Talk:Emo (slang)

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

A Guide to Emo Culture

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)

It IS a common theme. Perhaps stating it that way isn't encyclopaedic though (The Elfoid 23:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

It's sourced. The term "common" is not unencyclopedic. Cheeser1 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Let's check the sources

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)

Do we really need the "Emo Cult" Daily Mail News link?

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)

I agree with you, I've looked at the article and its a harsh opinion that has no actual facts. - 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Agree with SwitChar for all of his reasons. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 01:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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).

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)

Image

The current image shows 'a typical emo's Myspace picture.' I think the older picture was a much better representation of emo style hair. Could the old picture be brought back?

The picture was deleted a few days ago. Also, sign your posts with four ~~~~. // DecaimientoPoético 23:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The old image was never deleted, just removed from this page. I have changed it back. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 17:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The current image just seems to be someone's little joke or a vanity peice. Could we get a more relevant picture? ___I uploaded a picture that I feel is more appropriate. I hope this helps your concern. Lazorz 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Lazorz

News coverage etc.

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)

Clean-Up: Neutrality Issues, Sources, and Slang

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)

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. Cheeser1 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Classic Emo picture

Someone should mention and include that classic Myspace emo profile picture, camera held up high, dark lighting, fringe brushed to one side, sad look.

We actually do. It's the first picture in the box. J-stan ^Talk 20:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

-_..._I uploaded a picture of someone who calls himself "emo". I hope this will help your debate. Lazorz 23:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Lazorz

Deletion

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) EDIT: here is the link to this information: http://www.youdontknowemo.tk/ 76.2.116.135 02:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)\

Agreed. J-stan ^Talk 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

Some Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

I know. Hence the unreferenced tag. Because those need to be replaced. --Cheeser1 19:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the second one should be used if we use those at all. Oysterguitarist 03:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Totally incorrect!

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)

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)

Just a question

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)

Urban dictionary and "usage online" do not make for encyclopedia content. Please refer to WP:RS. --Cheeser1 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rename

I think this should be renamed to Emo(subculture). Skrayl

Please put your comments under a new heading, or the approrpiate heading, below the table of contents. Please sign your posts with four tildes (~), and finally, please note that this has been considered and resolved, for the time being. There is no basis for such a name (see WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN) and no consensus (see WP:CONS) to make such a change. See the requested-move discussion above. --Cheeser1 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser: Please note the matter has been left unresolved. No consensus exists either way.--ZayZayEM 09:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence "resolved for the time being." I even explicitly stated that there was no consensus. What more do you want from me? I'm set back a bit by your ungraceful attitude and the way you seem to hound me at every turn, in the debate above and even now, after it's been resolved. The debate is over. You have no support from reliable sources or consensus. That means that it is resolved for now, and if that bothers you, I suggest you try to make peace with Wikipolicy and then maybe your behavior won't be so antagonistic. If you want to badger me, prod me, or attempt to draw me into another debate about this issue, I'm just going to ignore it from now on. --Cheeser1 18:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh Cheeser, calm down! Not everyone who disagrees with you is "hounding" you. Look at your past conversations with Switchar and EMC. Do you see how you have a habit of taking things too hard? You keep wikilawyering everyone. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of the rules. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you not threaten me, an RfC is not a cocked gun, don't point it at me like it is. You think I'm incivil? I have a habit of sticking to policy when others give up or don't care enough to bother. Citing policy on a frequent basis is NOT wikilawyering, since wikilawyering presumes that I am obfuscating issues with legal jargon and technicalities of policy in order to advance inappropriate changes. Are you accusing me of that, in addition to threatening me?

In case you didn't notice, I've contributed constructively here for months (despite my stick-to-policy attitude) - ZayZayEM has on at least three occasions butted in to conversations unnecessarily to hound me about this other another contentious matter. And, in fact, he only started editing this article when he saw my post about EMC on the Administrator's Noticeboard, and despite consensus in my favor there, came to this page to pick up EMC's argument on his own. Unnecessarily butting into conversations, especially like he has done, constitutes hounding, as far as I'm concerned. --Cheeser1 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the second point, about abiding by the letter of the policy or guideline, while ignoring the spirit of them (by the way, I have not heard anyone use the word "obfuscating". Except for lawyers, maybe). Your childish way of holding grudges seems to me to be incivil, yes. He is not butting into conversations unnecessarily, he has the right as a wikipedian to express his opinion wherever to influence consensus. His above comment was polite, and you immediately took offense at it. Don't let past arguments get in the way of assuming good faith. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, everybody calm down. So ZayZayEM felt it rather important to mention to the newcomer that the matter had not been resolved. Of course you aknowledge, albeit not all that clearly/strongly as his comment did - also note the different usage of resolved (Cheeser - the BRD process has come to a halt, ZayZayEM - there is consensus). Just because ZayZayEM and quite a few others would have liked things to go different and we want to make it clear that we are on standby regarding this issue, does not mean we are after you - we just remain unconvinced, because we were presented with policies and not positive and convincing arguments for the way the article stands. Neither are we necesarrily disagreeing with policy, although the way things are done is sometimes problematic (maybe unavoidably so). Eg. that the article is now in a state which has not been argued for convincingly and for which there is no consensus. This is pretty important information for a newcomer. That said, I can also see how you would want to "defend" yourself when the same people who "picked a fight" with you is now nitpicking your comments (I do hope you will all take this comment in good spirit). Lundse 19:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has the right to defend himself, he could be more civil about it though. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making my comments look bad with your brevity :-) Lundse 20:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This topic was covered above. But we failed to reach a consensus. Marlith ^T/C 20:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that this is a bit late in the game, but poking around google news I just came up with 5 recent news articles refering to emo as a subculture. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Neitherday 03:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Australian article is very useful. It is a discussion with a subculture academic :

The emo subculture is another area that has captured Cole's (British academic Shaun Cole) attention, along with other emerging groups called bears, scallies and homothugs.

"It's always interesting to look at fashion trends that emerge from a thriving club culture," Cole says. "It's been going on for years. You only have to look back to Leigh Bowery's incredible impact on fashion during his time on the London club scene.

"At the moment there's the emo scene where young men are experimenting through clothing with what is gender appropriate. Sexuality isn't the primary motivator here. Emo followers seem more interested in expressing their individuality.

"Although it hasn't been motivated by a gay subculture, with most of the musicians who influence this trend being straight, it's interesting that on wiki sites and blogs there is a lot of emo-bashing, with people dismissing it as gay, using the term gay as an insult." [6]

Wow, nicely put. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As interesting as that is, none of those but the one you quoted has any semblance of reliability, as I read it. Many of them contain blatantly false or absurd statements (e.g. "The world's number one idols for Emo kids is [sic] the band Tokyo Hotel" or "Depression is a core emo value."). Several of them are first-person or narrative, in whole or part. And in the Austrailian article, unfortunately, your reliable academic source refers to it as the "emo scene." The term subculture was introduced by the reporter. --Cheeser1 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What's unreliable about the Dayton Daily News article[7]? Neitherday 04:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a hybrid human-interest/local-events piece written by someone with no sociological credibility. --Cheeser1 04:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my question, it what way does it not meet the standards of WP:RS? Neitherday 04:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

