Talk:Emo/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Helped truly!!

I altered the band lists to fit it, seeing as how everyone's listing what one person says or thinks as what is true. Actually, I think what bands are emo and not is totally opinionated, but I'll play along anyway. So anyway, despite what past articles said, I removed Coheed & Cambria (they are alternative rock, if not metal!), Panic! and FOB (both on the pop scene, and not at all emo), and The Used (half punk half alternative). I didn't add any because I might hurt someone's feelings as what happened to me. No need to thank me --Zanny77 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not helping. The list is fine; people try to change it every day, and it is truly aggravating. Please just leave it as it is; if anything, we should be adding to it. --Chubbles 21:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there Chubbles, maybe I could help if you would stop vandalizing it w/ incorrect lists (BTW check my page! Wai, a new userbox w/ a message!) So if you would kindly change it and not vandalizing it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. :) --Zanny77 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Be careful what you call vandalism. Arbitrarily removing bands from an established list without discussion might just as well be called vandalism. The bands on that list have been placed there with a cited source. If you think they do not belong, you need to enter into a conversation here. You need to either provide evidence or make a convincing argument for why these bands should not be listed in a list that starts, "Correctly or not, emo has often been used to describe such bands". --Chubbles 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I honestly can't tell if you've even ever heard of those bands, but they do not even fit in the category of emo (even though it has been so skewered, that most people don't even know what it is.) I can give up the fight for The Used, I have realized they may just be emo. FOB and Panic! I don't really care about, but the only band I really want to make a case about is Coheed and Cambria. They are definitely not emo, in fact, if you actually listen to some of their songs, in some they are very heavy (I admit they aren't in some). They are definitely a genre-bender, as they can fit in any of numerous genres, such as orchestrated rock (they like violins and stuff), hardcore rock (pretty heavy, but not heavy enough to be metal), or acoustic rock (they also like acoustics.) I will admit that I am simply a huge C&C making my arguement, but it's not the fact that I'm a fan that I'm doing it, it's because it is what's right. Please at least listen to their songs for once (I recommend The Suffering, Welcome Home, and Crossing the Frame from their latest CD, those cover all of their styles) so you can see my point. And maybe a little feedback from a neutral source? Thank you --Zanny77 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to point out my credentials, but I will; I own two C&C albums and four Fall Out Boy albums, and have seen both of them live. I'm not poorly acquainted with their music. I read a fair amount of music journalism, and I can say with absolute certainty that these bands are often referred to as emo. It doesn't matter whether they are emo or not; the sentence says, emo has often been used to describe such bands. Which is true. If you want references, I'll go dig up half a dozen reviews that use the word. Can we be done with this? It's a silly argument. Who cares what they're called? --Chubbles 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough that you want to include AFI. But can you provide some sources where they have been called this? Even just posting a link here for me would be more than sufficient, I am just curious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.172.184.80 (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Here ya go: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Chubbles 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah but in these articles they also calls them metal and goth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.174.165 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys! cohead and cambria experiment too much to be emo, they are progressive rock. their image is not emo either so there =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.216.97 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

More Emo Bands

There are some bands who, either here on their own wikipedia pages or by opinions of some group of people on some online forum, are listed as emo. I'd feel alot better if someone else put them on this page, though, as I might get in trouble for editing the page. The All-American Rejects, Paramore, Linkin Park, Good Charlotte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanson209 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The only one that is sourced as emo is paramore and even that is disputed, the other three aren't anywhere close. --Neon white (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Now there are some singles on the All-American Rejects wiki that clearly say "emo" as the musical genre. I don't know about any of the other bands besides Linkin Park ((as the other bands are only talked about being emo)), but Linkin Park's song "Crawling" is parodied for its lyrics when people make fun of those who are labeled "emo." I don't know if that is substantional evidence, but it's what I found out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.1.41 (talk • contribs) 01:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Only Emo Music?

Why is the only emo-related (emo referring to the cultural phenomenon in North America and not the oil company, the Blink 182 song or the people with "emo" in their names, or anything else on the disambiguation page) article on Wikipedia about emo music? What about emo clothing, or emo people in general? It's perfectly reasonable to give them a page on Wikipedia. Emo social groups are distinct from other ones and have a definition - people know what makes a group emo as opposed to preppy, goth, punk, or anything else. An article like this even used to exist, but it is now either gone, or I cannot find it. Have I missed something? --Dark Green 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Types of high-school cliques are not verifiable or reasonable things to appear in an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 04:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

See the 'Fashion and stereotype' section it covers fashion stereotypes associated with the music. I don't believe there is such a thing as an 'emo person'. There is no evidence currently that there is any such thing as an 'emo social group' and if one should exist i doubt it would be notable enough for wikipedia. --Neon white 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, what makes a culture a culture? Emo, prep and punk have social norms, distinct manners of dress and behaviour and, perhaps most importantly, we have names for them. If we can divide people into any named group, particularly when there is discussion as to what is a part of that group and what isn't (as there is with emo), does that not make that division a culture? That is to say, we can divide people into groups by their choices in behaviour and dress: does that in itself not make emo a culture? --Dark Green (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And when you have a degree in sociology, you can write a paper about it. If your research is sound and your paper winds up published and accepted by the academic community, then get back to us. Armchair sociology doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. But no, how you dress doesn't magically set you apart into a culture. --Cheeser1 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It makes it an element of current pop culture and i think the article covers that. I just can't see what info you could include. I don't personally see any distinct shared behaviours associated with this genre. --Neon white (talk) 02:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have in some way offended you, Cheeser, I did not mean my question to belittle anyone's achievements in sociology - I assume, from your statements in your last message, that you are not an "armchair sociologist", but have a degree in that field. I meant only to ask a question. My rebuttals to your answer were only to clarify the subject in our minds and the minds of other editors. Purely academic, you see. I am not inclined to change the article, necessarily, but to test it, in order to strengthen it - which is, after all, the point of Wikipedia. If you want to continue the discussion, feel free to use my talk page. --Dark Green (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a degree in another scientific field. The point is not specific to sociology, but moreso to original research in general. Things might seem a certain way, and we might think something is true, but to make a claim that falls into the bounds of the theory of sociology (or [insert your favorite subject]), we need reliable academic sources and real academic authority. There was a lengthy debate on the old Emo (slang) page about this, in which there was a great deal of speculative/unsourced stuff people wanted to put into the article. I'm not offended, I'm just a bit tired of going over WP:V with people. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point - when does a group of people become a culture/subculture? We have a couple of "sociology persons" (one student, a phd and a professor) believing emo makes whatever grade they use. Me, I think the consistent usage of the term in varying media says something too... I encourage you to check out the discussion Cheeser mentions and the links I recently added and forming your own opinion. --Lundse (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this article in the right spot?

