Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 3

message: Now, I'm not in the subculture, and as far as I can see this term is used mostly as a disparaging term, and not generally adopted by the "subculture" it descibes (I think this is just emerging, not generally accepted), I'd like to edit the page for grammar, which is what I mostly do here on Wikipedia. I don't think the article is in any need of locking, if there is really an Emo subculture, as the article implies. Stupid edits are noticed by the ones who track this article, I only like to better it by grammar and understandability. There are us here who like to do these things for the benefit of all who peruse Wikipedia. If indeed the term is only a disparaging one, the article should reflect it (as in naming it one and treating it as such); however, as there seems to be a definition for it, it should be incorporated in the article. I'm calling for a NPV again, and again... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.233.202 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think everyone should read subculture if they haven't. It's not a great article, as indicated right at the top, but it's sufficient. A few courses in sociology might help. It is not a generally pejorative term. The fact that some may not understand the term or don't lend credence to sociology doesn't mean Wikipedia has to abandon any sociological perspective, especially when this topic is clearly sociological. We're talking about a social group. That's what sociology studies. It's highly appropriate. And the locking is due to vandalism - this page is vandalized constantly, and would be even moreso if it weren't locked. --Cheeser1 02:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: :The term emo originated in the 1980s to describe a genre of music stemming from the hardcore punk music scene in Washington, D.C. Early bands labeled emo (or sometimes emocore) in this scene included Rites of Spring, Embrace, and Fugazi.[2][3][4] 
The citations listed do not in any way date near the 80's and thus do not indicate the time period of origin.  They merely address these bands as being part of the DC scene.  They do not prove that 'emo' originated in the 1980's.  Without supporting citations for this I am more inclined to change it to the late 90's. --Jachin 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability, not truth. Multiple sources state it started in the 80s.  The sources themselves do not need to be from the 80s... --Onorem 11:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neologism

message: This page is protected, but has no protection banner.  That's confusing and not OK.  Clearly protection is necessary to avoid unending revert wars from an unending parade of oppinionated teenagers, but c'mon, let's put the banner back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.193.148 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lock image in the top-right corner. --Switch (✉✍☺) 01:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Protection Banner 

message: Since there is a page on stereotypical Emo kids, I think someone should create a page for "Metal Heads"
Things to include:
Ripped denim jeans
Leather or denim jacket covered in skulls and patches of their favorite bands (Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, Ozzy etc...)
Long Hair or Skin head
Many many tattoo's consisting of skulls, the reaper or barbed wire etc....
hates "new" music e.g Trivium
Usually in over 20 years old so remembers "the good old days" of music when Zeppelin and Iron Maiden rained supreme
Usually is in a band
How cool would that page be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay316 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heavy metal fashion. --Cheeser1 14:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also Metalhead. --Doppelganger 20:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy Metal 

message: These articles are on (or part of) the stupid media furore over two "emo" girls who committed suicide: Stuff, Daily Telegraph, American Chronicle, Today Tonight. Someone has written a book about emo titled Everybody Hurts: An Essential Guide to Emo Culture. --Switch (✉✍☺) 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  News coverage etc. 

message: This shows nothing of even my own hair style. you want to show the emo subculture, then show how emo people really do their hair you can use my default picture from my myspace, to show what 'emo' hair is like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demonhunter10 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture. 

message: I think it might be worth explaining the differences between goth and emo; although it may seem obvious to a lot of people, it is pretty hard express or to put down in print. I have searched the internet and I cannot find any decent explainations that are agreed upon mutually. Newcomers to the phrase would benefit from this much more than you or I- well, that is the point of looking stuff up on wikipedia, 'cos you don't know much about it. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.188.210 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 March 2007(UTC)
:They can read this page, and the more correct Emo (music), and then read goth. We don't need to explain it any further, I'd say. --Cheeser1 01:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I always thought that emos were emotional while goths hardly showed emotions. --Firesun 01:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo vs Goth 

message: Maybe the page should be split or re-written as two pages: Emo(slang) and Emo(sterotype). I'd be willing to do it (with some help of course) any thoughts? --Kirbyrocks 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This Page needs to be deleted, emos do not exist according to themselves, they just want to go die so why should they have a page? it makes no sense. --Papageorgio 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, though there will probably still be people posting comments about one on the other's talk page. To Papageogio: you're right that the frequent comments about emos not existing are absurd. It seems to operate on a logic similar to 'There is no way to define "big" precisely; therefore, big things don't exist and there is no point describing them." But I think the second part cannot be entirely true; for the emos who post on this page don't seem dead. If there are any dead emos who contribute to this article, leave a message on my talk page. Ernest Hemingway expressed a fondness for self-inflicted shotgun wounds, yet he has a page of his own. Rintrah 17:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While I am still on this talk page, I want to make another comment: can people posting on this page stop treating it like MySpace and msn? This is about an encyclopedia article, not a place for random speculations and dimly thought out opinions. --Rintrah 17:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be split. The page is good the way it is. Along with the page Emo (music), which is more factual, the two concepts you propose are already covered. --Aidanr444 18:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two separate sections? 

message: Hasn't really been mentioned here. There are a massive amount of people who are strongly opposed to the description of people as 'emo', yet this has not been mentioned atall. I would like to add it, but I don't know of any 'reliable sources' for this. Although it is definately present. --Davidtakesthesquare 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the 'emo debate' 