See here and here. Notice that while we have an extensive description of reliable sources for historical claims, we have no such guideline for sociological claims. Regardless, a journalist's passing appropriation of a sociological term is not a reliable source for the claim that emo is a subculture. No article presents evidence to support such claim, and no source of information given is attempting to demonstrate that claim. It's simply the result of google searching "emo (sub)culture," which turns up use of the phrase, but not reliable sociologically-sound sources for this sociologically dubious claim. --Cheeser1 05:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't the full paper, but the abstract here [8] not only demonstrates that peer-reviewed papers call emo a subculture, but also explains why articles by sociologists talking about emo are so hard to find " While the study of subcultures has largely been abandoned by American sociologists over the last two decades..." Neitherday 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're not an academic, or you'd know that papers presented at conferences are not peer-reviewed. They even qualify as self-published. The reason you can't find any "full paper" to go with this abstract is because there is none - it is unpublished. Unless you consider the Atlanta Hilton a reliable journal of sociology (this is just a joke, please, take it as one - I'm trying to keep things light). So it still doesn't qualify. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The text in the synopsis "Review Method: Peer Reviewed" confused me, but you do appear to be correct. Neitherday 06:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• almost all the sources supercede any RS standard present for the article's current sources (mostly self published blogs and a fashion website). I would like to see some information moved in a reported accurately, I would suggest leaving the subculture statement open for consensus first though.--ZayZayEM 05:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Being better than the unreliable sources we have is not any kind of standard for WP:RS. This article is tagged as unreferenced. Slightly better sources that don't meet WP:RS still don't meet WP:RS. Please note that some of the claims they support are not sociological or academic in nature, and require a different level of verification. --Cheeser1 06:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently wrong with an article on emo subculture, if sources can be found. The problem is that this article is not it. In my opinion, much of it focuses on emo as a stereotype (personality, criticism, and some of fashion). The only major section related to the subculture is covered by Emo (music). If we're going to rename, we first need a lot more reliable information on the subculture - we can't have an article on the subculture, and then just fill it with stereotypes. Mdwh 13:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say there's anything wrong with anything. This isn't a moral discussion, I'm just pointing out that there are no reliable sources regarding any such subculture. To say that this page describes a subculture is inaccurate, but we have no sources to even verify on their own that such a subculture exists. --Cheeser1 13:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I was responding to the unsigned poster above (at indent level 1) who supplied the Google news sources. I wasn't implying that anyone else had said it was wrong (and I mean in a "What should we do on Wikipedia?" sense, not a moral sense, since that obviously isn't relevant here), just clarifying to the unsigned poster in case he thought I was against ever having an article on the emo subculture, assuming reliable sources could be found. Mdwh 14:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I assumed you were responding to me, and I might have understood how you meant "wrong" if I'd known you were talking to him/her and not to me. Sorry to have misunderstood who you were responding too (the indent game gets to be a mess, no?) --Cheeser1 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to note that my comment was not unsigned, although the comment that came after mine (and is in the same indent) is unsigned. Neitherday 15:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed earlier that the disagreement between me and Cheeser stems from a differnce in how we look at the word subculture. Cheeser believes it is primarily an academic/sociological word and that any ussage of it here on wiki should take that into account, whereas I believe it is a rather common shorthand for a "scene", social grouping, what-have-you (correct me if I', wrong here, Cheeser). Of course, we are both right to some degree - the word is definitely used both by sociologist and laymen with academia and normal dinner-table conversations - much like "gravity" or "acceleration" is used by scientists and laymen alike. I also agree with Cheeser that the words roots in academia should influence our every-day usage here - people will easily assume that an encyclopedia uses this meaning. That said, I don't think we need a sociological peer-reviewed paper saying "there is such a sthing as emo subculture" - demanding these kind of sources would grind wikipedia to a halt (I call to your attention the way all our number articles start - none of that is sourced, nor would we ever be able to find a source for it). To summarize: I still believe Emo to be a subculture, although I am all for including in the article that this is the laymans definition of one and that academia has not really bothered with the subject yet. I'd like to know the thoughts of the other people in this discussion: should "subculture" be used as purely academic term or are we using it as a everyday word? Lundse 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Subculture may be used in such a sense, but it is a sociological term. Some people refer to "infinity" as a number (trust me, I've tutored students from Algebra 1 to Calculus 3, most of them seem to think 1/0 is "the number infinity"). But we don't just presume that common, uninformed usage of the term "number" allows us to misdefine infinity as a real number. See infinity. Misuse of the term "subculture" should also not have any bearing on what we include in an encyclopedia. Now see subculture. The article begins: In sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, a subculture is... There should be no uncertainty here. It is a sociological term. Being bandied about by uninformed journalists and/or you and/or people you know does not change what the word really means. It is a sociological term, and this claim requires a reliable, peer-reviewed, academically-credible sociological source. The fact that you think it's an "everyday" term is original research, your conclusion that emo is a subculture is original research, and your invention of the the "layman's definition of subculture" is also original research. --Cheeser1 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to frame this as politely as I would like, but can you please calm down? Using terms such as "bandied about by uninformed..." and calling my claim that sociology is an everyday term for OR is not constructive. the term OR for what I am doing does not even apply as I am not trying to include this into the encyclopedia, I am just trying to talk about these matters - the criterion here is truth, not verifiability :-)

I clearly stated that I was aware it was first and foremost a sociological term, I clearly stated that our usage here on wikipedia should reflect that. Comparing me to people who misunderstand infinity is not accurate. Compare me to people who say that gravity is 9.82 m/s, if anything - while not correct in the physicists' definition, gravity has become a word which is used for "Earth's gravitational pull". When we are not writing a science article, we can use words which stem from science using their everyday definition.

So please, stop using the rules against me here on the talk pages when we are trying to reach consensus. That I think it is an "everyday term" is not OR, it is my opinion (one which I suspect you even share, if you think about it - especially considering you have recently been presented with article's and papers using it as such). My conclusion that Emo fits with this defintion is a synthesis, the kind of synthesis which allows us to say of 1 that: "It is the natural number following 0 and preceding 2." and which basically keeps Wikipedia floating, 50-90% of all material here would have to be deleted if we did not allow ourselves such simple inferences. And last, I did not invent the "layman's definition of subculture", I am merely pointing it out and claiming that it is relevant. If you want to argue against that, be my guest - it is an important point which should be discussed. Trying to exclude certain opinions and facts from the discussion trying to reach a consensus is not, on the other hand, constructive. And no, it does not help that you are doing this with rules meant to guide what content goes into the article at the end of the day.

On a happier note, I have stumbled upon a perhaps more acceptable word which does not have the same degree of sociological/scientific connotations. Maybe we can all agree that emo is a "social group"? If not, then I humbly ask what the slang word emo denotes... :-) I would love it if we could first state our opinions about this, and then go looking for sources when we write the article. Lundse 12:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As someone who's studied physics, I can say that your analogy doesn't make alot of sense. See gravity - the Wikipedia article on gravity does not say "gravity is 9.8 m/s" or anything like that, but is instead a properly written and well-sourced scientific article. The phenomenon you're describing, laymen's gravity (near-constant gravitation at the Earth's surface) has its own article that is properly sourced. On the other hand, use of the term "emo subculture" may (or may not) be prominent in "everyday speech" but Wikipedia is not written in everyday speech or based on your experience with the term "emo subculture." It is an encyclopedia. What you propose blatantly violates WP:SYN and is armchair-sociology. You can't draw your own conclusions, and you can't introduce new definitions of terms like "subculture" (even if you claim they are "everyday use" or "laymen's terms"). Your use of the word is unsourced, your new definition of it is unsourced (some broad public misunderstanding of a sociology term is not something you can cite, and violates WP:SYN), and you continue to want to explain it away as a "simple inference" or "the term people use" - failing to meet WP:RS.

As for me, I am not "blocking consensus," I'm explaining policy in order to help us form consensus that meets Wikipedia's guiding policies (if we all agreed to vandalize the article, that would be consensus too, but it would still be against policy and counterproductive). You want to change the title. I don't. My concerns are based on policy. I've shown you the policy. This isn't me "using the rules against [you]" or anything of the sort, please assume some good faith. I'm not excluding your "point of view or facts" - you're welcome to express your opinion, and to introduce properly sourced facts. But you don't have facts, you have what you believe, and what you think, and what you infer. If you can get that stuff published in an appropriate reliable source, then it might meet guidelines, but you can't just say "what I believe is laymen's terms, common, average, whatever, therefore we need to (mis)use this sociological terminology." This article is about a loosely defined slang term, describing a music genre/category, a fashion, a group of people, and a state of mind. To boil it down to subculture, fashion, "social group," or whatever else would not reflect the articles content and might not be appropriate at all. It is, however, a slang term, and that is what it's titled already. Slang terms are allowed on Wikipedia: we have a whole category for them.

I don't understand why you keep pushing to change it, without any reliable sources to back you up. And when you say this: would love it if we could first state our opinions about this, and then go looking for sources when we write the article. I am concerned greatly. The point of research is not to form an opinion and then try to prove it. You and others have been desperately Google-searching "emo culture" and "emo subculture" for sources to support your opinion. This is not how research works. You can't answer the question and then go try to find the answer. I wanted to see for myself if it was a subculture or not. I read a section from a sociology text. I looked extensively in library catalogs and in journal articles. Not a single source to substantiate the claim. And then I formed my opinion, which is: as far as Wikipedia is concerned, emo is not a subculture.

In the end, it seems to be pretty clear from how you started up this discussion again, citing differences "in how we look at the word subculture". You are correct. But it's not about my point of view. I'm not advocating my point of view, but that of policy and the (real) definition of the term. As far as Wikipedia goes, I fall in line with these standards, since they should be guiding our contributions. On a personal level, I'd like to validate people, if they want to see it one way, or to feel like a part of a subculture, or whatever. You're perfectly entitled to how you see it, but this isn't about how your or I see it, it's about what goes in Wikipedia and what doesn't. --Cheeser1 14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If a source is requested for X then there is nothing wrong with googling for a source for X. I edit many article on a variety of topics. Some of these topics I may have extensive knowledge on, others my knowledge upon coming to the article is fairly limited. One thing I particularly like to do in either case is find sources for unsoursed statements (usually statements that I did not add to the article). To do this quickly and efficiently, I use google. It is neither "desperate" or bad practice.