As someone who has never heard of the vast majority of the bands listed in the article, I have no idea what emo sounds like. The article doesn't do a very good job describing how emo differs from other genres or what the key elements of the emo sound are. It seems to me the article as it stands now isn't really an emo article, but more of the history of emo. --Wins32767 (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The sound of something is often very subjective. There may be little or no sources for it. --Neon white (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sound samples would help, but since emo is already so hard to define, trying to find sufficient sources would be an exercise in futility. For punk, it would be easy since most (but not all) bands in that vein are derivative of older material, but emo has shifted in style long since the word was shouted at a Rites of Spring show (the genre's been used to tag everything from raucous, expressive strains of hardcore punk to acoustic singer/songwriters) - to the point that anyone listening to anything called "emo" today would not connect it with what was called "emo" yesterday. --TheLetterM (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

While that may be the case, there could be something on the rough sound of each wave or what have you. Was the first wave of emo up tempo or slow at least compared to the punk that it came from? Is it based on fairly simple chord structures? I recognize that it's hard to encapsulate emo, but a 50,000 foot description would be helpful. I mean, there has to be some reason that emo sounds different from metal or funk or what have you, even if it's hard to distinguish from hardcore or other similar genres. Wins32767 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking us to draw these conclusions on our own? There are few reliable sources in musical scholarship detailing the exact difference between emo and other kinds of hardcore punk. The sources focus on other aspects - those that are in this article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I recognize it may be difficult to differentiate between hardcore punk and emo, as I stated up thread. However, right now there is nothing in the way of a definition of emo at all. Right now, if you look at the intros to other genres they have a statement like "fast, hard music, typically with short songs, stripped-down instrumentation and often political or nihilistic lyrics." (Punk) or "a new sound, which was generally thicker, heavier, and faster than standard punk rock." (Hardcore Punk). Even Rock, which is applied to pretty much everything, has a description of it's sound:

"Rock music is a form of popular music with a prominent vocal melody accompanied by guitar, drums, and bass. Many styles of rock music also use keyboard instruments such as organ, piano, synthesizers. Other instruments sometimes utilized in rock include harmonica, violin, flute,and banjo. Also, less common stringed instruments such as mandolin and sitar are used. Rock music usually has a strong back beat, and often revolves around guitar, either electric or acoustic."

This article has a hint of it: "...a more indie rock style of emo, more melodic and less chaotic." However, for the life of me I can't figure out how melodic or chaotic emo is to begin with. So far all I've gathered is that emo is thick, very heavy, very fast, probably has short songs, stripped down instrumentation, and possibly political lyrics. To get that I had to crawl through several other articles. It just seems silly to not have a description of the sound of a genre of music anywhere in the article. --Wins32767 (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The likely reason for a lack of a defintion is that no-one has really defined it as a music genre, it's main existance is as a media buzz word. The article has been very hard to source because no-one wrote alot about it and the stuff mentioned above will likely be removed as OR in the long run. --Neon white (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Homosexual slurs"

There's a bit of an edit war going - or at least there could be, if things keep up. Let's try to talk this out instead. The text currently reads "homosexual slurs" - editors have been changing it to read "anti-gay slurs." What is the problem with the old version? What is the objection to the new version? I honestly think they are virtually equivalent in meaning, but the new version seems to make more sense (we don't say "race slurs" or "black people slurs" we say "racist slurs" - anti-gay is the grammatical/structural equivalent, and the link is helpful). --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If the source doesnt say anti-gay or homophobic then the article shouldn't either, as there is no evidence that the slurs in question are such or meant as such and suggesting so would be introducing a point of view that isn't neutral, as saying something is homophobic or anti-gay is passing a judgement that the source may not have made; only described the slurs. It is my opinion that a wikipedia article should describe not pass judgements. If a source were to say that racist slurs were made then it would be ok to include that in an article however, if the source did not describe them as such we cannot make the judgement that they were racist in nature. This will all depend on whether we have a source that specifies this. I'm unclear as to whether the source is claiming homophobia. --Neon white (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the line from the source. it is not uncommon for males perceived as “emo” to be derided as “emo fags.” How should this be included? The article is describing an 'emo' backlash so wouldn't the insult's intention more 'anti-emo' than anti-gay? --Neon white (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I don't understand what you're saying. If a slur is directed against gays (or as one might put it, "homosexual slurs," despite how awkward I think it sounds), then it is "anti-gay" and also homophobic. Clearly, we can't make up the nature of the slurs, but that seems to have already been determined. BUT I think I just discovered your concern. That entire paragraph is plagarized (from here). We need to either rephrase it to reflect an original writing of this information, or we need to quote it properly! If that is your issue, then I do understand, but I suggest we rewrite it anyway. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Fag" is an anti-gay slur. Tacking "emo" onto there doesn't change that. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is the introduction of potentially judgemental and perjorative terms which could affect the neutrality of the criticism section. I see a significant difference between the terms 'homosexual slur' and 'homophobic slur'. The former is descriptive, it's merely an adjective to clarify the nature of the slur and, in my opnion, is more neutral whereas the latter is judgmental in that it specifically implies a hatred of homosexuals which is not necessarily implied in the source as the reason the for the slur. I agree with the rewriting, i think the sentence has a number of problems and deosnt reflect the source that well. --Neon white (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

A "homosexual slur" is a slur that has sexual attraction to a slur of the same sex. It's a nonsense phrase, incorrectly substituting the term "homosexual" for "anti-homosexual" or "anti-gay." Remember, neutral POV doesn't mean no POV. It's obvious and well-known/well-documented that terms like "fag" are anti-gay. There's no need to dance around that. The slur is directed against emo people, by redirect a slur against gays (or "anti-gay slur") towards them. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh but wait a minute. How does it not reflect a source? It's copy-pasted from a source. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Interesting. From Chords to Culture: The Evolution of Emo claims to quote Tom Peotto's "The Relentless Force of 'emo'" [7] but i cannot find the passage in that. So it appears the text is based on a misquote. I'd base a rewrite on Tom Peotto, at least that is reliable. --Neon white (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the phrase 'Homosexual slurs' is commonly used in the media [8] [9] so as not to incure the potential law suit that might come from implying that a person is homophobic. --neonwhite user page talk 19:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It actually should be noted that there are no valid WP:BLP concerns here because no living person is named in this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless it still should be neutral. --neonwhite user page talk 22:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

outdent - Still, "anti-gay" makes it much more readable and sensible. I'm not sure what the neutrality issue is here - such a slur is clearly anti-gay, on its face. I'm going to rewrite the offending paragraph entirely, since it appears to reproduce the text of a particular outside source (although this source is not cited). I'd also cite your misuse of the term homophobic (it does not imply any "hatred") as a reason why your reverting the change was not well-justified. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Change of plans: we don't need to rewrite the section for COPYVIO reasons. The "journalist" in question [10] plagiarized Wikipedia. The article was written Oct 17 2007 but the text in our article has existed since then. So petty journalism aside, do we still want to rewrite that section or not? I propose changing it to "anti-gay slurs" (and not rewriting). How's that sound to you? --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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