message: I was first alarmed when I saw that Urban Dictionary was a source cited on the page.  After looking at a few others I greatly question their legitimacy and neutrality.  IE: Poretta, JP (March 03, 2007). Cheer up Emo Kid, It's a Brand New Day. The Fairfield Mirror.  It's a college newspaper where the author is clearly bashing the emo sub-culture.  http://wanzafran.com/2006/i-am-an-emo-mutant-part-1/ is also biased and making parody of emo (not to mention it is a blog and not a legit source).  Here is a statement in the previously mentioned blog: "Emo people possess deficient chromosomes. In short, they’re mutants."  Another issue with the sources is that they are largely opinion articles that have no factual data.  At best you can do a content analysis to see how emo subculture is portrayed and stigmatized in the mainstream, but that does not tell you how emo people define themselves, or provide insight on their historical/cultural development.  Instead the article simply uses pop culture ideology to define emo which stigmatizes and misconstrues the sub-culture.  An example is the emphasis that emo kids self-injur and self-harm to be cool.  Only 3-4% of the US population self-injur.  Not many of them are emo and many have been practicing it since before the mo trend.
Also the references in pop culture is portrayed to make fun of emo in a negative manner.  It is also not necessary to have a references in pop culture section as emo is already part of pop culture.  A reference in pop culture would require the subject to not already be an aspect of pop culture.  Instead the references to pop culture section aims to provide examples that further subjugate emo sub-culture.
Largely, with the sources used and the choice of portrayal, I find that the article has been primarily used as a tool to represent the mainstream opinion stigmatizing emo sub-culture.  Instead of providing a neutral definition of the sub-culture it perpetuates the mainstream opinion and conceptualization of what emo is.
But largely I find all of this comes back to the point of the article.  If the article is meant to be slang, as the title suggests, it should only need to include the origin of the word, and use over time clearly defining the pejorative and authentic usages.  However the article aims to define a sub-culture and the development, ideologies, and trends associated with it, but in doing so it stereotypes and construes emo from the popular perspective that aims to stigmatize it. --Reesebw 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already voiced concern about the reliability of these sources. I would second the notion that most of the sources in this article are not reliable and should not be used in these articles (and definitely shouldn't be informing our understanding of emo or anything else). I won't say anything about the bias, because that's a discussion I'd prefer not to get into. --[User:Cheeser1|Cheeser1]] 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-Up: Neutrality Issues, Sources, and Slang 

message: Emo may be considered a slang term, but this article is not about the term it is about the culture.  I recommend that the name is changed to "Emo (culture)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.237.121 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferably, emo subculture, which is already a redirect. See the AFD and compare punk subculture. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo Culture? 

message: This article is in serious need of a professional's view, objectivity and study.  Has anyone thought of turning to the marketing and psychology journals for this?  It seems like a pretty basic step, and the information is out there in the internet and at the library.  If these emo kids really are living comfortable lives, then it stands to reason they represent a fairly large consumer base.  I found one article that actually had a serious attempt at objective research.  You can find it at   The sources at the end would probably be worth investigating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.217.156 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of professional attention 

message: Is the need for such a slandering of emo needed under this title?  If it's sourced somewhere, shouldn't it be quoted?  Seems a bit harsh, that's all.  Thanks! --68.110.182.47 04:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: just because you are emo doesnt mean that you are going to cut yourself!!! its peoplw who are jelaous and just want to make fun of people that make the emo seem like something bad. i think emo is a style, not that you are going to hurt yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.220.77 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like most metal scenes the more contorversial themes such as self harm and depression are picked up on by the general public even if those who empathise with the scene don't see these themes as the most predominent, defining part of the subculture. --Waffle247 15:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-harm and emo 

message: Becuase Emo, as my friends and I use it, can also be a verb, as in, "oh man, he is totally emoing right now." Or, "ugh, she emoed for an HOUR last night", or my personal favorite, "Why don't you emo about it?" Defintion: to whine, complain, mope and/or be melodramic without generally sufficient cause or reason; to emotionally over react; to be unnecessarily "depressed" and hence kind of annoying. --66.165.31.200 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you and your friends use the word does not define what kind of word it is.  I could get my friends to start saying that things are "so grass," or that we're "totally grassing" but that doesn't make the word grass an adjective or verb to anyone but us.  The source used to quote all these supposed uses of "emo" only indicates emo is an adjective.  Thus, I will continue to delete all other uses of the word emo besides as an adjective until someone can come up with a better source. --Jdcaust 02:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just corrected myself.  I did my own research and noun does seem to be a proper use of the word. However, I continue to fail to see any possible adverb or verb associations. --Jdcaust 02:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-adding noun. Emo is listed (only) as a noun in Oxford English Dictionary (subscription only, sorry). But, for example, you can say "he is an emo". --h2g2bob (talk) 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Beat me to it, Jdcaust :) --h2g2bob (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Grammatical usage of "Emo" 

message: The current article has this paragraph:
The origins of the word “emo” began in the seventies and was used to describe a genre of music that was then known as “Emotionally Hardcore”. This name was usually attached to such bands as The Beatles and more recently, bands on a more wide spectrum of sound. The label of “Emotionally Hardcore” was shortend to “Emocore”, which soon came to be attached as a stigma to respected bands such as the original A.F.I. (a Fire Inside), Green Day, and the original Fall Out Boy, all bands that have been around for over a decade.
Um, is there even a shred of factual evidence ANYWHERE in that paragraph?
I mean, if you're going to just make stuff up, can't you make it a little funnier or something?
On a more serious note -- surely there's some more, um, learned student of pop culture history who can rewrite this truly dreadful article? --StrangeAttractor 05:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Beatles - "Emotionally Hardcore" -- errr, WTF???? 