You requested a source, I attempted to find that will satisfy you. If the other editors of this article find that the sources are flawed or don't measure up, I will accept that -- that's how wikipedia works. Neitherday 15:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No no, I didn't mean it like that. My point was that if it's so hard to find a source, maybe that's because it's not an accepted claim in sociology. My use of the term "desperate" was meant to emphasize that you are "barking up the wrong tree" so to speak (a search through a library or academic journal search being better), that there are virtually no results with any relevant authority, and that it is an attempt to prove X (as you call it) after some people have decided that X must be true and included on Wikipedia (instead of waiting for a source). --Cheeser1 21:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re. Cheesers's response to my attempt to clear up a couple of issues.

First of all, you misunderstood my gravity example, I will assume it was not deliberate and will try to explain it further. The point was simply this: some words have a scientific meaning and an everyday meaning (sometimes slightly different, sometimes wildly so). I brought up gravity as an example of this. Going of and trying to explain to me, as if I was a 7th grader, the difference between the two terms when it was abundantly clear from the way I initially used the example that I knew this is not very helpful. The point was simply that I did not make the mistake of thinking that "infinity means 1/0" or that "gravity means Earth's gravity" - it was simply that I believe wikipedia has a place for articles such as "Earth's gravity". Please take note of this.

You say there is no place here for an article on Emo as a subculture (per the sociogical term). I am saying there is room for one on Emo as a subculture (per the everyday usage). This does not mean I confuse the two, quite the contrary. I believe that "social group" would be the best term for this latter article.

Also, I see you are still confused about what I am arguing is true and what should be in the article. Right now, on these talk pages, I am trying to argue for the truth of something so that we can reach a consensus. And I do not accept you critique that asking you this question first and then finding sources afterwards is necessarily poor scholarship - I am merely trying to make you state your opinion, so that we can see if it is consistent with your other claims. I am trying to make you understand my position, so that we can move forwards without you misrepresenting and misinterpreting me, which is a fool-proof barrier against reaching consensus. For instance, you are still claiming I want us to "(mis)use this sociological terminology." - apart from being a personal attack, this is also plain wrong. I specifically said, when I tried "burying the hatchet" on your talk page and when I re-entered the discussion above that I would like this article to be about the social group out there, not about any scientific definition of subcultures nor about the slang word (which is patently absurd, of course, see below).

You claim my point of view is my own, whereas yours is the opinion of policy. This is only half right. Your claim that subculture is only a sociological term and cannot be used otherwise here on wikipedia does not follow (cannot be infered) from rules regarding our basic encyclopedic standpoint. This would be begging the question - saying "we cannot use word X as meaning Y in our encyclopedia because using word X as meaning Y is unencyclopedic". You still need to argue seperately that other uses of the term are indeed unencyclopedic. This is where my gravity analogy breaks down (though a thousand other examples could of course be found) - because obviously using "gravity" as "earths gravity" would be confusing the issue. But it does not follow from this that we cannot have articles which explain or make use of the laymens term. This is also why I have always supported that the article should mention that emo is not (yet, by complete coincidence, IMO) categorised as a subculture as per the scientific term. And why I now believe we should rename this article Emo(social group) as this looses the scientific connotations - a change which you have only countered by comparing it to the initial suggestion, why is it this word is (also) unacceptable?

Now, back to the positive argumentation: you are saying this is and should be an article about a slang word. I ask you this: what does this slang word denote? I am not looking for the content of the article (what the word means, connotes) but what is it out there in the world which this word refers to? In my opinion, it just makes no sense having an article on a word while at the same time denying this word denotes anything out there (discouting unicorns, but I do not think anyone is claiming emo is a myth). We don't have articles on "Car(word)" or "Gravity(word). I would love to hear counterarguments to this, so far I have heard none. And please, since this seems to be a recurring problem, do not assume this argumentation has anything to do with sources, policies or guidelines - it has to do with common sense and building a good encyclopedia, which is the goal to which all rules are bent and the only goal in deference to which they can (and should) be broken. Lundse 23:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've still missed the point - I completely understood your gravity analogy. The difference is that your "everyday notion" of gravity IS the focus of substantial scientific inquiry. Whereas your "everyday notion" of subculture is nothing but a misuse of a sociological term, a misuse that dose not have any sociological inquiry to substantiate it. Note that Earth's gravity is not a happenstance examination of what "everyday people" think of gravity. And you seem to think there are two definitions of subculture - one that academics use and one that "regular" people use. This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to cite academic sources. And finally, the parenthetical (slang) is for disambiguation purposes. The article is about not just a slang word, but also what the slang word denotes. I've said that at least three times (and at least once already too you, I believe). I don't feel like repeating myself again, so please read carefully. Pick up discussion of this point below the "Arbitrary section break" if you want to continue to assert that this is not a slang term, or that the disambiguational use of (slang) is inappropriate. If you think Wikipolicy is here only for the purposes of being broken, I think you should seriously consider that while rules are meant as guidelines, they still carry some weight, as opposed to your arguments, which reduce to "I want to redefine and/or misuse academic terminology for no particular reason." You can't throw policy out the window just because it isn't absolute. See WP:WIARM. --Cheeser1 23:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, while I agree that there could be room for an article Emo (social group), it would require a reliable source to substantiate it. To make claims about the existence of a social group is, by definition, a sociological claim. You are not a reliable source, thus you cannot be the source of such a claim. Until a source is found, the room we have set aside for the hypothetical article "Emo (social group)" should continue to be left blank. And assume good faith, instead of jumping to the conclusion that I'm attacking you personally. You continue to think that I am maligning you because you are misusing a sociological term. You are. There's no doubt about it because you've admitted that you don't want to use it according to its proper definition. That is exactly what misuse of a word is. --Cheeser1 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we all just need a really good cry. Mike Murray 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can see you did not understand my gravity analogy, because you are not addressing the point I made with it. And you are still misrepresenting me as wanting to 'throw policy out the window' when I have tried time and again in engaging you in a discussion about said policy - wanting to discuss something does not equate being against it.

I am sorry if you feel I have jumped the gun concerning personal attacks, but I am simply tired of you making derogatory claims as some sort of (probably unconscious) strawman strategy (see above). This also goes for your last attempt to shove 'misuse' down my throat - for the last time: wanting to use another meaning of a word when making 100% clear that this is what I am doing is not misusing the other meaning of the word. It is insisting that the other word has merits on its own (hint: try holding that sentence while rereading my gravity analogy, you might get my point then).

And lastly, we have (as I think I pointed out) plenty of sources saying the social group emo exists - namely all the ones I have pointed out and whatever else the article is currently based on. Otherwise, the slang term emo would not have any denotation. But then again, that touches on the argument you are still not willing to address.

Sorry for venting, but this discussion is over if it does not improve from now on (that means addressing my points, reading my analogies et al until you understand them and stop relying on 'you are against policy, I am its brave defender'). The subject matter is not of great enough importance to me to take this to the next level where it belongs, I sincerely believe you are hurting wikipedia with your attitude and I implore you to come back to one of your discussions in a years time and try looking at it from a fresh perspective. Lundse 22:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no "other definition" of the word subculture. The one you presume exists in "every day speech" is made up and such language does not belong in Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you think my "attitude" is "hurting" Wikipedia, but if you don't want to follow WP:RS, I'd say if one of us is hurting Wikipedia, it's you. If you want to pretend I'm a jerk in crusader's armor, that's fine, but all I ever did was ask you to use a word properly and to follow WP:RS. I've addressed every point you've made, as far as I can tell. If I can't understand your analogy, then that's too bad. There is no basis for the use of the term "subculture" as it is properly defined, and there is absolutely no reason we should use some "other" definition that doesn't really exist. There's nothing more to this, and I'm not going to carry on with this discussion if all you're going to do is tell me that I'm hurting Wikipedia by attacking you and crusading against you. If you really think that's the case, I'll refrain from replying from this point on - I'm not interested in entertaining the idea that I could have a reasonable conversation with someone who thinks I'm attacking them and trying to hurt Wikipedia with my bad attitude. --Cheeser1 07:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that there is no other definition is exactly the one I keep telling you we have to discuss, not wanting to do so and not responding to my points is clearly going against whatever policy you are far better equipt than me to find which says we have to find consensus. So there.

You have not addressed every point I made. This also contradicts your next claim that you are 'fine' with not understanding my analogy. Furthermore, I posit that though that may be true, it is a much more pertinent fact that you might just not be fine if you did understand it - it might force you to consider what I am saying...

And please don't, for the last time, try to strawman me. I am not saying you want to hurt wikipedia, I am saying you are doing it. Those are two different things! And btw, congratulations on ignoring the point about the denotation of the 'slang word' for the 4th time - you were too busy saying something about having addressed my points, maybe? Let me know on my talk page when you are ready to do so, or otherwise actually start arguing beyond "you want to ignore policy, you invent terms, I am therefore by definition right". Lundse 21:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim that there is no other definition?? Look at subculture. Look at the dictionary. There is no other definition (except one relating to microbial cultures). If you think there is, FIND A SOURCE OF THIS DEFINITION. "Everyday use" that you happen to perceive is not a source. This is a sociological term with a precise definition. You can't invent your own definition. I'm done with this "discussion" because your double-talk and nit-picking about how I don't understand your absurd and irrelevant analogies have frustrated me to the point that I have considered, in frustration, violating WP:CIVIL (although of course, I would not do so). What you propose is absurd and misguided at best, and blatant POV original research at worst. It has no place here and I'm not going to continue to discuss "other meanings" of sociological terms that you want to put in this article, now that the sociological term has been proven to be inapplicable. This isn't a subculture, not as far as Wikipedia is concerned. No consensus or source backs your claim. Get on with your life. --Cheeser1 22:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ikiroid and the Dok weigh in

Alright, I've read through the above thread and thought about it a bit. There are really two issues here:

1. The current title, depicting the article as "slang," is an inappropriate title, as it implies a different topic
2. The article should be moved to title such as "Emo subculture" or "Emo (subculture)."