If I called you the n-word, but you were white, it's not a racist term anymore? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

this needs to be 2 pages again

emo labels are more complex than the small bit this music artical tells us.we should bring back the emo (slang) page.anyone agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What are "emo labels" and what new information do you have to add to the discussion that might add verifiability to the deleted article? Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a list of neologisms. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

well said,but dont we have seperate articlas for punk fashion and,i would assume,many other pages on fashions and stereotypes based on or centered around music genres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And those are separate issues decided elsewhere. Punk fashion has been studied, there have been books about it, and it has existed for three decades. "Emo fashion" appears to be a neologism, a trend in modern fashion, and more or less indefinable. Each article is judged on its own merits, and due to lack of verifiability or reliable sources, the meager content from that article was merged here. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

you state that punk is different because "it has existed for 3 decades,books have been written about it,its been studied." emo has existed for 2 decades,books have been written about it,and its been studied.just because you dont know the whole story doesnt mean you have to be unreasonable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Before slinging around "you don't know the whole story" you should try reading Talk:Emo (slang). Consensus there was established, independently from other articles (as is appropriate) that the merge should take place. I won't be responding to continued antagonism along these lines. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

well maybe that last bit was a little uncalled for but you cant ignore the facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.155.182 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has had little to no new info added and no new sources have materialized since it was merged so i disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

the picture(s) in the "fashion & stereotypes" section

Whatever's going on there is starting to get annoying. We need to find pictures that work and keep them, instead of having people continually insert their favorite scene-kid picture from myspace every 4 days. It's not productive or helpful. Anyone else have thoughts on this? --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What is policy regarding verifiability of images? How do we know what is there is an accurate representation? I believe there has been controversy before as the whether it constitutes OR. --neonwhite user page talk 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no OR concerns, it's just a matter of what's productive or worth constant editing over. Image policy is fairly loose (for example, allowing user-drawn caricatures so long as they are illustrative and relevant), but I don't see how having a bunch of myspace pics doing unending musical chairs in the image spots in this article is going to help. Especially when this happens too. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Policy is far too sketchy in my opinion. It leaves it open to all kinds of abuses and controversy and this could well be a case of that. Assuming good faith the changes may be by someone who believes the image not to be an accurate representation. I assume it means the image used would have to be decided by consensus. --neonwhite user page talk 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Emocore is emo

EMOCORE AND Emo are the same things! it's like punk and punkrock! punk is the short form of punkrock! so emo is the short form of Emocore and you know it! so please let this stand there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFI-PUNK (talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I refuse to be dragged into some long-winded back and forth on my talk page. This issue should be covered here on the article's discussion page.

The statement you are making is false. The two terms have not been synonymous since the end of the "second wave". Modern emo bands are not referred to as "emocore" - they are simply called "emo". As such, "also known as" is completely inappropriate for the intoductory definition. Furthermore, it's unnecessary, as the article covers usage of the word "emocore" in a more than satisfactory manner.

Simply put: all of emocore is emo, but not all of emo is emocore. There is "emo" outside of what would be considered "emocore". The terms are not the same, and should not be described as the same. --ChrisB 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Highly amusing. Judging by your username I'd think that you'd know a thing or two about punk, but apparently you don't. There's loads of punk out there that's not punkrock at all - it's a subgenre. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 11:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No You dumb one, emo is short for emotional , --hockeyguitar99 14:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

well emo and emocore are different; emo encompasses softer things like jimmy eat world and emo-core is more hawthorne hights and used, like heavier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.216.97 (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally wrong. hawthorne Heights isn't emo. emocore refers to the hardcore punk bands with emotional lyrics, liek Rites of Spring and Embrace. Emo bands liek Moss Icon took the emo part of emocore and focused on that. And then there was post-emo or inde emo like Sunny Day Real Estate and Mineral who made a more melodic version of emo. Emo-pop added pop influences to indie emo; examples: The Promsie Ring, Jimmy Eat World —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.118.197 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A source for "emo subculture"

Just to make it clear that we do have sources saying there is an emo subculture... Talk:Emo_(slang)#The_sources_for_emo_being_a_subculture

Pay special attention to the (independently published) sociology professor's use of the term "emo subculture" and its consistent usage by journalists (both hating and loving it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundse (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pay special attention to the fact that I cite evidence that this work is not accepted in the field (as if an unpublished undergraduate "thesis" counts as a reliable source). Lundse, I strongly suggest that unless you have something very new to add, that you stop reviving this discussion. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not reviving the discussion. I am pointing out it never finished (but died when people stopped responding and took to strawmanning/ignoring me instead) and informing people about these sources.

And I do not recall you citing any evidence. You mentioned some policies without specifying your reading of them, and ignored me when I went through this common courtesy.

Oh, and I see you are strawmanning me again: you take out the undergraduate's thesis as an example, and manage to imply that me claims hinge on this being a proper academic source (which I never claimed). Why don't you mention how the professors usage of the term is irrelevant, and how we should ignore WP:SPS ("...acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications") in this case and deem a self-/un-published source unworthy despite it being written by a professor of sociology?

Just let people form their own opinion on this - I doubt anyone will want to follow these links anyhow, and I have no wish to go into the discussion again. But I will not let you strawman me here without calling you on it... --Lundse (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's true the discussion never finished. Cheeser1 just spent so much more time arguing compared to the rest of us that, in the end, we just gave up. Sadly with Wikipedia if you have the time you can do anything and win any edit war because no-one will ever have the willpower to spend as much time as you arguing. I guess my message to other readers is to listen to Lundse - he's a smart guy with some good ideas. Indeed maybe if we all band together, we can change this article for the better (regardless of what Cheeser1 thinks of our changes). --Cedars (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cedars, please take a look at this policy. Thank you. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

should Cross My Heart be mentioned?