message: I personally find that article highly offensive, as it's not only completely biased, but even could make people think that emos are dangerous. Sure, just because it's biased doesn't mean it shouldn't be here as it has some information dealing with the subject, but if someone clicked it and believed it and it just so happened they were the parent of an emo who did no harm to anyone (including him/herself) it could very well cause problems. I've done quite a bit of research on this type of subject and it looks to me it can be harmful. It could end up causing things such as people being scared of simple types of expressing oneself. It hopefully wouldn't cause any problems like this, but may even end up causing depression in a few people because their friends/family turn on them for being emo. Many people trust Wikipedia (not that it's a bad thing, of course. I trust most of its content, myself) and this could really cause trouble. Even if its only a few people that get hurt from this, it is trouble. I would remove the link myself, but I'm not so sure it would be considered a good action at least without voicing my reasons. --BrianRecchia 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While the article is stupid and poorly- (or possibly just plain not-) researched, it provides an insight into popular opinion. It's an opinion piece. Not our place to make judgements on resources like that. --Switch t c g 01:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with SwitChar for all of his reasons. --Steevven1 (Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery) 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how many of you read the Daily Mail but I have done a bit in the past - I warn you now that the Daily Mail is about as accurate as The Sun newspaper is.... and for those non-UK people out there in the world, that's about as accurate as Bill Clinton saying he didn't have sexual relations with Monica. If the opinions in the article are an accurate description of popular feeling then perhaps this should be both better reflected in the article and a less offensive source can be found? If this is the only source that contains this opinion then I refer to what I started off this comment with. Waffle247 --90.152.12.130 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article serves well as an example of the stigma, criticism and stereotypes, and the link is fine for that - however, I have to agree that this cannot be taken as a reliable source when it comes to more factual statements such as whether it has a root in goth subculture. --Mdwh 00:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I follow your logic, given the inflamatory nature of the publication in question, I would hesitate to use the term "source" as this gives the suggestion of a degree of integrity and honesty that most would be suprised to hear of in the same sentence as The Daily Mail. This is a publication that in it's past was known for it's "My Husband Stole My Lovers UFO" type headlines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waffle247 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, I've looked at the article and its a harsh opinion that has no actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1lostinlife (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We all seem to agree that the daily news is not reliable. even if it does give light on the criticism, it's unreliable. also, the second and third refs don't link to anything. I don't know how to take those out. --J-stan 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need the "Emo Cult" Daily Mail News link? 

message: I live in England, and me and my friends have frequently been called "emo" as an insult from "chavs". I'm not going to deny that me and my friends are emo, but it is a common situation that the young people in society labelled "chavs" create insults to the young poeple labelled "emo".  I feel this should be mentioned in the page? --Alienpmk 07:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if there is a reputable source that describes this as a pattern should it be included.  Wikipedia is a place for accurate information.  It is not a place for personal narrative. --Reesebw 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture Rivalry? 

message: Badly sourced and written, confusing to read. Should be locked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.200.200 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You apparently don't understand the purpose of protecting an article. We protect articles to prevent vandalism, not because it's poorly written. If it needs to be cleaned up, then you edit it. Also, I don't know what you mean by "badly sourced." Maybe you could be a bit more specific on what could be done to improve the article? // DecaimientoPoético 19:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Article 

message: I must say that the article is quite biased,and shows-i'll contempt towards emo's with insults such as the picture whih says.
'i wish my lawn was emo'..this article needs serious clean up! --[User:Wongdai|Wondai] 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has changed significantly in the past week or so. I will be looking to reverting all of the inappropriate changes. Check older versions, around May 21, for more reasonable content. --Cheeser1 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I must say! 

message: I was offline for a bit, and I came back to find this article pretty beat up. Not to detract from the well-intentioned efforts of all the editors, but it seemed to have just lost all sensibility. I've reverted alot of problematic and unsourced claims, and hopefully it'll stay more reasonable. What we had, despite my questioning the reliability of particular sources, something that was making an effort to be as accurate and transparent as it could be, as opposed to "Emo is a slang term used to describe a counterculture" and "it is suggested that it's a derivative of the punk scene." The former statement asserts, without any support, that emo is a counterculture. The latter statement is weasley and ignores the language and sources used in previous versions of the article to describe the known link between emo of today and emo of the 80s. I can't imagine why one would replace what we had with this (sorry to whoever made those edits, I'm just being frank). If I reverted any good changes, my apologies, it was a bit difficult to track all the changes (hundreds, in the course of a few days). --Cheeser1 09:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  big clean up 

message: I noticed that on multiple occasions, some refs had no link attached to them. Could we please check these? I don't know how to remove them, so maybe someone could tell me? --J-stan 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's check the sources 

message: I didn't read the whole discussion, so this might have already been mentioned, but there's an error here. The "Suicide pact" in Australia was more of a murder pact. The two girls murdered one of their friends. I'm pretty sure it happened in Mandurah. Anyway, just thought you should check it out. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.246.32 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that was a different story. If you check the references, this was clearly a suicide pact. --OnoremDil 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a different, more recent story. It got much less media coverage too. --202.81.18.30 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check this 

message: This is a request for comment on a clean-up I made of this article which has been wholly reverted by User:Daddy Kindsoul, who has violated the WP:three revert rule in doing so. The clean up of the article included the tidying of several recent developments in the article that are poorly or inappropriately sourced, off-topic, innacurate, or unencyclopedic. The user in question has not explained or justified his revisions, nor has he done them one-by-one, instead simply insisting that one random irrelevant point about goth justifies the reversion of all the work I did in cleaning this article back up. --Cheeser1 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why don't you try working together to fix this - clean up the paragraphs that you know aren't contested, then discuss the other ones here.  --Haemo 07:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked the editor in question to discuss his changes on this talk page, and to only contribute well sourced information that he's checked the references of, instead of wholesale reverting large chunks of my clean-up of the article. A well integrated introduction, for example, was re-introduced after getting messed up, and this user has reverted my clean-up so that it now includes phrases like "which are said to have come from" and asserts that emo is a "counterculture" based on a completely unqualified and unreliable source (gURL.com - which does not describe it as a counterculture anyway). I see no reason to compromise - the introduction I reintroduced and other material was the result of months of editing, compromising, and (proper) sourcing. --Cheeser1 14:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply suggesting that you add in the uncontentious parts of your clean-up, and to discuss the rest with the user.  If he does not wish to respond, escalate this to another board - I'll be happy to help sponsor, in that case. --Haemo 02:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken the liberty of making changes one-by-one, citing exactly why each dubious piece should be changed and putting in better versions, while taking care not to introduce innacurate or dubious sourcing or content, especially anything that contradicts more properly sourced content in the article and in Emo (music). Hopefully no one will continue to revert the clean-up I've done without proper justification. Thanks for stepping in and offering to help. --Cheeser1 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - I'll stick around, in case there are more problems. --Haemo 05:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Reversion of clean-up 

message: some times emos wear eye liner Im emo and i wear eyeliner . Its a way of going against the sex boundarys whitch emos see as pointless whitch is why many emos are femanine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dammed dammed dammed (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can properly source this, feel free to include it in the article. If not, however, please refrain from doing so. --Cheeser1 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  eye liner  and sex boundarys 