Can we agree on the first point and go from there? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree on the first - why is it an inappropriate title? Ideally it would just be emo (as with other slang/stereotype terms like chav, preppy), but there's the problem that emo is the disambiguation page. We could move it to emo (disambiguation), but this depends on whether editors thing that this meaning of the word is significantly more common than the other meanings (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page_naming_conventions). There may be better names than the current article title, but I'm not sure that this is a bad title? Mdwh 17:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a slang term. That has been sourced, and I can't understand why there's any dispute about that. You ask us to simply agree on that point, but provide no explanation other than "it implies a different topic." In fact, it implies exactly this topic. "Emo" as presented in this article, is a slang term that describes fashion, style, particular people, vague musical categories, emotional states, and many other things. How is it inappropriate? --Cheeser1 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I would support to move this article to Emo (subculture; can we ask support/help at the Sociology wikiproject and portal?Doktor Who 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The move has already been considered, and failed its nomination for moving due to lack of consensus and lack of reliable sources. No reliable sociological source has been found to substantiate the claim that emo is a subculture (see archive 5 of this discussion page). Saying that it is violates original research policies, and I am not the only one to opposite on this (and other) grounds. Please do not add such content to the article until at least after you have suggested such changes (I have reverted your addition of several subculture-related links/categories). --Cheeser1 23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits at Emo (slang). I added a see-also-section because it is important for both the ones-that-believe-that-emo-is-a-subculture and their opponents, indeed such section provide any reader with a sort of introduction to the wide and loose topic of "youth movements, countercultures and subcultures". See-also-sections are meant to give the reader the broadest picture of the topic, its analogies and its differences with other topics and are usually very different from "refernces" sections.Doktor Who 23:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The see-also topics you added are a broad spectrum of sociological terminology, but no sociological data is present in the article (save that which is added in violation of WP:SYN). Until this is an article that is reliably known to be a subculture of any sort, linking to those sorts of categories and articles is inappropriate. Emo is not a culture, counterculture, or youth movement (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) until a reliable source says it is. --Cheeser1 23:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And keep in mind that boldly adding such content should not be re-added to the article, according to policy, until consensus is formed to do so (which may be hard, given that there are no sources to justify all of those see-also links in any way). --Cheeser1 00:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, please look at your edit summary: Im sure that can be useful for a broader perspective of this subject please do not revert without asking more, Im not a "newbie" in sociology!! You seem to believe that what you think is useful is somehow a guideline for what content should go in this article. Linking to terms that have no established connection to emo is misleading and inappropriate. Furthermore, your status as a source of sociological information is irrelevant. You could hold four Ph.Ds in sociology, it wouldn't matter, because you are not a source of information, even if you "think" that the information might be relevant. --Cheeser1 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the scientific method, and science is my main interest. I dislike the word emo, the emo world and its slang. I don't think that a music genre named "emo" exists. Adding some more links can support this perspective, I'm not against you, you are misunderstanding me. This word emo is just one of those words invented by some pèress in order to create a commercial slogan, and sell music, magazines, and so on. ^_^ cheers.Doktor Who 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that your perspective on this article is colored by your personal issues with emo music and emo things. Trying to lead people to unrelated or irrelevant topics is not what the see-also section is for, especially if you're doing it to support some ludicrous agenda or perspective you have about how emo doesn't exist. --Cheeser1 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not insinuating you are a vandal, just I suspect that, since you have never seen me before at this article, you were somewhat regarding me as a noobie. I have no "agenda", but, unlike you, I want to give other readers the chance to seek more info on simiilar, related and unrelated topics. Please note that I've smiled to you, if you do not stop your aggressive tone, I will report you for violating WP:OWN and WP:HAR.Doktor Who 00:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cheeser. Please do not wikilawyer. WP:IGNORE is probably the best rule in the world. Please consider WP:AGF; WP:BITE and WP:DIK. --ZayZayEM 00:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of DIK, and your link is broken. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM is calling me a dick (if he'd linked it to the article correctly, you'd find information explaining, among other things, that calling someone a dick flippantly is just as much being a dick as anything). Interesting that he popped into another conversation, this time just to call me a dick and tell me that IAR is (apparently) the best rule (in other words, to once again tell me that he doesn't care that I want to talk about policy, since he'll just ignore it if he disagrees with me). --Cheeser1 02:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like policy a lot. I cite it quite frequently. But I also tend to pay attention to more than one policy. (which usually really annoys people). Just sticking to one policy and just saying that its the end of a discussion is a very WP:DICK thing to do. I am not calling you a dick. I am asking you to consider the appearance of your actions to any other editor here. You are not discussing, you are repeating a single line and thinking that it solves everything. It's not going anywhere. If you are goingto revert a good faith edit, YOU should be the one to start a discussion on talk page (especially if you say "see talk"); otherwise a reversion of reversion is entirely warranted. Your reversion is pushing your own agenda, and calling people names (or arguing about who called people names first) really isn't going to solve anything.--ZayZayEM 03:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

More than one policy? The only policy I've seen cited to support inclusion of "subculture" is WP:IGNORE. Regardless, I've been discussing things thoroughly with all interested parties, but the most relevant policy appears to be WP:OR, specifically WP:SYN. I'm not saying "I'm right you're wrong end of discussion." I'm simply citing policy and trying to be as straightforward and clear in my explanation of why and how it applies. I said "see talk" and didn't start a new section because there is already plenty of discussion about the "subculture" issue here already. If you want to take the moral high ground and say that accusing people of violating WP:DICK is childish and "isn't going to solve anything" then why did you do it?? Because you seem to think I have an "agenda" that I'm "pushing." --Cheeser1 04:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, back to the main issue--how about Emo (meme)? My issue with the current name is that it indicates the article is giving a short dictionary definition of a slang word or describing the vernacular of those people who identify as emo. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, why "meme"? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The components of this article do not describe a subculture, which has its own forms of folkways and mores between its members as well as a set of common beliefs. "Fashion" and "Music" don't work either, because this is really a combination of both. "Meme" may sound to minimal, but I think we're on the right track if we acknowledge that it exists as more of a large, long-term meme. Maybe "scene" would be the optimum word?The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "scene" would confuse some because "scene" is a slang term describing a fashion similar to emo. If we decide to move it at all, i think it should just be moved to Emo (slang term). J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I don't see why Emo (slang) is any different than Emo (slang term). The parenthetical is only there to distinguish emo (music) - a music term - from emo (slang) - a slang term. The addition of "term" would be completely superfluous. The other ideas are good, but not optimal. I'm sure we could list ideas forever, but I can't think of any that make any more sense than Emo (slang). --Cheeser1 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Slang" by itself seems grammatically incorrect. It sounds almost as if the article covers the form of slang associated with Emo, even though there really isn't one. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's why were here ;-) Anyway, so we're looking for a word somewhere between "meme," "scene," "subculture," and "slang" ...anyone have the magic word that will end this thread? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout "Sub-slang Scmeme" :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha, looks like you've found it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Slang by itself tells us what kind of term emo is. Here it is a slang term, while there it is a music term. That's the point of disambig. words in parentheses. See Prism (geometry) and my explanation of all that below. It doesn't really have to seem "grammatically correct" - it's in a title, and a title is not a sentence. The prism article does not cover the form of geometry associated with prisms. --Cheeser1 19:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Scene