Although they did have some effect on emo, they are definitely not on the same level as Knapsack, Mineral, Jejune etc. should this be altered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.11.142 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not a good idea --Hereitisthen (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish my grass was emo

Is there any way we can incorporate the famously hilarious t-shirt with a picture of a lawnmower and the caption "I wish my grass was emo so it would cut itself" into this article? --EAE (Holla!) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's hardly encyclopedic content. --neonwhite user page talk 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

WTF happend to the article?! It now looks like it was written by someone who listend to the song "Emo Kid" way to many times!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.42 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article was vandalised by Roblew, but luckily this was caught by ClueBot, and it is now back in it's full glory! --Jimpaz (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.226.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

attack not an article

this article has undergone extensive changes since my last post.it was previously a one page slur on emo and not a factual depiction. --Raycore (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

your last post was 8 hours ago the article has not changed at all in 2 days and has had no major changes for months. --neonwhite user page talk 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

possibly a malfunction on my computer, but I swear this article was vandalised yesterday morning. also, you are way too into this. --Raycore (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh, yes it was vandalized and therefore changed. No malfunction. Someone mucked with it and it was just a one page slur on the term based on the stereotype of emo(you know, my life is a black abyss, I like making out with people of the same gender, I dress in drag, I cut myself because life is too hard, that kind of crap). Oh and btw, you could add that picture, but only under the stereotype section to give people a better understanding of how some people feel about the steroetype of emo. --72.81.226.247 (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

Minutes to midnight

So, with the release of Linkin Park's new album, a lot of people are calling them emo (I won't comment). Does anyone disagree with adding them? --THEemu 01:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Linkin Park is typically classified nu metal. Thankfully Wikipedia has a very good summary of the musical characteristics of nu metal and you can match many of the characteristics listed to Linkin Park. Unfortunately we have not done the same with emo but I would certainly have trouble listing Linkin Park as emo. --Cedars 11:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't really what people think. I know a lot of people who would get mad when Fall out Boy or MCR is called emo. But all of the LP fans I know (10+) think that Minutes to Midnight is emo. I've also seen forums and reviews that call it emo (whether they say this negatively or positively). Have you listened to their album? It sounds just like any MCR or AFI album I've heard, for comparison. And many of their songs are less "nu metal" than other songs. They don't need to call themselves emo to be emo, either. Fall out Boy, for example, would be against that tag. --THEemu 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what fans or forums think. Wikipedia is entirely about reliable sources (ie, published). Current media reports are noting Minutes to Midnight as a "more emo" direction, but are not actively calling Linkin Park an "emo" band.

Beyond that, so what? We already have a sufficient number of examples of third-wave emo. Other than as an example, there's nothing notable about Linkin Park possibly being "emo". Seems more a matter for their article, not this one. --ChrisB 22:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

ha, linkin park emo...hardly... they are more hip hop now. unbearably so... but why should people get mad because fall out boy or my chem. romance are called emo?? fall out boy used to be, now they really can only be classified as pop, but my chem. romance is, until gerard way went and said "emo is shit" kinda contridicting no? but emo is emo, like it or not. and i dont understand why people think that its a bad thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinGOLDENEYE (talk • contribs) 20:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Linkin Park is not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.118.197 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the songs on Linkin Parks new album, from a lyrical standpoint at least, are emo but that doesn't mean they can be called emo. People can say they are emo based off some of the songs, that doesn't change the fact that they are still a Nu Metal band. However if they go out and say "we are now doing emo music", and/or the media as a whole classifies them as emo, then you may list them as emo. Until that time you may not list them as emo and they shall remain nu metal. Oh, and btw, Fall Out Boy is not an emo band regardless of your personal thoughts on the matter. People, mostly idiots with no to little knowledge of music, classify them as such based on their clothing style. So they dress like emos, BFD, their music style still isn't emo. --72.81.226.247 (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Linkin Park

While I know Linkin Park are not emo, they are often called emo by the haters, which is why, and probably everyone else, realises they should be listed in the third wave section --Titan50 (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure "the haters" constitute a reliable source (or a source at all). --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

What is interesting is that while the non-emo haters call it "emo", the linkin park haters who consider themselves "emo" say that Linkin Park isn't emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.234.10 (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition to criticism

I have added the point of view of established British bands on the arrival of Emo in Britain. This is backed up by an article regarding the issue from the BBC. --Stealthorpe (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I refactored it. Please note you can only write what the source says. See WP:SYN. --neonwhite user page talk 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! As you can tell I don't know what I'm doing and need a little guidance sometimes! --82.45.100.175 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome. This page might help. If you need help then you are welcome to ask. --neonwhite user page talk 18:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fashion

Since when did emos wear hoodies? It just doesn't happen. --81.129.214.72 (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

hey i'm emo and i wear hoodies and so do all my emo buddies along with tight "abercrombie an fitch" pants black combat boots and/or converse i am the appitamie of emo [i know i spelled that wrong (:] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared557 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Another problem with Post-hardcore

Now the genre of post-hardcore appears a fusion genre of emo...and it is completely wrong, emo derivates from Post-hardcore and not the other way around and I am truly disturbed about this misinformation...I could find references to prove this information wrong, but please, change it...At The Drive-In and Fugazi are very different things to Rites of Spring and Sunny Day Real State. --The-15th (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The articles does not say that. Please be more clear here. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear The-15th, what? --72.81.226.247 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)ForTheWin

This information appears on the genre box...and I think it's clear enough that emo derivated from post-hardcore to understand that IT POST-HARDCORE IS NOT A FUSION GENRE OF EMO. Emo shouldn't even exist at all, here look at this vid: [11] So is anyone gonna change the information fo the genre box? I'm going to keep discussing this until it GETS CHANGED. --The-15th (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

i think it is considered they both evolved from hardcore punk. Though both terms are incredibly ambiguous. --neonwhite user page talk 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

straight edge

why is this in the see also bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.142.220 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it to be there because straight edge is often associated with the emo genere. If I'm wrong someone please correct me. --Akamaru Toshibo 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That was true, particularly during the first and second waves. There was a distinct crossover between the straight edge community and the emo scene. The original DC emo scene was directly linked with the straight edge scene in the area. Perhaps coincidentally, Ian Mackaye (Embrace, Fugazi) coined the term "straight edge" when he was in Minor Threat (though he never considered himself part of the straight edge community). I doubt the link is as strong now, given "emo"'s shift to the mainstream. --ChrisB 02:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If emo was related to straight edge, then it should also be connected to various forms of punk rock. It seems rather arbitrary to make this connection simply because the two sounds were associated in DC. There are shows featuring a wide variety of musical types, but that does not mean we should associate jazz and metal. Unless there is some verifiable proof that these two have some connection, straight edge should be removed from the "See Also" section. I feel this is especially important in light of the current status of emo which, as far as I have been able to discover, has virtually no links to the straight edge movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.40.66 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 May 2007(UTC)