message: I say we either move this page to Emo subculture, or create a different emo subculture page. preferably the latter, because then we could have a real emo page, and a posery emo page like this one. --J-stan 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd have to first establish that it constitutes a subculture. Most of the foundation for that sort of a claim lies in Emo (music), not this article, wherein we discuss an ambiguous slang term. --Cheeser1 03:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought it was an established decision to move the page. Are you the main editor on this article? Not for anything, you just seem like you have the article under your supervision. --J-stan 03:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a such thing as "the main editor" - at least not in an official way, and certainly not for such a large and highly-edited article. I'm just one of many people who contributes to this article. I'm just pointing out that if we call something a subculture, it needs to actually be one, there have to be reliable sources to that effect - and there is certainly some body of work to that effect, but moreso towards what's in Emo (music), not what's here (which speaks to a more broad cultural phenomenon relating to an appropriation or incorporation of certain things into a larger cultural landscape - what one might flippantly call a "fad," but worth encyclopedic consideration nonetheless). --Cheeser1 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's do it, already! 

message: Noun: That person is such an emo.
I have never heard the term used as a noun. Perhaps that should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.192.218 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you have or have not heard is not what qualifies things for use in Wikipedia. It is a slang word whose use varies widely, and it is known to be used as both an adjective and noun. The fact that you haven't heard that latter doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Please sign your posts with ~~~~, and I'd suggest registering a username. --Cheeser1 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, this is not something to be included in this article as wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Acidskater 08:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I kinda forgot this article is on the slang use, so a grammatical section is in order. --Acidskater 08:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd. I've heard (and have used) the term as a noun all the time. --4.248.243.203 23:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Or at least, find a reference somewhere that actually uses "emo" as a noun. The current reference doesn't seem to use it that way anywhere. --Truncat 05:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: took me three seconds on google. --Cheeser1 05:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language Use 

message: I think that a mention of a possible connection between borderline personality disorder and emo should somewhere on the page. Look at the diagnostic criteria of borderline PD (self-injury, feelings of emptiness, uncontrollable emotions, suicidal thoughts, etc.) and tell me there's no connection. --140.247.153.174 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Emo is a loosely defined, perhaps almost perfunctory category. It is a slang description given to a broad range of characteristics, often pejoratively or superficially. BPD is an actual medical diagnosis, and despite what might be a growing trend of over-diagnosis of things like BPD, ADD, etc, we still shouldn't try to establish a link between a medical disorder and a social trend based on some cursory similarity. --Cheeser1 00:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Borderline personality disorder is a serious mental illness. Emo is a fashion conscious music subculture. Little links them together.  By suggesting a connection, you either create the impression that BPD is not a serious mental illness, rather a teenage phase like emo, or that emo is an evil scourge of youth.  Neither is true. --Mhickcoxhoward 22:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually find it quite insulting how emos often act as if they have BPD.  I have seen people with this kind of condition be labelled emo simply because of the stigma the emo culture has created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.96.200 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Borderline PD and Emo? 

message: I suggest that this ref be removed. It is very non-NPOV. I also suggest that we remove the line, "Themes such as life is pain are common". How would anyone know that? --J-stan 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS a common theme. Perhaps stating it that way isn't encyclopaedic though --The Elfoid 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sourced. The term "common" is not unencyclopedic. --Cheeser1 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just felt that the source seemed a bit too sarcastic and one-sided to be a justifiable source. --J-stan 17:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a concern already noted  by the references tag - the claim (as I see it) is not highly controversial or offensive, so it can stand until we find a better source for it. At least, that's my take. --Cheeser1 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was just a suggestion. It seemed a bit blog-ish, so I just felt it was an inappropriate source. Whatever. --J-stan 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Guide to Emo Culture 

message: I would like to know how the editors feel about creating a subsection in the Personality section about poetry. --J-stan 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the personality section 

message: Due to the contenious debate over the roots of emo subculture, I think that there should be a distiction made between "emo" as a subculture and "emo" as a fashion trend.
Since emo culture has been accepted and blended into mainstream society, it cannot be considered counter-cultural. So, for most folks, the label "subculture" seems valid. However, for those who claim that the dark, effeminate clothes and whiny, i-hate-my-life songs aren't true features of the original emos, the "subculture" label is completely erroneous. 
I suggest that research be performed on the roots of the emo culture, and how--if it is--any different from today's emo fashion trend. --Krj3550 23:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good point. that would help distinguish between posers and real emos. any other support? --J-stan 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That confusion is due to some dubious recent revisions, which I am going to take a look at momentarily (the source cited therein, for example, seems to be entirely irrelevant). --Cheeser1 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem with any sub-culture.  There will always be issue over what is authentic and what is not in terms of belonging to a sub-culture.  It's not our job to determine what is authentic on wikipedia.  It is our job, however, not to use the pejorative definition of emo to be the main definition. --Reesebw 18:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is our job to document distinctions between a particular fashion trend and a subculture, should there be adequate sources to support such a statement. The "pejorative definition of emo" notwithstanding (as I said, this is due to some very bad edits in the last week or so, which I will correct as soon as I have more time), documenting a fashion trend, should it be properly documented elsewhere, is well within the guidelines of what we ought to be doing here. --Cheeser1 03:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to cut in, but I'd like to know what features make emo into a subculture in the first place. As far as I can tell, plus the lack of any real proof of there actually being a subculture i.e. an info page, ect., Emo never got a chance to become anything more than a fashion, slang term, and music genre. Can anyone prove otherwise? Also: isn't the emo fashion rather incorrectly displayed on here? When I think Emo I think sweater vests. I suppose I'm just confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.19.253 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would too. The use of that word is unsourced; however, some people consider it offensive or pejorative to not use the word, and thus it stays in due to conflict that would arise otherwise. There are, of course, arguments that editors make, claiming that emo fits the criteria for a subculture, but drawing such conclusions (no matter how much evidence) constitutes original research. --Cheeser1 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Quizzical "Subculture" Label 

message: Isnt emo being lifestyle and actions and scence the look? just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.139.176 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the accepted difference is that emo has a lifestyle and a look, and scene is basically a fashion trend that looks similar to the emo look. --J-stan 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its:Emo - Music Genre, Scene - The Fashion thats associated with it. As quoted here, "First, lets get to understand emo, if only a bit. Emo is the convergence of melody and hardcore punk. First recognized in tha bands (Now Pay attention): Dag Nasty, Sleeptime Trio, Moss Icon, Indian Summer, and Rites of Spring. Emo is a music genre and nothing more. It's short for Emotively Charged Hardcore. Emo is not a fashion, the fashion is called scene." Source:  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.161 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emo or Scene? 