I'd be quite happy with emo (scene). The current article just doesn't describe use of emo as a slang term to me. It's about the word as it applies to people + music + fashion. I don't really see how it is unreasonable Synthesis to label that as a subculture or a scene, anymore than it is to say something like dancehall is a genre of music or Human Rights Watch is an NGO. I am not disputing that "emo" is/was a form of slang, but that is not the focus of the article. Article titles, particularly disambiguating ones, should most accurately portray their content. It'sa bit like if LGBT was placed at LGBT (initialism) rather than something like LGBT (sexuality and gender) (not that either are necessary)--ZayZayEM 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I could live with that. Sounds good! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source could be found to demonstrate that dancehall is a genre of music. A reliable source could be found to show that the HRW is an NGO. No such source can be found to substantiate the claim that this is a subculture. I don't see how your analogies hold up, and I'm not sure I understand this article. "Emo" is a slang term. Its use was and continues to be far more prevalent within particular groups (eg young people), and its use is varied and nonstandard. That's slang by definition. If that's not "slang to [you]," I can't imagine what definition of slang you're using. This article is about what that slang term describes, not about the term itself (although content about the evolution of the term would also be appropriate within this article). --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Several semi-reliable sources have been found referencing emo as a subculture. They are just as, or more reliable the present sources. I think it has been established well (including an abstract from the American Sociological Association) that RS do exist referring emo as a subculture. However my main contention is clarity/accuracy of the title. Which do you feel is more accurate considering the content at LGBT: LGBT (sexuality and gender) (proposing a direct link to an unconfirmed social construct) or LGBT (initialism) (a clear and simple fact) --ZayZayEM 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "semi-reliable." Where did you ever get the idea there was? Unpublished musings of sociology graduate students are not accepted sources on Wikipedia. They are not accepted in their field of study and have not been peer reviewed. Furthermore, few of them establish that emo is a subculture, only making use of the term "subculture" once or twice in passing. And as I pointed out previously, the abstract of an unpublished paper from a talk at a conference is not a reliable source (a point which was accepted as quite clear by the editor who originally posted that reference). LGBT culture and sexual identity are studied to a great extent in sociology. Setting up invalid and absurd analogies do not help your argument. The title is accurate because parenthetical words for the purposes of disambiguation are ONLY there for disambiguation. The are NOT there to reflect the contents of the article - the title is no place for exposition. They are there to distinguish one term from another. Emo is a music term and a slang term. This is why the articles are titled the way they are. I don't see how it could be any clearer. --Cheeser1 07:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

LGBT is undeniably an initialism. But it really serves no descriptive purpose to disambiguate it as that. Emo, while being slang terminology, is not best primarily defined as such. The analogy stands whether you fail to recognise it or not.--ZayZayEM 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point! It is not supposed to be a DESCRIPTIVE term, it's for DISAMBIGUATION. Since LGBT is always an initialism, LGBT (initialism) could never disambiguate anything! However, if I invented a laser guidance bivalve technology (LGBT) and it was on Wikipeidia, then there would be a need to disambiguate. Then they would say LGBT (sexuality) and LGBT (technology), since one is a sexuality term and one is a technology term. Here we have a slang term and a music term. Hence we disambiguate them as such. We can't say LGBT (initilialism) or emo (word) because those don't disambiguate. What we have now does. What we have now is accurate and sourced. What we have now conforms to disambiguation naming conventions. So what's wrong with what we have now??? If you looked, you'd find that naming conventions are not supposed to be descriptive. Hence Prism (geometry), not Prism (shape). You're just not getting it. Disambiguation naming conventions are not to provide exposition or description of the subject. They are supposed to tell us what context a particular term is used in. One is a music term, the other is a slang term. That's really all there is to it. --Cheeser1 19:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay scrap my example. Using your example. From what I can tell here, we have an article named Prism (shape). It's blunt with no real meaning. "Emo" is more than just a slang word. A "prism" isn't just a shape. I would support just about anything other than (slang) in this article's title.--ZayZayEM 04:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't have an article named Prism (shape). Why do you say that we do? Am I missing something? "Emo" doesn't have to be "just" a slang word, but it is a slang term (in the context of this article). It is a music term in the context of the other article. The disambiguation we have now is exactly how we do disambiguations everywhere else. Frankly, there is no need to change it; it's certainly not bad enough that one could reasonably support "just about anything [else]." --Cheeser1 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that emo (slang) is the equivalent to prism (shape) in your analogy. It's accurate, undisputably; but it is also blunt and doesn't provide a meaningful connection to article content.--ZayZayEM 08:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No. Your analogy is putting the wrong two things together, if that's what you mean. "Slang" is a kind of terminology. "Geometry" is a kind of terminology. "Shape" is not a kind of terminology. "Subculture" or "scene" is not a kind of terminology. The point of parenthetical disambiguation words is to tell us what kind of term we are dealing with, not to "provide a meaningful connection to the article content." Please note, however, that "slang" is in the first sentence of this article. --Cheeser1 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo (music) is an industry slang term. How does this title Emo (slang) accurately differentiate itself from that. I wasn't aware "music" was a form of terminology. This article describes Emo in a social context - Emo (social), Emo (society), Emo (scene), Emo (subculture), Emo (counterculture), Emo (marketing), Emo (mood), Emo (lifestyle), Emo (youth), Emo (youth culture) or anything would be really better. When emo slang is loosely defined and already encompasses two articles (Emo (music) is about a related slang term) I different identifyer needs to be used. The current identifyier is ambigious, open to misinterpretation, and is insufficiently unique.--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music is a form of terminology. See Music terminology. Slang is also a form of terminology. See slang. You continue to press for things like emo (subculture) and emo (mood). Subculture is totally OR, we've been through this and there was neither consensus nor sources for that move. "Mood"?? Is that a joke? This is absurd. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). You continue to suggest ludicrous things like "mood" and "youth culture" while completely ignoring the fact that what we already have conforms to naming conventions. If you aren't going to cite any sources or naming conventions or policies, I'm not going to continue repeating it to you: there is no reason to change it, or if there is, you haven't presented one. Until you do, it's going to stay as it is. The "identifyier" is NOT supposed to be precise or unique. That's NOT the point. A parenthetical word in the title for disambiguation is for disambiguation, not exposition or explanation of the article's topic. It tells us what kind of term this is. Nothing more. This is how articles are named. That's all there is to it. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Music terminology is a form of terminology that relates to music. Geometry is loosely terminology (or a study field) that relates to shapes. Just because English has a specific word for one, and not the other really doesn't make your argument. Slang is a linguistics term, this is not a linguistic based article. I really find the identifier ambigious and misleading, and its not just me. The only argument against the changes has been based on WP:OR. Please work with us here and make an alternative suggestion that does not violate this rule, or demonstrate how (slang) is not ambigious (as music term is also a form of slang) and/or not misleading as to content.--ZayZayEM 17:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Slang is a type of terminology. Geometry is a type of terminology. "Scene" is not. "Subculture" is not. I don't see how this could be any clearer if I wiped it down with Windex. I'm not going to repeat this. If you continue to deny the fact that "slang" is a kind of terminology, don't expect me to repeat to you the fact that it is. --Cheeser1 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

From my POV, Slang is simple noun (i.e. object), Shape is a simple noun. Wheras Geometry and Subcultures are complex nouns (being fields of study) andare therefore more descriptive. Further suggest: Emo (sociology).--ZayZayEM 00:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your POV is not what governs naming conventions. The word in parentheses always indicates what kind of term it is. Not some random category (ie subculutures, moods, genres, etc) it falls into. Hence prism (geometry), not prism (shape). Emo (music), not emo (genre). Your suggestions do not conform to naming conventions and often introduce original research into the article. They are completely inappropriate. I have nothing more to say on this. --Cheeser1 05:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

But your POV does? I'd really like to move beyond pot-kettle battles here, but I really don't see how we are progressing in any sort of direction.--ZayZayEM 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No. I've pointed you to the policies and guidelines governing disambiguation naming. That's not my POV, that's consensus. Sorry. --Cheeser1 07:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Article content

Cheeser you continually state "This article is about what that slang term describes, not about the term itself". This is my beef. The slang term describes a scene/subculture (or people+music+fashion), and as such is not about a specific piece of slang as the title suggests. The word emo is not basic slang, any more than the word punk - it is used quite readily by media, entertainment, music and fashion industries.--ZayZayEM 05:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The slang term describes several things - music (emo (music) proper and not), people, fashion, etc. The slang term does not describe a subculture unless we know it is a subculture. You can't keep asserting that because it isn't about the term itself that somehow, this article can't be called slang. This is obviously not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. This article, like every article, is about what its title describes. And please note that the term punk is, or at least was, a slang term (throughout history being slang for many things, prostitutes, homosexuals, and many other things). But sociologists have studied punk and determined that it is a subculture, as demonstrated in many published books and articles (unlike this article here).

Also, use of slang is not forbidden in the media either, so I don't see how your point there is relevant, especially when music and fashion industries thrive on slang-related topics. "Gangsta" is a slang term originating in hip-hop, that doesn't mean it isn't prevalent in fashion and music. While I'm at it, check out gangsta. Notice that here we've called something a slang term for the purposes of disambiguation, to disambiguate it from the genre of music associated with it. Interesting...

And like I've said a dozen times, the purpose of the parenthetical is not to provide elaboration or to make claims about what the term sometimes describes - especially if completely unsubstantiated. If you want to say that the term describes a subculture, then why does some of the content in this article not reflect that? How can we use "subculture" if this article is not entirely (or at all) about a subculture? Even if it WERE a subculture, this article isn't just about the subculture, it's about much more general phenomenon. This is clearly established in the introduction.