We're not talking about "straight edge" as a sound. We're talking about straight edge as a movement. Even the barest of association between the two (and, in reality, it was way more than "minor") justifies the see-also. --ChrisB 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case is there proof that the two ideologies are linked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.40.66 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The only link I possibly see between Edge and Emo is that they both came from the D.C. Hardcore scene and that they looked up to Ian MacKaye. No way does that constitute a see also. I'm taking it out. It's way to much of a logical leap unless you back it up with some sort of solid connection.Stealthsloth22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)stealthsloth

There was significant crossover between emo and straight edge during the 80s and 90s. This article covers the entire history of emo, not just the modern-day.

In particular, Rites of Spring was spawned from the straight edge scene of the 1980s. Mackaye was a member of Minor Threat, whose song "Straight Edge" spawned the term, before becoming a member of Embrace, one of the first Emo bands.

Furthermore, a significant number of people who participated in the emo scenes of the 80s and 90s also participated in the straight edge scene. That's why the whole "xNamex" stuff became linked with Emo.

The 80s stuff alone is justification for including it here. Both emo and straight edge were spawned in DC by the same people.

By the way, I'm repeating myself. If the discussion has happened without clear resolution, you should continue the discussion before unilaterally acting on your own opinion. --ChrisB (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The way it looks to me, Ian played in Embrace and produced for Rites of Spring. Both Emo and straight edge were spawned from the DC hardcore and that's it. The fact that MacKaye produced Rites is totally irrelevant. Are you going to go link Fall Out Boy to Chingy because they both work with Def Jam Records? As for the fact that MacKaye played in Embrace, it lasted around a year, Ian played in a lot of different bands and to call him a founder of emo because he played for a short time in Embrace is a stretch, Ian himself shunned the term emocore, and Guy Picciotto called it "the most retarded term" he had ever heard.

If A member of Slayer were to start a band with a member of Panic at the Disco you wouldn't associate metal with emo so I don't see how Ian going out of Minor Threat and into Embrace makes Edge associated with Emo. It's a member of edge associating with Emo... Ian is the first person to put the name to edge but he's still only one member and I think it's ridiculous to mix the groups because of one member.

A significant number of priests participate in straight edge behavior but they aren't linked to edge. Besides I don't think that there was as much of a mix of the two as you think. Other than a few edger who checked out Ians newer work or the emo people who looked into his past work I think there is about as much edge in emo as in any scene. The whole name thing was stolen from edge and I don't know any edgers who still use that.

If they were spawned by the same people I think that the best place to combine emo and edge would be on those people pages, yeah? It just seems like if a guy writes a song and paints a painting you wouldn't link the song to painting, you'd link them both to the artist.

I think if there's no resolution yet it's best not to make the leap of logic and leave the two articles unassociated until it is resolved rather than associating the two and possibly having it be wrong. --64.252.89.58 ([[User talk:64.252.89.58 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)stealthsloth22|talk]]) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Leap of logic"? Where are you getting this stuff? Personal experience? If so, what is your personal experience with 80s and 90s emo at the time? Were you a participant, or are you just pulling this stuff off of the Internet?

Straight edgers booked emo shows in the 90s. Remember - emo was an underground movement for its first fifteen years. The scenes were inextricably linked - particularly during the late 80s and early 90s. Emo bands and straight edge / youth crew / etc bands regularly shared bills and a lot of common values. The Emo kids didn't "steal" the naming thing from straight edgers - the straight edgers in the emo scene used it themselves, and other non-edgers picked it up.

You can't use the modern definition of "emo" in the argument because that's not what we're talking about. Panic and Fall Out Boy are completely irrelevant - that's not the kind of emo being referenced.

What exactly are you defending? Do you think that the straight edgers that gladly participated in the 80s and 90s emo scenes would take offense to the two being linked? --ChrisB (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was a participant in the 90's New England straight edge scene. I know more than enough about the history of edge to debate it.

The fact that both edge and emo played the same shows isn't a strong link. A few moths ago I saw a Hatebreed concert where an underground rap group played. Likewise, saying that the two were "inextricably linked" or that bands from both sides shared "common values" isn't providing any evidence for your case. There's no substance to either of those statement they're both just vague generalizations.

It looks like what you said with regards to the X's is that emo edgers used them and then other non-edge emo listeners picked it up. This is basically stealing it... Edge used it to designate a straight edger, if emo edgers used it it was still being used properly, totally fine. But then non-edge emo listeners started using it incorrectly to describe themselves and so it changed meaning. What exactly about that is different from stealing it?

Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco are both referenced in the "Emo" article and so are applicable in a debate about the article.

As for why I'm arguing. As an edger, I have no problem with being associated with Rites or Embrace or other First, or even a good number of second wave emo bands. Lots of those were good. However, the thought of being associated with third wave emo makes every edger I know want to throw up. On this note I think that two possible courses of action are...

A. Link both Emo and Straight Edge to Ian MacKaye's article and remove the edge link on this article.

B. Separate the Emo article into three articles, one for each wave (plausible I think because the waves are extremely different musically as well) and link edge to the First Wave Article.

Also, like I said earlier, will you agree to take down the edge link until the issue is resolved? If someone thinks Bush is a Power Ranger you wouldn't say he was a Power Ranger until the issue was settled. You would not mention it until it was either settled that he was or wasn't. Same principle I think. --Stealthsloth22 (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting Yourself

A section explaining how the term "emo" was related to cutting ones' wrist and ankles would be nice. I've always wondering this. Plzs && Thnks. --Firewithinfreak (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't, so no section needed. This is already covered in the stereotype section. --Mdwh (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo (scene)

I have been looking at the wiki page for Emo over the last year and it is woefully inadequate. What the average American knows of EMO is the fashion associated with it; no one really knows about this obscure D.C. music scene which was tagged as Emo or whatever 20 years ago. So we have to just look at Emo has a thing which is only loosely associated between on an obscure non-commercial musical genre, wwhich did not truly propel this later fashion which is totally mainstream now and commercial (Hot Topic). This page could better investigate the fashion roots with a subordinate emphasis on the music. In reality, it would be a reverse of what the current Emo page is now... since the music is but a footnote the fashion craze; since most of the kids who dress this way have divergent taste. I find it strange why wikipedia has constantly obscured this distinction....