message: Hey if this article is semi protected, how come anon. IP addresses keep editing this article? --J-stan 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it just had the protection banner - even though it wasn't protected. I'm not sure who we appeal to to get that fixed. --Cheeser1 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: See here. --Cheeser1 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we request page protection? --J-stan Talk 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected? 

message: this article looks like a seventh grader put it together in two days. I mean realy theres barely any history or discription and plus it intirly bland i mean realy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.175.186 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe you can contribute well and properly sourced content that is both notable and spelled correctly, feel free to do it yourself. What content do you allege is missing? Did you check Emo (music) as the music section recommends? Or do you want something flashy and exciting? (An encyclopedia is often bland, you know.) --Cheeser1 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, I'd like my source taken out, please. I am Bradley Glasco. My article was in the Entertainment section of a college newspaper. I was only poking fun at my own image. I don't honestly do those things. I enjoy shows, I don't stare gloomily with my arms crossed. I buy records,  but not to collect them. I buy them to listen. Check your sources better and look at what context they placed are in, please. --Its5 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What Is your source? --J-stan 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glasco, Bradley (March 06, 2007). No one understands just what it is like being a emo kid in the South [sic]. Retrieved on 2007-03-08. It's reference #14 at the moment. I'll point out that I raised this point about several of our sources months ago, and I was dismissed, because apparently random college paper op-eds and various self-published sources meet WP:RS. Looks like even the authors of the op-eds disagree. I say remove the source, it's only used for one statement and that statement has three other sources anyway. --Cheeser1 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --J-stan 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey cheeser, who put the source back in? I specifically remember removing it. Either way, It's gone. --J-stan 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was an accident - a reversion for some other reason to a version that had the source. No worries. --Cheeser1 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. It's cool. --J-stan 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you guys, really. Because, through the editorial process at my paper that article became a mistake. Haha. I would've gone for a much less serious headline for the article, really. :] --Its5 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come on 

message: I found some sources you might wanna toss in there:
*How To To Be Emo (wikiHow)
*How To Get Emo Hair (wikiHow)
*www.emohairstyles.info
--emc (t a l k) 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one seems unsuitable to the article, as it contains ads and things, but the others seem fine. --J-stan Talk 20:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. wikiHow is not a reliable source, nor is some self-published website cataloging hairstyles. Sure, they might be as good as some of the worse sources we have now, but those sources aren't good either and ought to eventually be removed. --Cheeser1 21:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not defending the sub-par refs we have here, but we have plenty of self published sites as refs that have been on for a while. --J-stan Talk 23:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the second one should be used if we use those at all. --Oysterguitarist 03:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. Hence the unreferenced tag. Because those need to be replaced. --Cheeser1 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Sources 

message: I really recommend this article be submitted for deletion. According to You Don't Know Emo, fashions pertaining to everything stated in this article (which is about a SLANG, not an actual word) is called Mallcore, or Mall Emo. There is NO SUCH THING as an "emo kid". Emo music and the bands belonging to the genre are all underground and have nothing to do with any clothing style, depressed attitude, or act of self mutilation. Tight pants and makeup are characteristics of an interest in becoming a transvestite, or just curiosity. I recommend the title of this article be changed either to Mall Emo, Mall Core, or Scene(clothing). Otherwise, this article should be deleted for simply spreading untrue myths about a gross misunderstanding for an underground genre of music. --76.2.116.135 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not deleting the article based on some random website that doesn't even have it's own hosting -- present some reliable sources which back up your assertion, and maybe you'll have something to go on here. --Haemo 02:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already was nominated as an AfD. The decision was keep. Besides, I'm not so sure you would be taken seriously as an anon user. --J-stan Talk 03:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an unreliable source and why would you want to have another afd when there was already a deate and the result was keep. --Oysterguitarist 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I agree that what was presented is no reason at all for an AfD, I will say that it is often best to renominate articles for an AfD. Just because it passed once doesn't mean it will again, and we can't keep everything around, only what's good for Wikipedia. --Cheeser1 03:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But we can improve this article. It doesn't have to be deleted. I, for one, feel that there is to much work put into this article to just give up on it. --J-stan Talk 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no need to give up on this artical but it defintley needs to cleaned up and needs more sources which is a big problem cause there are few reliable sources on this subject. --Oysterguitarist 03:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. --J-stan Talk 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also alot of things in this article that are really not factually verifiable. Saying that a staple of emo fashion involves horn rim glasses and other things. The only source stated is that "most current definitions" state, and i think thats highly assumed, because, while there is a large amount of people who use the bastardized meaning of this word, alot of people know that the fashion itself is not a staple, nor is entirely related to what emo is. The beginning of this article is fine, but the section on fashion seems, to me, somewhat like a one sided view. Then as to the music portion, it seems contradictory to place My Chemical Romance as an "emo" band because of their emotional lyrics, yet any metal or hard rock band who talks about self mutilation is somehow immune from it. Also, My Chemical Romance have stated (on their DVD Life on the Murder Scene, and at the end of the video for "Teenagers") that their main thesis is to save lives, and not promote self mutilation or violence. I think this article should put some of these facts out there, especially relating to metal bands talking about cutting (look at lyrics for Everything Ends by Slipknot and Bed Of Razors by Children of Bodom). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.220.19.250 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Is anyone even going to attempt to make this article look decent? Perhaps someone should be serach down so as to properly write this article without sounding completley illeterate and feverntly bland. Oh and when did emo become short for emotional? Oh yea 2005 when emo was re-invented. --Zakhebeone 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha. In 2000's they should have thought of a new name for the genre that is now known as 'Emo'. Would have saved a whole lot of arguing and confusion. --Cloggy M 10:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, you shouldn't be so insulting without checking your own grammar and such. Emo has been synonamous with Goth and that lifestyle LONG before 2005. --146.63.253.183 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did a three year old put this article together?