I am curious though - what is "basic slang" and how did you determine that emo was not a part of it? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that a slang term has a precise definition, and that it exactly describes what you consider to be a subculture? That sounds like alot of assumptions to me. --Cheeser1 07:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

More complex suggestion

I'd also be happy with just a whole move to emo, creation of emo (disambiguation) and moving the music article to emotional hardcore. I think it is fair to say most users searching for "emo" will be looking for this article's content.--ZayZayEM 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a bit awkward, since "emo" is just as much a music term as any other definition. Unless you contend that this article represents a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other - I don't believe this is the case, nor do I think that's what you're contending. In light of this, a disambiguation page is supposed to sit at emo. We really shouldn't be sticking this article at emo because doing so is pretty much the opposite of how disambig naming conventions are supposed to work. --Cheeser1 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This page has a section devoted to the music, so I do not feel anyone will get lost by such a system (I'd suggest a disambig notice to both the music article in particular, and the dab page be in such a page). The music term is a shortened form of emotional hardcore (hence why that redirects to music not dab), so I don't see why its a problem to move that there (avoid parentheses). And yes, I am suggesting that this is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other. I feel that the use of emo in this context is far more universal than any other listed at emo (disambiguation)--ZayZayEM 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with your assumption that this is the "primary" meaning, and we should not make such an assumption and defer to the state that it's in now, one of disambiguation. My point was not about people getting lost - that is not what is in question. My point was about conventions that we follow here on Wikipedia. If you can somehow definitively establish that this is the primary definition of the term, feel free, but I don't think that's possible. Until you do, there is obviously a valid contention that it is not the primary meaning, and we should defer to the standard disambiguation scheme. --Cheeser1 07:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser, I don't think we should move around the article and disambig pages unless we have clear evidence that this is the most popular article in the bunch. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• this proposed move was way too controversial, Please ignore it. And these guys are right, it probably isn't appropriate. --ZayZayEM 16:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Flogging a dead horse

emo (neologism) also springs to mind. --ZayZayEM 04:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just point everyone here. --Cheeser1 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Or here might be a little more appropriate. If we move it to "Emo (neologism)", we're setting the page up for an almost certain deletion. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo summary

i think the article about Emo should just say "a subject in which people argue and run around in cirlces either defending or going out of their way to insult emos". how in the world does this invoke so much anger??? i know this: whether you love them or hate them, you can't stop talking about them --Zuki2love 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Poll

I support to add the following "see-also"

• Adolescence
• Counterculture
• History of subcultures in the 20th century
• Lifestyle
• Popular culture
• Youth subculture

I invite everyone to read carefully my (short) above posts, and then write their opinions within this section. Thanks.Doktor Who 00:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This poll is irrelevent. See alsos are not for pages that necessarily are connected to this article. They are for pages that provide context for information, contrast and comparison. Even if "Emo" in this article is not a clearly defined and established subculture, these pages certainly are going to be of interest to people looking at this page. I ahve restored them, except the History of subculture link and Lifestyle link. The former will require us to further establish the ongoing dispute on this page. The latter is not entirely relevant enough.--ZayZayEM 00:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding back in contentions material after it has been reverted out of an article is a violation of WP:BRD and creates an edit-war atmosphere. If you want to discuss it, discuss it, but don't revert a revert - it disrupts the collective editing process and is counterproductive and ungracious. See-alsos are not supposed to be laundry lists of tangential or unrelated topics. Except for adolescence, I see no reason to have this see also section, and I'm fairly sure a link to adolescence can be integrated into the article, which mentions teenagers repeatedly. --Cheeser1 02:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cheeser1 04:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

thank you, at least my very little contribute to the improvement of this article didn't end up in a total waste of time, indeed someone wikilinked adolescence. In my opinion, we need to wait for some years in order to discover whether this "youth scene-slang-fashion" becomes the subject of sociological studies or if it becomes a forgotten topic.Doktor Who 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture?

I noticed that Emo is present under the subculture category, and I personally don't believe this is a proper location for Emo. Unlike other musical subcultures, which are united by a relatively standard belief system, some form of communal gatherings, a "class" structure, and even culture-exclusive language, Emo (arguably) does not possess these unifying qualities. I propose that Emo be removed from the Subculture category.

Adrian Anansi 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Adrian Anansi

I think you're referring to an all-out culture. Indeed, Emo doesn't possess a standard religion, communal gatherings, "class", or its own language (on a literal level). And while it has been discussed and resolved that the information on this page doesn't constitute a subculture, perhaps the pages in the category do. I don't know, as I have learned not to form an opinion on the subject. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a subculture is present with an over-arching culture, so in that sense I don't think I was inadvertently considering Emo a culture. I think you understandably mistook a few things I said. By belief-system, I didn't mean religion, I meant more of a common philosophy, by class, I meant sub-groups and positions (the whole poseur thing), and by language, I meant terminology. It was my mistake, I will attempt to be more specific in the future. I'm not sure what you mean by the "perhaps the pagies in the category do..." The main page redirects to here, and all sub-pages just lead to lists of bands as well as record labels and other various stuff. Adrian Anansi 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Adrian

OK, yeah, the way you phrased it made it sound like an actual culture. Would you mind clarifying what you mean by those characteristics of a subculture, giving a few examples? But yes, in the mean time, we should probably remove Emo from the Subculture cat. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over the status (or not) of emo as a culture or subculture. It is not verifiably a (sub)culture. There are certainly indications either way, but the category was removed from the page some time ago I believe. I have also removed it from list of subcultures - I'm not sure why that list exists, since we have a category for the same thing. --Cheeser1 06:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats the list I was talking about that I wanted it removed from. I had read the debate previously, I wasn't trying to rekindle it. Adrian Anansi 06:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. Just wanted to be clear about it. Glad to see we're on the same page. --Cheeser1 07:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See Subculture#Identifying subcultures. According to that, emo fits the definition of subculture, along the same lines as punk, hip hop, goth, skinhead, mod, rocker, greaser, etc. Spylab 22:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Unfortunately, it's not up to us to draw conclusions, especially from other Wikipedia content. --Cheeser1 22:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not clear that it is a subculture along the same lines as punk, hip hop, goth etc. Mdwh 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cunningham, David., Hardman, Emilie. and Spinney, Ann. Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, Aug 16, 2003.

That is a paper I've been wanting to get a hold of for a while but I still haven't tracked it down on the net. Nevertheless, it works as an academic reference for classifying emo as a subculture. There are actually a lot of good texts out there on the emo subculture. Undoubtedly one of the best is Andy Greenwald's Nothing Feels Good - a book that also refers to emo as a subculture. There are also a lot of bad texts out there too - so it helps to actually know something about emo before you go looking for a commentary on the topic.

One of the things you'll notice if you read Andy's book is that it talks about emo a lot using Internet sources. I would argue that this is fair enough. This is a youth subculture that (arguably) came to prominence at a time when the Internet was just starting to be used by adolescents - where else would you go for information? Indeed good Internet sources like [9] can be invaluable for defining emo. So too can Andy's book, but unfortunately it was written at a time when Taking Back Sunday was just starting out.

Essentially what I am trying to say is that there is an intelligent article about emo - but this article isn't it. Believe it or not, all those kids don't put on "tight jeans" and "tight t-shirts" because they like to be abused by wider society. There is something real and substantive about emo (at least to its adolescent followers).* For me, I think emo had something to say about the way broader society looks upon emotional expression.

I wish I had the time and enthusiasm to write an article on the subject but I don't and apparently I suck at writing anyway. So I just hope you guys take the time to make this article the best it can be. In conclusion there are academic commentaries on emo out there. And they cover just about every topic you could associate with the emo stereotype. But to just look at commentaries because the people writing them have a PhD is stupid. My recommendation: start with the music and Andy's book and go from there. Peace all! :-) Cedars 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

* Andy's book also has something to say about emo and its link to adolescence.

Cheeser, is this source good enough? Or do we need to seperately prove that the article also contains the claims which the title and abstract [[10]] says it does? Or should we find a source which actually states these people are "proper" sciologists first? I see Cunningham is only an "associate" professor, does this mean the article is not sufficiently academic?

Oh, and please do not bother responding unless you can do so without personal attacks like "get on with your life". And don't start arguing for something if you are unwilling to answer followup questions like what the difference between "Emo(slang)" and "Car(word)" is... Lundse 13:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

.

I'd ask you not to begin your branch of this discussion by immediately hearkening back to your inability to understand how disambiguation parentheticals are formulated. I've explained it, and I will not explain it again. If you want to ask such a "followup" question, just refer to the explanation I've already provided. It's not your job to demand that I answer your "followups" - I will answer whatever questions of yours I choose to answer.

As for that source, that was already presented above. I've already explained that this is not an article and it is not published. It's an abstract of a manuscript that the ASA Please read this abstract more carefully. It is a conference talk. If you would look above, you'll notice that I've cited a detailed explanation of WP:RS that explicitly mentions talks at conferences as unreliable sources (and even if that wasn't explicitly spelled out, the bold points I've mentioned should clear up why it fails WP:RS). --Cheeser1 16:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

About my understanding of disambiguation, then you are completely missing the point. And you are still not answering my question, I see. I find this fact a lot more interesting than your convoluted attempts to justify it.