I suggest a new emo page simply with the title Emo with "Scene" in the paranthesese Emo (Scene). I wonder if someone else has a better suggestion... because I'm starting to think that we have an emo apologist somewhere up the foodchain in wikipedia who doesn't want Emo to be exposed for the fashion/social trend that it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is based on verified sources that are available as all articles must be. If you can find sources then improve it but so far they have been hard to find. The original music was not well documented and what is mostly believed about it may well be myth which, for obvious reasons, cannot be included. Scene is ambiguous slang and not exactly appropriate for a namespace even if there was enough material for a split. --neonwhite user page talk 20:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite right - the use of "scene" or "emo scene" is not well-documented, highly ambiguous, and most importantly, it's a total neologism, something an encyclopedia does like this not document. --Cheeser1 (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am new at this "posting" on wiki, but I find the explanation to be very obstruse and does not pass the smell test. Neon White, if the original EMO scene, as you yourself state was cleverly obstruse; but to digress a little, if what you say that the original EMO is so little documented, that it may be a myth... then why have a page on it at all! It is precisely inspired by "belated" articles and connections made by others. And the very original bands from D.C. who are thought of as being the original EMO bands did not even accept the label, and only in later years with the Internet did the "emo" word come to fashion as a pejorative. But as far as (EMO) Scene goes, there's nothing ambigious there! Look at the very pictures posted on the page. All the documentation we need is our own two eyes! Look around... EMO gets the attention because of the fashion. Are you telling me that we have to wait until a the San Fransisco Times actually writes an article on this to then put it up on WIKI? From what sources will THe Times article after all use!... Is something published on the Internet make the grade; fine, just go and google "Scene or EMO" and you will get enough verifable datum there; just look on Youtube and you will get flesh and blood testimoney.

BTW, isn't wikipedia all about being an altnerative encyclopedia? I mean, if we merely had to cite articles, why do we want anyone to write anything at all; we should simply copy and paste... we should not be allowed to imbue any commentary or interpetation or contribute an actual new idea. But if that was case, then WIKI would not be what it is today! It would serve no purpose! Anyway, the point is that if you deny the fashion phenomenon, then I smell an emo apologists otherwise. There is no ambiguity what was grunge or country... "if it walks like a duck..." --fienddlug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. You seem to be completely unfamiliar with our policies on reliable sources and verifiability. Please take a moment to read those policies before you accidentally make suggestions that are not in line with how we write an encyclopedia. Regards. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheeser, find me the verifiable source, contemporary with the original D.C. EMO scene that described it as EMO? Where is it on the wikipage? Virtually every article is no older than 4 of 5 years... Isn't that strange, to you Cheeser? And are you going to tell me that a personal webpage article by this Jim Derogatis fellow is anything but opinion? He goes to quote flame wars on message board as part of his content on what is EMO. And yet it's cited here, among verifiable resources? Here's the link, it's on the WIKI page that no one is allowed to edit... So if it dissapears from now on, it will be proof of inconsistency where the iron hand of "procedure" wishes to put a stop to what I am reasonably suggesting. Here's that link I speak of... [12] So, Cheeser1, wouldn't you describe this Deragotis article as "not a source of information for an encyclopedia..." and yet it's the same kind of unscourced commentary as you rebuked the fellow who posted before me, correctly labeled wikis page as apologetics. --Fiendflug —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Newsflash: Jim DeRogatis. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: NewsFlash: Where in the DeRogatis article cited by WIKI cite any articles itself? Answer that to me, CHeeser1? WEll??... And where in the whole entire article on Wiki is there an actual VERIABLE article contemporarenous with the original "EMO" music scene from D.C. cited? Well? I repeat the question once again, because based upon the criterion and what another poster said that it may as well be a "myth"... this statement is never followed, because it is all just a thing un-veriafable, because; thus, it SHOULD NOT BE ON WIKI AT ALL. Because, according to you, or Neon-WHite, even this other recent wave of EMO is too ambigious to even document. But that's not my point, my point is -- that htere is no articles cited in the wiki page for EMO even dated no older than 2003 or 2002. Well, Newsflash aplenty! But none dating older than the 2002. And any prior journalism by Deragotis does not mean this blog-esque link without ANY VERIFIABLE SOURCES is anything but arm chair commentary, conjecture, gossip. But, if Deragotis can be had as a source, even without these requirements by wikipedia; then I suppose if he subsequently wrote a new article describing what I call as Scene (EMO) would you then allow for a new page? Well?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop ranting. It doesn't matter when a reliable source was published. If a reliable source was published in 2003, talking about music from 1600 or 1066 or 1988 it wouldn't matter - it's a reliable source. It's not like the sum of human knowledge is flushed each year, and no one can write about things after the year they happen. If you want to contribute to this discussion more, I suggest you try to do so without yelling, rambling, ranting, or referring to policies without understanding them. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheesr, I will not rant here; but you have answered the question. Does the Deragotis blog cite any sources? Is the Deragotis article anything but a independant blog? Once again, it provides no sources... Answer the question. If no, then it should be removed, according the very rules provided by Wikipedia. Answer that for me. The answer as to your statement that a source can speak about "things" in history at any time, is certainly true; but, we are talking about things in our very lifetime; when newspapers, magazines have proliferated everywhere in America. For you to expand the scope to comparing D.C. EMO of the 80's to an an "event" orwhatever tothe year of the Norman's invading The British Isles is a classic sophistry. FOr the reasons stated above, in this context. I am simply saying that, your relying strictly on a criterion set forth on Wikipedia, to hamper what others feel it EMO (Scene) really is, in fact undermintes the very article on Wikipedia on EMO as it is. Am I ranting, or am I recting facts? The Deragotis article is merely exhibit A. You have not refuted my contention at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to recite policy to you. Your proposal was completely unverifiable and could, in no way, be sourced. In response, you single out a single source from this article and erroneously claim that it is not reliable. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Does the Deragotis article provide any index to any verifiable sources? If it does not, it is not a verifiable article, it is merely commentary. Answer the question... I repeat, Answer the question. I am sure there are other articles that do not meet the requirement of wiki either; and it will prove that you are selectively enforcing policy. I ask you again to answer the question with regard to the Deragotis article, if you say it is an appropriate article, point to me where he provides any index to his own sources. I repeat, if it does provide any such thing, then it is commentary. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiendflug (talk • contribs) 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Just read the policy you're citing. It's right here: WP:SPS. A highly-regarded music critic with expertise in modern independent rock music, with dozens (hundreds, perhaps) of published pieces in multiple independent, reliable sources. Think about it, instead of rudely demanding an answer to a question you should have been able to answer yourself if you're citing that policy. --Cheeser1 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Relying on criteria and policy is what stops worthless rants about what some kid thinks he knows about this from being published in an article. The reason there aren't any older articles is likely because nobody wrote any. Regardless of the fact that the Jim DeRogatis sources were published by notable magazines, his opinion as a noted music writer is excepted. --neonwhite user page talk 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am completely confused concerning this discussion... Are you talking past each other or what is going on? It seems as though Fiendflug has a problem with a particular article, because it does not itself cite sources. And that Cheeser is defending the man himself, so to speak. Just seems like two issues to me... To me, it seems fair enough that if the guy is sufficiently published, known, etc. then his statements are _prima facie_ acceptable. Of course, we may then find a problem with some particular article (not to mentioned the problems if we have several viewpoints, etc. etc.) - I do not really know if we have any policies on this... --Lundse (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the same issue. User:Fiendflug is making poor points based on his lack of knowledge on the relevant policy. --neonwhite user page talk 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - although your summation is not too helpful ("he is wrong" would be as succint). So, you guys are saying that the source is fine, qua being written by a guy with the proper credentials (whether it cites sources itself or not) - and Fiendflug has a problem with it because he does not fin it "sufficiently academic"? --Lundse (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. This guy thinks his own personal opinion should be in the article, because someone else's opinion is. He neglects the fact that his opinion is unqualified, and also doesn't realize that WP:RS does not ask us to use sources that themselves cite other sources. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that despite being non-academic, and being self-published, this source is good enough for inclusion in wikipedia (since, all else equal, we trust the writer)? Maybe Fiendflug hasn't understood what qualifies a source (or thinks an accepted-by-way-of-its-author source can be disqualified for not eg. citing sources itself)... --Lundse (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The mistake being made is that although the articles are now sourced from his personal website they were originally published by reliable sources, in this case Chicago Sun-Times and Guitar World. --neonwhite user page talk 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute that you're still constantly bringing up month old debates and intentionally misrepresenting what I say. The claims this source supports do not require academic authority, only an established authority on popular music, which this is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am really sorry if I misrepresented you, that was never my intention. I was trying to make it clear just what you were saying (hence the questions regarding you viewpoints here, not statement), to find out if there was a discrepancy between what you said back then and what you are saying now. Obviously, the subject matter is different and as NeonWhite pointed out, this sources is apparently independently published in itself - so no discrepancy.

