and moving on this last years.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.184.30 (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is what an encyclopedia is for. --Neon white (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emo Subculture

message: I'm fine with you talking about what the media shows as emo but you should add what emo is nowadays and depict that the media is just being ignorant inside the article. There are lots of bands that actually play real emo music in the present, I'm talking about bands like Love Like... Electrocution, Life Is A Fight, Kite Flying Society, The Kodan Armada, asamblea internacional del fuego, Noisy Sins Of The Insect, Toru Okada, Suis La Lune, GO! with fourteen o, Amalthea, Québec, The Spirit Of Versailles, Zombie Zombie, Green Is Mean, Sinking Steps...Rising Eyes, mr. willis of ohio, The Khayembii Communique, Only for the sake of aching, Portrait, Et tu Brute, Scraps of Tape, A Petal Fallen, With Horses In Her Eyes, Nitro Mega Prayer, Kias fansuri, Santo Caserio, Raein, Aghast, Saetia, Cobra Kai, Belle Epoque, Petethepiratesquid, La Quiete, departure from apathy, Bravo Fucking Bravo, Men As Trees, EVA-01, Ache:emelie, Love Lost but Not Forgotten, Archer in jeopardy, Mesa Verde, I Wrote Haikus About Cannibalism in Your Yearbook, etc, etc, etc. In my opinion what the media says should be under a sub-title like "Actuall bastardization of the term" or something like that (probably something a little bit less subjective) and the part of the article where you talk about emo should be almost completely rewritten as the article talks a 90% of the time about what MTV wants you to believe is emo. I'd do it but my english is really poor as you can see.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norestforendimion (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia, just to explain a little how it works, wikipedia isn't a blog or a message board, it's not a place where one can publish original thought on a subject, it is a collation of information gathered from reliable and verifiable sources, many of which may be articles in the media, especially in an article about pop culture. As far as wikipedia is concerned they are the reliable source for what 'real' emo is considered to be. Take a look of this page to find out more. --Neon white (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranging article and adding a differenciation 

message: I added an external link that was removed and I was sent a message about spamming. I am fully aware that wikipedia links are nofollow and etc etc
I was thinking that adding a link to emobucket.com may be helpful for people researching the Emo genre and culture, as there are some articles regarding emo there, and a forum that would allow people to see what actual emo people think of the term. --Fordpp (talk) 05:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the policy in question. There's really no way that site could be considered a meaningful external link. It's hardly a place to do legitimate research or anything of the sort. It's just a web-forum, and there's really no reason to link to web-forums all the time. --Cheeser1 (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe i was the one who removed it, i checked the site and considered it to be largely a social networking/group site. I also considered that, the links inclusion might have been intended to promote the website, it didn't contain any real information of value to the article and, other than in naming, i dispute whether the site has any real link to the subject of the article. Points 4, 11 & 14 of links normally to be avoided on WP:EL --Neon white (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of an external link 

message: I think the emo style is more popular than emo music as of 2007. --83.228.121.186 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most definitely. Someone needs to edit it to show --81.129.214.72 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity? 

message: A Day To Remember, Boys Night Out, Silverstein. --Pwnage8 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reason to add them? Allmusic categorization is not the criterion for this list. --Cheeser1 16:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic is usually considered a reliable source however this article is not a list of emo bands and the number should be limited to notable bands. Maybe a seperate list article is required? --Neon white (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allmusic is notoriously willy-nilly about fact-checking in my experience. There's been ongoing debate (although I haven't participated in it) about whether it can be considered reliable at all. The list is there to illustrate a few bands that are popularly called emo. Not every possible band we can think of. The list was declared static by consensus, to avoid constant editing by SPAs/IPs/whoever to try to make the list be whatever it was they want. Hence the gigantic all-caps warning. Changing the list requires at least some motivation besides "well this website says they're emo," I'd say. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the site they have an editorial staff consisting of 'hundreds of expert contributors', this would suggest a high level of reliability. I don't think there need be a list at all. It should be a seperate article. --Neon white (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a separate list? As for allmusic.com, that's not an issue we need to settle here. Suffice it to say, I have time and again found egregious errors all over that site. Errors that are contradicted in other more reliable and reasonable sources. Especially in terms of their liberal and non-standard (mis)application of genres. But honestly, it doesn't matter. The tiny list here is simply to give a few examples. It's not meant to be everchanging or exhaustive. Such a list would actually make a much better category (we probably already have one). --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This won't be the only case you'll find of reliable sources that contradict each other but that doesnt make allmusic less reliable than any other reliable source. Whether facts are incorrect is largely subjective and, as it's produced primarily by music journalists, my perosnal view is that it can be regarded as reliable as any source. But anyway back to the point, most genres seem to have a list artcile so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary,  plus i think the term is used to describe plenty of bands and it might stop the constant tampering if we replace the list here with a link to the proposed article. --Neon white (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bands to be added to the list