message: Why was the gallery removed? There was no justification, and this history page is (of course) impossible to pick through due to the constant vandalism and people making long chains of micro-edits. Anyway, I've added it back - if there was some reason for removing it, let me know, but I don't think there was and have no idea why it's been missing for so long. --Cheeser1 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only problem is that all of the image captions use the word "typical". Do we have ANYTHING that isn't a drawing or single element of emo fashion (i.e. the shoes)? How about a picture of a real individual? Other articles on subcultures have pictures of people (see here, here, here, or here). --emc (t a l k) 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like the gallery. Oysterguitarist 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: There's nothing wrong with these pictures, though. If you find better pictures (that are eligible for use on Wikipedia), put them up here. Otherwise, what do you expect? And if you don't like the wording, contest the wording. Badly captioned pictures need fixed captions, not deletion. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The captions are accurate actually. Therein is my problem with the pictures. The drawings and the image of the shoes in that gallery add little if anything visually informational to the article, and they necessitate the use of the word "typical". The term "emo" may be ambiguous, but "emo fashion" is not all that ambiguous, so I see little need for drawings, and again, all of these drawings and caricatures do nothing to help support the article. --emc (t a l k) 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole article is about things that are typical. That's how you describe a fashion or group of people. Your argument in that respect is absurd, and a caricature is just as helpful as a "real" picture unless that caricature is inaccurate. Since we all agree that it is typical of emo fashion, I think you've provided a better argument for keeping it than you have for removing it. --Cheeser1 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere in the section about emo fashion does it use the word "typical" other than in the image captions. That section points out very precise and accurate examples. Fashion of the emo subculture is distinct. Additionally, I don't know where you get off asserting that this is an acceptable visual representation. --emc (t a l k) 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We spend a few paragraphs describing emo fashion. Rather than repeat it in the caption, we say "typical." Typical is a word. Just a word. It means "more or less like we just described in that paragraph" or "average" or "something identifiable with this fashion." If you have an issue with one picture in particular, feel free to bring it up. However, I consider that picture to be accurate. I remember emo before it was MCR and droves of 7th graders, and the fashion was different then, and I'd like to see you find reliable sources that say otherwise. You can't just decide one day that you think the word "typical" is a no-no, and tell me it was wrong to put the gallery back in. It was removed for no reason, you don't have a good reason now, and if you have problems with some of the content, you address those issues one-by-one. That picture is fine, but if you think otherwise, cite some sources and work for consensus. You don't get to make your own consensus, and until one is reached, you have no place cutting it out of the article. --Cheeser1 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. The possibility of a conflict is getting too close for comfort. --J-stan Talk 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those images, are of unacceptable quality (no offense to the images' creators). I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can argue your case ad nauseum in the same discourteous, flamewar attitude that you've been using to defend this frivolous gallery (ex. "That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles.") for all I care, and you can pull out whatever bureaucratic red tape image guidelines just so you get your way, but my point and opinion still stands, and I'd in the least like you to consider it so we can hopefully come to a compromise on this matter. --emc (t a l k) 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'll continue to wait for a reason, based on policy, to remove the gallery. You, like Oysterguitarist, have both now made it quite clear that you don't like the gallery. You think it's bad. It displeases you. I made it clear below, and I will make it clear now: I don't care what your opinion is, and neither does Wikipedia. Unless you're giving us an interpretation of policy that explains why we should remove the gallery, it stays. Accuse me of "flamewarring" - all I've done is make it clear that you should be citing policy, not how you feel about the matter, or how much you dislike the gallery. That's how Wikipedia works, thank you very much, and I'll let your opinion stand indeed, since your opinion should not be involved in this discussion. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All I asked was for an interpretation of policy, so that we can work towards consensus. Instead, I get accused of flaming people and suborning the use of "bad" images what people don't like? I'll take my deep breath and come back to this article if anyone besdies me ever decides to cite policy or work for consensus. Until then, the gallery stays. You can't remove a part of an article like that without a firm reason rooted in policy. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You deleted the gallery after one other editor expressed a similar opinion: "I don't really like the gallery." That is an opinion. An interpretation of policy is the only kind of opinion that matters. Talk pages are for discussing policy in order to form a consensus which is what I've asked you to do from the start. Up until now, you've just sat there insisting that your opinions are correct. Until you cite policy, the gallery stays. Stop assuming bad faith - I've continued, over and over and over, to try to get you to cite policy. That's all I've told you to do, because your "opinion," unless it's an interpretation of some specific policy, is irrelevant. You finally did cite policy, sort of. That policy says which we prefer. It doesn't say "never use sketches, caricatures, or pictures that aren't of entire people and their clothes."  It certainly does not say "never ever use the word typical or you'll have to delete the whole gallery." As I read that policy, there's no reason to delete it. Unless other users work towards a consensus (and no, you and OysterGuitarist's "I don't like it" do not make up a consensus), then there is no consensus, and in that case, the gallery stays. --Cheeser1 05:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay. I changed the image captions to make less use of the word "typical" while keeping the basic meaning of the caption. I feel this satisfies both sides of the argument (Oyster, not quite sure how to satisfy your argument while keeping the consensus). Now can we all be adults? --J-stan Talk 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're still not understanding this policy. Please reread it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out this one as well, which clearly states "Images of poor quality, perhaps uploaded only to support the work of editors on an article, should not be included in a mainspace gallery.", and the former noting "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement. Some editors maintain that photographs are preferable to paintings and sketches." I am one of those editors. Those images are of unacceptable quality. I feel like I'm repeating myself. You're not a consensus either, but thus far, in this discussion, more have favored removal or changing of the gallery (2-1). --emc (t a l k) 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey I like the page better with just the shoes. Maybe we should put the hair thing back in. --J-stan Talk 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the page when it obeys policy. Policy is clear. You CANNOT remove chunks of articles unless there is consensus based on policy to do so. It doesn't matter how much people like or don't like the pictures, captions, etc. I've been waiting and waiting for policy and/or consensus to settle this matter, but until it does, the gallery has to stay put. --Cheeser1 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Some editors maintain that those images are just fine. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a 1 vote margin is not a consensus. ESPECIALLY when the other vote is "I don't like the gallery." --Cheeser1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS Wikipedia:Galleries#Mainspace_galleries is about articles that are only galleries, such as Gallery of the Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom. And yet I am accused of misinterpreting policy? --Cheeser1 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me be clear - if the article can be improved by adding photographs, I would love to see it. If policy and consensus can agree that the gallery must be removed wholesale, fine. But at this point, I see no replacement photos flooding in. There is no consensus about removing the gallery. And there is no policy dictating that images that might be considered substandard (but not considered so by consensus) must be removed. Consensus (and often policy) are required to cut otherwise contributive content from an article. Until we have those things, I will not allow this content to be removed. Am I being a stickler for policy? Maybe. Am I being stubborn? Perhaps. But I'm making myself as clear as I can be, and I've explained myself time and time again, hoping that a solution could be reached if someone would come up with new pictures, find a policy that explicitly prescribes the removal of the gallery, or form a (real) consensus either way. But until that is the case, I will keep the article the way it is. Because that's how Wikipedia works. --Cheeser1 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section." --emc (t a l k) 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Which policy? I've noted two policies thus far to back up my argument, and you've provided none. --emc (t a l k) 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, you said Wikipedia isn't a democracy, yet you're running around screaming about a consensus, which is, as Wikipedia states here: "...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." --emc (t a l k) 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. --J-stan Talk 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't come to a consensus about this I think a request for comment will be needed. --Oysterguitarist 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you "don't like" the gallery, would you mind making a statement based on policy? --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The second policy does not apply. Read rule 8 of that section. It clearly states that it's talking only about things listed in this category, which are all gallery only articles. The first policy you cited states what is preferable to some users. If you come up with good photos to replace the illustrations, feel free to add them. If they replicate or supersede the content of the other images, I will agree that consensus isn't required to swap them out. Otherwise, the old images present content that, even if not in the most preferred form, is the only form we have for that content. As for the issue of consensus, see WP:CON and WP:DEMOCRACY. If you make a bold change like removing the entire gallery or portions of it, and someone reverts it, you are supposed to leave it and discuss until consensus is reached. You are not supposed to continue to remove the gallery, asserting without justification that you are right or that consensus is reached because a 2-1 vote is in your favor. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#The_BRD_process. That should clear this matter up, as a part of the consensus process, which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point out again, in my second policy, that it is not referring to articles which are entirely galleries, as the second sentence in rule one states: "A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section.". Rule 8, as you pointed out, does only refer to articles which are entirely galleries, and this article clearly isn't. In that sense, this rule does not apply in any way to this article. However, as the excerpt from rule 1 suggests (see above), those policies are not standard to just full gallery pages. As you continue to use the word "consensus", I'd like to know how exactly you expect me, or anyone else, to gain a consensus on this issue as there are, thus far, only four of us discussing this matter, with you being outweighed. Furthermore, you're not even open for discussion. You just want policy after policy after policy, and most of the policies you've brought up (such as the the BRD process) state that we are to discuss this matter. You are not following rule 3 of the BRD process which you, again, brought up yourself, which states: "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change." You boldly said, not too long ago, that you nor Wikipedia care about my opinions (synonymous with "views"). I think it goes without saying that you are contradicting yourself. So, I'm going to say it for the last time: the two images (aside from the sneakers) in the gallery are of unacceptable quality. This is the issue we are to discuss, so let's oblige by rule 3 of the BRD process and do so without contradicting ourselves, shall we? --emc (t a l k) 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no opinion on the discussion at this time...(need some more time to review everything)...but I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia:Images is not a policy page and Wikipedia:Galleries is historical. --OnoremDil 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to say Congratulations to EMC and Cheeser1. In light of all the flaming that's been going on between the both of you, I am leaving this page temporarily. As long as there is this argument about something so insignificant, something that can go either way, I have no reason to argue with both of you. I tried to calm everyone down, but your arguing has got out of hand. I think a request for comment should be opened immediately. When the edit war has died down, I shall return to work on this page once again. --J-stan Talk 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also leaving this page. --Oysterguitarist 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oyster, you are a master of inexplicable brevity. :) --J-stan Talk 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeser1, I attacked you? Please, humor me and find one instance of where I "attacked" you. If you felt that I attacked you, I apologize for doing so, but I just don't see any instance where I did such a thing. I did however, point out that I felt your comment to Oysterguitarist was quite rude, and you've yet to apologize. I agree this has gone on long enough for something so trivial, but clearly our interpretations of policy are somewhat different, such as where yours are contradictory. Sorry to have driven you away; you just never stated you'd compromise on this issue up until now. But, seeing as you're done with this "discussion", I suppose I'll make the change(s) I desire whereas silence will equal consent, unless you change your mind and are still interested in discussing this matter. --emc (t a l k) 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gallery doesn't contribute anything to the article. Poor illustrative and biased nature of the images really predisposes towards them not being included -- none of the captions are attributed to Reliable Source (who says bangs or beat up all stars are typical emo? is a self created emo caricture that really illustrative?) unless you can really come up with a reason for keeping these images, they should go. --ZayZayEM 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please explain what you mean by "poor illustrative and biased nature"? Nothing says every caption must have a reference. Would you also refer me to where it says that these images must "go," unless I can come up with "a reason" beyond the fact that they illustrate part of the text of the article? That's what images are supposed to do. --Cheeser1 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  gallery?? 