Only with WP:SPS, of course, but I have no hope of you elucidating how you read that policy (why stop ignoring my questiosn now?). I just found it interesting to see you mention the policy yourself, and apparently argue that we can use a source based on its authors significance in the field (whatever that might be). --Lundse (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My original post had nothing to do with Deragotis. I didn't even really care as to whether it was verifiable; that was not my original point. I only subsequently brought up the point that his blog-esque internet article, qualified as merely an independant opinion piece. I brought this up because either Cheeser or some other person stated that wiki bases its own articles on verifiable sources; they brought this up because any challenge that Emo is more about a recent fashion trend was not credible in their eyes: because "we have to rely on verifiable sources, or articles..." Otherwise, Wiki cannot have anything to do with such "commentary" or "interpretations"... OK. The problem is, that the Deragotis article for example, the one we're LINKED to, indicates no sources within the article nor does it say where it was originally published. Thus, my problem is the selective enforcement by the editors of this wiki article. Why the selective enforcement? I think it is because they do not want current Emo to be exposed for the blatant fashion trend (Scene) that it is: with only tenuous roots in music, that no one really can document except on hearsay beyond 2002, in any verifiable article.

Even the small section on the fashion on this Emo page itself, should be removed outright, because just by looking at those pictures, you could not find anyone dressing that way 6 or 7 years ago. Those very kids would have been listening to Limp Bizkit, not Jimmy Eat World or Sunny Day Real Estate in 1999. And I doubt even the people who listened to Jimmy Eat World or Sunny Day Real Estate dressed that way themselves. And what is positively fascinating, is that, if Deragotis has these great credentials, and has been published all these years, why can't anyone provide us with an article he wrote, where he mentions "EMO" in the mid-80's or 90's? Isn't that kinda noteworthy? Shouldn't the wiki people include that tid-bit in it's article on EMO? I should rest my case there ,but let us not forget what the singer to the obscure Rites of Spring band says as with regard to the mythical EMO appelation to his band or any of his contemporaries. But I suppose, since the observation I have just made, is posted here, and not found in some obscure magazine in the late 90's or early 2000's, that it has no place here, due to wikis stringent policy. ~~Fiendflug. 01-28-08~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.8.44 (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Both article were published in reliable sources and, as a notable journalist, his SPS are admissable under policy. Thewre is no 'selective enforcement' in this article, unsourced info is frequently removed, the article has been written, rewritten and merged. The fashion aspect is clearly mentioned in the article. Anyone who believes that Rites of Spring were an 'obscure' band within the context of the emo genre probably shouldnt be venturing personal opinions on the genre until they have a little more knowledge on the subject. --neonwhite user page talk 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time I am attempting to respond to your post of today, Neonwhite. What I say is, PLEASE re-read my last post, because you are projecting something in it, that I did not write. I even quoted from the WP:SPS section you rely on -- which undermines Deragotis journalism. I quote it again: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." If you respond to anything else that I write, please respond to that fact, with regard to the TIMELINE in question: mid to late 1980's D.C. underground "punk" genre that was known as Emo, and the articles in question. Deragotis article comes nearly a generation after the fact. Everything he writes is tantemount to reporting from the third person, years after the fact. As with everyone else on this subject. Moreover, I never said that that Rites of Spring were Emo or not Emo. Neonwhite, re-read what I wrote, carefully. I was speaking hypothetically, by merely quoting the lead singer of the band who was at a loss himself how his band ever got the title. To him, it is as if the present re-wrote the past he lived through. What I say is exactly symmetrical to the facts as I know it. I do not claim to be right about Emo a hundred percent, but I do think I am close the mark on the "myth" of emo and the machinations of its fashion apologists. --76.94.8.44 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Fiendflug. January 28, 2008