Regarding the source, then I would just love to see one of your long tirades exemplifying why this is not a good source. Please note that I too have access to that RS link you love throwing about (are you getting some kind of kick out of it, or are you really imagining we do not know it? Or do you somehow feel you prove a point about how you like it more than me by pointing to it every other sentence). As such, I am not likely to simply accept your interpretation of it. Regarding this, please note that it does not point out how conference talks are "inadmisible". Also note the source is peer-reviewed and that it was good enough for a roomful of sociologists

I know you are going to balk at this, and claim I am not following the rules. That I am out of line for saying (gasp) my opinion and that this is just not the way things are done here at wikipedia. But please try to take a step back from this, look at the source and tell yourself, straightfaced, in the mirror that this is not a good source. That somehow these three sociologists words (including the ones in the abstract) somehow do not matter.

Oh, and BTW, I would love if your next post could somehow mention how the abstract itself is not a good source. Lundse 20:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You want to talk disambiguations? Emo (slang) is appropriate because "slang" is a kind of term. Car (word) is not appropriate because "word" is not a kind of term (except in a trivial, non-disambiguating way). I've explained it several times, and those explanations are still on this page, but if you want me to type it out again, there you go.

Now then. A conference talk is not a reliable source because (notice this is exactly what I said above) it is not an article and it was not published anywhere, ever. A source of content, especially academic content, included in Wikipedia must be published, and not as a manuscript or draft. The relevant policy is WP:RS and the relevant community-wide consensus on how that policy works in this very specific case is here, where it describes the fact that preprints, conference abstracts, and other such information qualify as self-published, and cannot substantiate academic claims (in fact, self-published sources should virtually never be used).

I'm not here to "balk" at you or "tell you that you [aren't allowed to] say your opinion," so why don't you assume some good faith and instead of thinking that I'm out to quash your opinion, realize that I'm simply pointing you to the relevant policies and community-wide consensus on these matters. You see, I found a disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Here's the abstract that I found online. Should go ahead and change the article to reflect that? Oh wait, that's a self-published article. which means it is not a reliable source. The article even explicitly mentions that a source like this is dubious and not reliable. I guess I shouldn't add that dubious information to the article. That's how WP:RS works.

And once again, as for the content of this abstract: Since there was never any publication of this manuscript, there's no way to know if the author ever demonstrated that emo qualified as a subculture. Perhaps he did not, or perhaps he did so in a way that would not be accepted for publication. Maybe it was a crock and he was laughed out of the conference. Maybe he never showed up! (I missed a conference two years ago due to the flu, and my abstract - including references to an unpublished manuscript - is still posted online.) Certainly, those are more drastic scenarios, but we don't know what he said during that talk and we cannot use an unpublished manuscript - which we don't even have access to - as a source, nor can we use its abstract from a conference. The fact that a few sociologists may have heard him say something aloud, related to a draft of some unpublished paper does not qualify his work as being published, certainly not as being accepted in its field.

You might be impressed by any academic paper that floats through the internet, but I am not. Until it is reviewed thoroughly and accepted for publication in a scholarly journal, it has not made the cut, and could easily be wrong, biased, misguided, or completely absurd. I am not going to assume you are trying to do any wrong or that you're out to push your interpretation of policy onto others (a courtesy you have not given me), and so the most likely scenario seems to be that you do not understand how academic publication works. Until a work is published in a scholarly journal (or as a book, by a scholarly publisher), there is no way it would ever be considered accepted in its field. As I've explained, this abstract of a conference manuscript explicitly fails WP:RS. --Cheeser1 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Responses to my comment should be directed below, where I've had to repeat myself due to this discussion branching into a new section. --Cheeser1 21:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The "new" source

I would like to hear from anyone else how they view the talk/non-published article/abstract source, found here [[11]]. The source is an abstract of an unpublished, peer-reviewed talk/paper given at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association 2003 (and, to some degree, the paper we can infer from it). It is called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’"

I personally think this is a very good source, as I believe we can trust the American Sociological Association to accept papers that use sociological terms appropriately. I believe ignoring this source because is has not been published would be wrong, as we have the abstract, which is pretty clear on the matter. Despite ones view on the source's usefulness, I think one must at least admit that emo can rightfully be called a subculture and refraining from using this knowledge on wikipedia is kind of contrary to WP:IAR.

Also, I believe this is cause to recheck consensus (unless, of course, somebody points out some big problem with the source or consensus seems obviously unreachable when the bullets start flying). Lundse 20:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you've duplicated this discussion, I will re-post my response.

A conference talk is not a reliable source because (notice this is exactly what I said above) it is not an article and it was not published anywhere, ever. A source of content, especially academic content, included in Wikipedia must be published, and not as a manuscript or draft. The relevant policy is WP:RS and the relevant community-wide consensus on how that policy works in this very specific case is here, where it describes the fact that preprints, conference abstracts, and other such information qualify as self-published, and cannot substantiate academic claims (in fact, self-published sources should virtually never be used).

I'm not here to "balk" at you or "tell you that you [aren't allowed to] say your opinion," so why don't you assume some good faith and instead of thinking that I'm out to quash your opinion, realize that I'm simply pointing you to the relevant policies and community-wide consensus on these matters. You see, I found a disproof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Here's the abstract that I found online. Should go ahead and change the article to reflect that? Oh wait, that's a self-published article. which means it is not a reliable source. The article even explicitly mentions that a source like this is dubious and not reliable. I guess I shouldn't add that dubious information to the article. That's how WP:RS works.

And once again, as for the content of this abstract: Since there was never any publication of this manuscript, there's no way to know if the author ever demonstrated that emo qualified as a subculture. Perhaps he did not, or perhaps he did so in a way that would not be accepted for publication. Maybe it was a crock and he was laughed out of the conference. Maybe he never showed up! (I missed a conference two years ago due to the flu, and my abstract - including references to an unpublished manuscript - is still posted online.) Certainly, those are more drastic scenarios, but we don't know what he said during that talk and we cannot use an unpublished manuscript - which we don't even have access to - as a source, nor can we use its abstract from a conference. The fact that a few sociologists may have heard him say something aloud, related to a draft of some unpublished paper does not qualify his work as being published, certainly not as being accepted in its field.

You might be impressed by any academic paper that floats through the internet, but I am not. Until it is reviewed thoroughly and accepted for publication in a scholarly journal, it has not made the cut, and could easily be wrong, biased, misguided, or completely absurd. I am not going to assume you are trying to do any wrong or that you're out to push your interpretation of policy onto others (a courtesy you have not given me), and so the most likely scenario seems to be that you do not understand how academic publication works. Until a work is published in a scholarly journal (or as a book, by a scholarly publisher), there is no way it would ever be considered accepted in its field. As I've explained, this abstract of a conference manuscript explicitly fails WP:RS. --Cheeser1 21:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the term "paper" or "article" is not appropriate. The source you are asking us to accept is a conference abstract. Particularly, it is the abstract of a manuscript. Article or paper refers to a published work. Manuscript refers to a a draft. In case anyone is misunderstanding the terminology involved. That means that while an article would be appropriate for Wikipedia, a manuscript would not. The source in question is a summary of what someone said about his own draft that he might hope to finish and/or publish someday. Until that day comes, it is not an "article" or "paper." --Cheeser1 21:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From the top:

I know it was not published, why are you telling me this again? Furthermore, I specifically said several times that I do not believe this is a good guideline about which sources can be used or not - if the claim was controversial or extraordinary, if there was disgreement between sources or other problems, then of course we should prefer the published one. But the guidelines you point to to support your interpretation here is about "Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine". So is this one of those cases where we can use our own judgement and extrapolate (as opposed to those cases were people disagree with you)?

Regarding assuming good faith, then my claims are simply that you do not try to understand my viewpoint, you do not answer my points and questions, that you continually paint me as wanting to ignore policy. And that you use language such as "your inability to understand" (something which was not even the issue), "Get on with your life" and "What you propose is absurd and misguided at best". I am assuming good faith, but no better than the evidence suggests. I am not going to obliviously ignore the behavior described above, sorry.

Your example from math is irrelevant as the policy you want to apply actually applies to this example and not to the case at hand. Also, I expect we have a lot of sources for that subject which contradict this less-trustworthy source.

Then you pose a lot of maybes. This of course a Argument from ignorance and obviously useless The evidence we do have suggests that sociologists use the word subculture in a way entirely consistent with the proposed move. More on this later (the wacky "think for yourself" section).

Regarding my supposed naivity regarding scientific papers, then I propose the following alternative to assuming I am a complete moron: maybe I am actually aware of these matters, but think that the source is good enough. Especially since we have no other sources (except the other less-reputable ones which also support my claim, of course). I maintain that the bar for being useful for wikipedia is not the same as academic acceptance "accepted in its field".