message: Even though the definition of the word, emo, is not yet completely specified, the word doesn't mean what this article states it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvmesodou (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, could you please enlighten us as to what you believe it means? And please sign your posts by typing four of these ~ Thanks. --Cheeser1 15:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally incorrect! 

message: Going by the usage online, especially in urban dictionary, I was under the impression that emo was generally used not to refer to the culture, but anybody with chronically depressed, extremely sensitive and/or emotional, possibly to the point of recurrent suicidal tendencies. This seems to connect pretty straightforwardly to the bipolar spectrum, which I have several experiences of. It's hard for me to grasp how the last case in particular can be considered non-mental illness related, chemically balanced behaviour. Have I misunderstood? --Dave 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban dictionary and "usage online" do not make for encyclopedia content. Please refer to WP:RS. --Cheeser1 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the phrasing right above almost word by word connects to certain types of bipolar disorder, and the second sentence doesn't have any reference. Shouldn't a simple link to a related area, without any measure of comment/additional speculation be warranted? It seems like a whole lot of people with brain disorders are hurt by being considered just to be, to paraphrase, "self-pitying, spoiled whiners, with an attitude problem". --Dave 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't make any such a connection. Melancholy lyrics do not imply a specific medical disorder. Unless you're a psychologist, and you have written a reliable published study that links melancholy emo lyrics with bipolar disorder, you cannot simply make this connection and assume that it "connects to" anything. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. Find a reliable psychology article/study/whatever that links emo lyrics to bipolar disorder (hint: I don't think you'll find one), and we can talk about re-integrating your changes to the article. Otherwise, what you're suggsting is Original Research, per WP:OR. And it's not our job to cater to people with "brain disorders" who might get "hurt" by taking things personally. Wikipedia is not censored, and content shouldn't be removed, changed, or added if the only concern is about people getting unjustifiably upset by otherwise encyclopedic content. --Cheeser1 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lyrics? I was referring to the usage of the word to refer to personality, not the music section. Suicidal chronic depression is very frequently connected to the bipolar spectra. As for the quotation marks around brain disorders, these are a very existent medical/scientific 'fact' for many bipolar people, hardly a matter of ideology. --Dave 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slang use of the term "emo" is, perhaps, about people who are depressed, not people who are Depressed. There is a big difference. You can't hear some kid say "OMG jimmie is sooo emo" and wham, he's been diagmosed. "Emo" is not a medical opinion, it does not have symptoms, it is not a diagmosis. As for the quotation marks, I used them because I was quoting you. Hence quotation marks. Your use of the term "brain disorder" though shows us that you don't understand much about psychological disorders (this is what they are called). Nowhere did I say that they do not exist, or that your edits are ideologically motivated. You don't get it. Being sad about girls and too much math homework (aka emo) is not clinical depression. Until you find a reliable psychological source, making this link is based on what you see and what you think and that is original research. There's already been a disucssion about this, here on the talkpage, and consensus was completely against including such medical claims without citing a medical authority. This is no different. --Cheeser1 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, ok. Never mind then. Sorry about that. But it is frequently referred to as a brain disorder due to faulty chemical transmitter metabolism. I suppose it may depend on whether it's a medical researcher or a psychologist talking about it? --Dave 09:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in order for you to make claims like this, you must have a reliable source like a psychologist or other medical authority. --Cheeser1 16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question 

message: c.f. Punk subculture, Goth subculture.
This really isn't a slang term. Slang generally refers to colloquial and/or informal language. Emo is pretty universal English and has a real definition, as opposed to something like white trash, bogan or chav. --ZayZayEM 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of what you just said is completely OR (none of the things you just stated, as if fact, have been established). I would contend otherwise on every count. The use of the term is highly colloquial and informal, it is not a well-defiend term, and it does not have use in universal English (nor does it have a universal definition). It has not been established as a subculture in the same ways the others have. Find me a sociology paper in, say, The Journal of American Culture, or a book that depicts emo subculture, or a reliable/informed source that can really establish that emo (as it exists in common use today) is some sort of subculture (and not a slang category/term/label like "freak" "poseur" "popular kid" or "dork"). Now, if you're talking about hardcore punk from the 80s, that already falls into punk subculture anyway, and whatever 80s-emo-related content we have can/should go there anyway. And don't forget that we also have emo (music) as well. --Cheeser1 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Explain how asserying Emo is a slang term is not equally OR. I linked to the slang page for a reason. The use of emo does not fit in with slang. --ZayZayEM 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Might I remind you that words that are used almost entirely by young people (and only in particular ways by particular groups) generally qualify as slang. That fits right into the definition of slang, which I read when you linked it. Let's assume a little good faith, and not jump to the conclusion that I didn't take the time to read what you said. I'll point you to where it says: usage of slang expressions can spread outside their original arenas to become commonly understood, such as "cool" and "jive". While some words eventually lose their status as slang, others continue to be considered as such by most speakers. In spite of this, the process tends to lead the original users to replace the words with other, less well-recognised terms to maintain group identity. Emo originated as a term used to describe particular musical and cultural objects, but has expanded in use and usage drastically in recent years. That expanse notwithstanding, it can easily be considered slang at one time, and given the fact that "cool" is still often considered slang, emo certainly is far newer and less ubiquitous. The term "slang" is quite appropriate for this article. --Cheeser1 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't about a word or slang term. That would be here wikt:emo. This article is about a clear subculture. Article titles should best represent their content. It also does away with brackets in a title, which are always best to be avoided. --ZayZayEM 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't seriously think avoiding parentheses will justify introducing OR into an article, can you?? There is no foundation for the use of the term "subculture" as it is, and while I'm not actively cutting the word from the article, due to lack of consensus for such a bold move, I am opposed to changes that further ingrain this dubious, unsourced language into the article. It's about "emo" as it exists as an entity defined by the slang usage of the word. Hence, Emo (slang). I've laid that out for you, using the very definition of slang you threw in my face to start this discussion. If you want to use a different word, you'd better have some reliable sources, be it a sociology journal or whatever, to establish that is is a subculture. The fact that you consider it to be "clear" based on what "[you]'ve seen" is totally original research. Stop drawing out this issue. Until you have a source (a reliable one, at that), you should not push for these changes. I'm sorry if you think it's clear, but until it meets WP:V, it will be original research and as far as I'm concerned, that means it's not clear at all. --Cheeser1 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a proposed move for it, let us make a consensus. --Marlith T/C 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Emo subculture]]