These sources are not self-published. It has been explained. It doesnt really matter when it was written. Wikipedia does not demand that or we would have very few articles about any period pre-modern and none pre-human. Most events are written about after they happen and most are not accurate but that is how history is recorded. --neonwhite user page talk 23:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Neonwhite, you can't do this. You cite policies which contradict your own argument. Deragotis articles have no sources contained in them; even if they were published by some guitar magazine or other years after the fact. He was born in 1964. The alleged Emo music scene was within his lifetime --not 500 years ago. The point is, where are the other articles that the wiki policy states that should be required. The journalism, by these standards are flawed, not reliable. It is third party conjecture, a generation later. The very man in question, the singer from Rites of Spring denies the Emo was ever anything to do with his band. If anyone should know, it would be him. Guy Picciotto was born in 1965! Consequently, according to Cheesr and yourself, if "Scene" is ambigious, and has no place in a reputable encyclopedia like this, then Emo has no place in it either. Emo is totally contemporary, pop-culture -- NOT "history" as you (or Cheesr) like to place it, comporable with the the year 1066 when the Normans invaded England. That was my entire point in dissecting the Deragotis article. As I said, this proves that wikis editors are selective in their policy. The facts are their in front of us. --76.94.8.44 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Fiendflugs, January 28, 2008

You don't understand the policy. Nowhere in any policy ever does it say that a source like this one need cite other sources of its own. Stop ranting on and on about this. If you honestly want to do this properly, instead of ranting against policy and consensus, hit the reliable sources noticeboard, but anyone who responds to that is going to read WP:SPS (if they don't know it already), and read this discussion, and probably make a reasonable evaluation of this issue. And please do not use this talk page to make arguments about "wikis editors. This is not an open forum for you to tell us we aren't reading our policies right - consensus makes it pretty clear that however we read it, if we represents the consensus of Wikipedia, then how we read it is how it is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

putting an end to this True Confessional? Chris Carrabba -- the unwilling 'face of emo' From: Chicago Sun-Times | Date: 10/3/2003 | Author: Jim DeRogatis[ [13]. ] and the other article clearly states it is from guitar world, 1999 at the bottom. It is a verifiable according to policy. As the policy will tell you, we consider a source reliable if it has a reputation for fact checking or is peer reviewed. --neonwhite user page talk 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend, we can argue in circles, but my point is that if we wish to follow or respect the rules, then one should be consistent. You continually ignore the essence of the matter, when I repeatedly point to you that these articles come some 15-20 years after the original "alleged" Emo thing happened. But you never respond to this point, except to say that a 'history' before written records could never be published -- when we are talking about things in our own lifetime! Respond to Guy Picciotto's statement on this. It clearly umderines the entire Emo article published on wikipedia. Yes, I challenge you to respond to this. And in the contemporary music scene 1999 or 2003 is not 1985. Your arguments invert the correct approach to histiography when convineint. And do not tell me wikis editors should not come under scrutiny: wikipedia is not some court history. Otherwise, they would simply copy and paste from published sources without re-written summaries which cannot be without a new (contemporary) critical interpretation of its own(!), which is precisely what attracts people to these pages. This is chutzpa, my friend or wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. So what is my point in all of this, one might ask? That one should expose this labeling of mid-80's D.C. post-punk bands EMO just to give credibility to some new fashion fad. --76.94.8.44 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Fiendflug

Please discontinue your tirades against Wikipedia, its policies, and our "inver[sion] of the correct approach to histiography." Your comments on this talkpage are now wholly unconstructive and will be removed if you continue to abuse this space. Please refer to the policy on talkpages for more on what they should (and should not) be used for. NW I suggest you ignore this person. --Cheeser1 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask (constructively) to address Guy Piccioto's statement refuting his awareness of his band being associated with any EMO music trend during his band's formative years or any association with any bands contemporaneous to his band's existence. This challenge is for both Neonwhite & Cheesr. --76.94.8.44 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Fiendflug

Piccioto is a primary source, and is not considered reliable, as opposed to the secondary, journalistic sources like the one you seem to refuse to accept. This discussion is really over. If you want to rant about it, you feel free to use your talk page to discuss it with yourself, but there's really nothing more to say. I strongly suggest that you start learning about Wikipedia's policies, instead of continuing to have such extended, meaningless discussions. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that a majority of musicians are unaware or couldn't care less about what genres they are credited as in articles. It's the media and journalists that define genres not the musicians, so unless they read it then naturally they would be unaware of what they are being labeled as. Applying a genre or title in retrospect to a type of music is done very frequently. Even if it wasn't necessarily called emo at the time, it is known as it now. --neonwhite user page talk 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am removing my posts on this discussion page. The primary reasons are that the title of the page I had put up EMO (Scene) was taken down and then combined into New Section which is misleading to what the original contribution intended; the other reason is that, if one simply reads the above responses, both Cheesr and Neonwhite respond with nothing but what wikis policy says... I have the right to edit my own posts. I have the right to remove them. Respect that. --Fiendflug (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Fiendflug

straight edge

why is this in the see also bit?

I believe it to be there because straight edge is often associated with the emo genere. If I'm wrong someone please correct me.Akamaru Toshibo 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That was true, particularly during the first and second waves. There was a distinct crossover between the straight edge community and the emo scene. The original DC emo scene was directly linked with the straight edge scene in the area. Perhaps coincidentally, Ian Mackaye (Embrace, Fugazi) coined the term "straight edge" when he was in Minor Threat (though he never considered himself part of the straight edge community). I doubt the link is as strong now, given "emo"'s shift to the mainstream. -- ChrisB 02:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If emo was related to straight edge, then it should also be connected to various forms of punk rock. It seems rather arbitrary to make this connection simply because the two sounds were associated in DC. There are shows featuring a wide variety of musical types, but that does not mean we should associate jazz and metal. Unless there is some verifiable proof that these two have some connection, straight edge should be removed from the "See Also" section. I feel this is especially important in light of the current status of emo which, as far as I have been able to discover, has virtually no links to the straight edge movement.

We're not talking about "straight edge" as a sound. We're talking about straight edge as a movement. Even the barest of association between the two (and, in reality, it was way more than "minor") justifies the see-also. -- ChrisB 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well in that case is there proof that the two ideologies are linked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.40.66 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

The only link I possibly see between Edge and Emo is that they both came from the D.C. Hardcore scene and that they looked up to Ian MacKaye. No way does that constitute a see also. I'm taking it out. It's way to much of a logical leap unless you back it up with some sort of solid connection. --Stealthsloth22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)stealthsloth