You also say it is not in any way a paper, which is interesting since it is presented as a "Paper presented..." Also, you somehow gloss over the fact that it has been peer-reviewed (which kind of throws your ad hoc "maybe he was laughed out of the room"-hypothesis into a new light). Is this an oversight on your part or did you consciously choose to ignore this?

And finally to the positive arguments. At this point, whatever ones opinion on which sources we can and should use, you obviously know that subculture is used for such things as musical... subcultures. By students and professors within sociology. I am going to assume this on good faith and normal intelligence (something you did not do for me). So my question is: why do you persist in resisting this change? Could it be because of a long history of defending the other side of the argument, or is there some other reason you do not want this obviously correct information in wikipedia? Why call on RS to keep this information out? Again, why not Ignore the rule at this point and simply write what we all know is true?

Oh, and just to keep track of how many times you will not answer this: why should we have an article on the slang word if there is no "thing out there" which it denotes? And what word would you use to denote such groups in general? This last question may be the real kicker, please try to see if you can fit in a response to it. And to help you out; "slang" is not a word for a social group, it is a word for a word. Which obviously renders the current name completely nonsensical as much as Car_(word) would be. When you attack that analogy instead of addressing it, could you please keep the personal attacks down, thanks. Lundse 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Emo (slang) is an article about the slang use of the term and what it denotes. What does it denote? The things in the article. A way of dressing, an attitude, a type of music, a group of people, etc. Something is not a subculture until it is demonstrated to be - you can assert that sociologists use a term in such a way, but that's blatant WP:SYN and how you think sociologists use a term is not a reliable source. I don't have to find sources to the contrary - until someone publishes a paper that shows it's a subculture, it is not (as far as Wikipedia is concerned). You see, you are arguing to include the claim "emo is a subculture." You do not (as I see it) have a reliable source. I am not arguing to include any claim. Nowhere have I inserted text into the article. I am not adding "Emo is not a subculture" in the article. I don't need to provide a source, because it's not a claim I'm trying to put into the article.

Also, WP:RS actually does require that an academic be a reliable one. Academic work that is either unpublished or not accepted in its field is not reliable. There's really nothing more to it.

Further, the ASA did not publish any paper. The draft may have been reviewed for the purposes of a conference, but that is irrelevant because unpublished manuscripts and conference abstracts are NOT reliable sources. This is explicitly stated in the guidelines relating to the policy. How much plainer could it be? --Cheeser1 12:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On a further note, please do not misinterpret my asking you to assume good faith as a personal attack. I would even ask that you refrain from asserting, in each and every paragraph, that I "never answer your questions" or something like that. I am obviously responding to your concerns, and you're the only one who seems to think that I'm dancing around the questions. This is not a forum for you to come up with "the real kicker" sot hat I can "fit in a response to it." There is no need to "help me out" to try and up the ante. If you consider this a debate, contest, or competition, I would suggest you rethink your approach to this discussion. --Cheeser1 13:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem t be very confused on a few issues, again top-on-down:

First you hand me my previous point on a platter, by admitting that the slang term emo is of course, in the end, about "a group of people". This begs the question of why you were against renaming it Emo_(social group). Why, for all that is holy, should we use X_(slang) for describing X? Are you still not clear on the analogy to Car_(word)? I really do not know how to make this any clearer...

Then go of about where the burden of proof lies. I have no idea why as I have never argued the other side of this.

You reiterate your opinion on the RS policy. Where is the quote substantiating this claim (no, not the one only about physics, math, etc.)? Also, one should not use a policy to keep obviously correct material out of wikipedia on which noone disagrees (lundse correlate to WP:Ignore).

In your next paragraph, you say "Further, the ASA did not publish any paper...". Are you reading what I am writing or have you invented some special version of me which you are communicating with? The post to which you are responding begins "I know it was not published, why are you telling me this again?" What is not getting through here? Why do you persist in painting me as not understanding these obvious facts? Please try to move on and start addressing my points.

The last section is completely weird to me. You seem to think my claim was that your calls for good faith was what prompted me to call you on personal attacks. I have no idea how you arrived at this notion! Please re-read what personal attacks I was talking about, it is written in pretty clear English... And I will keep pointing you to the questions, analogies and points you have failed to respond to. I would, of course, not normally do this in a discussion, but you seem hell-bent on ignoring what I write (and then inventing some other standpoint for me from which you can criticize me). You can stop me at any time by actually entering the discussion: reading what I have read, try to understand my viewpoint and then argue where you believe I am wrong. If you are not willing to do this, simply say so - I am not trying to force you into a consensus-reaching process you do not want to be part of.

If you do want to enter the wikipedia process, please address the fact that we both know that sociologists use the term in this way and why you are trying to keep this material out. I might as well delete all the number article beginnings going "2 is the number after 1..." and demand people find sources for each one. This would be disruptive behaviour and wiki-lawyering, and so is what you are doing here! Lundse 15:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundse - this is accusatory nonsense, and I'm not discussing this with you anymore. You have already assumed that I refuse to even "enter the Wikipedia process". I will not discuss this with you if you are unwilling or unable to assume good faith. I will also direct you to Wikipedia:Common_knowledge, which explains that what you think is common knowledge or "obviously correct" is not necessarily reliable, and back to WP:SYN where it explains that the conclusions you draw based on separate information from two sources (here, the definition of subculture and the description we have of emo) do not constitute reliably sourced information. This is just how things are, and if you want to continue to accuse me of "not understanding these obvious facts" while you ignore WP:RS, I will have nothing to do with this "discussion." --Cheeser1 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying you are not going to enter the discussion, and that I should not go against good faith in saying that you are unwilling to enter wikipedia process of discussing matters in order to reach consensus? The "common knowledge" policy is irrelevant here, please reread my previous comments until you understand how this is the case before you try arguing against me (otherwise, it would of course be strawmanning, although possibly unconsciously so). Do feel free to ask me to clarify. Lundse 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm leaving the discussion because my participation has yielded nothing but nonsense questions intended to obfuscate and prod me. "Why don't you answer my other questions?" is not a salient point in this discussion. You aren't making any points any more, you're just discussing tangentially related analogies and harping on how frustrated I've become by this absurd "discussion." I've pointed to the policies and guidelines that refute your only salient points.

• Can your claim be included based on what we know about subcultures and what we know about emo? no.
• Isn't the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript a reliable source? Nope.
• Can you use some "layman's" definition of "subculture"? No.
• Can you include your claim because it's "obvious" or "common knowledge"? Absolutely not.

Until you raise another salient point, this discussion will be stagnant. I am not interested in discussion of this nature. Until you raise a new salient point, I am not interested in continuing this discussion. You've been beating this dead horse for weeks now. Please stop, because all you seem to be doing is replying with tangential rambling, pedantic analysis of analogies, and claims that I am not "answering your questions" (as if I am required to do so). Unless you intend on proving a point (which wouldn't be appropriate either), you have no reason to continue this discussion. It is in no way productive, and I am no longer willing to participate in it. Please stop harping on irrelevancies, ignoring policy, and dragging me back into this meaningless nonsense. --Cheeser1 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, please note that your "2 comes after 1" example passes WP:CK, while "X group of people is a subculture" does not. That claim requires technical knowledge of a scientific (social-scientific) subject, and thus requires a more reliable source than this alleged "common knowledge." Even if you don't believe that 2 comes after 1, if you look in natural number (linked to in the first sentence of 2 (number)), you find a reliable source wherein successive integers are DEFINED. 2 comes after 1 by definition, according to dozens (hundreds?) of mathematical texts, written by qualified mathematicians. --Cheeser1 09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, please stop misinterpreting everything I write?

I am perfectly aware that there is a difference to the two claims - heck, I even believe the math example to be analytic and not synthetic.

But still, you actually prove my point later on... Obviously, the CK policy does not matter as we are talking the hypothetical situation where someone wants the information cut - whether because he believes it to be wrong or, like you, for some other reason (adherence to the rules as a goal in itself could be a possibility, you haven't really given any other when asked). Now, what we are left with is what you point out correctly: that we have reliable sources which DEFINE integers, and from these we can of course INFER all the "x comes after y" statements. So, in you own way, you stumble upon my point: that this is using inference and that this simply has to be ok sometimes. Otherwise, the entire project would/could crawl to a halt.

BTW, how is your answer to the denotation question coming along? Let me know if I can help clear something up about it... Lundse 12:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't get it. X comes after Y is how you define integers - this is stated in the article and sourced properly. Hence there is no WP:SYN going on there (unlike your proposal here). You are spending too much time pedantically and ignorantly examining analogies that you don't even understand. If you're going to try to be clever or witty and use math analogies against me (like I said already), please learn math first. --Cheeser1 12:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. This is the last time I am going to tell you before I use (gasp) the rules!

This is also the last time I will explain to you how you really need to read what I am saying more carefully. In your latest message, you paint me as not understanding math, my analogy and specifically, that x after y is how you define intergers.

First of all, when we start discussing math, we can talk about who understands it or not. Right now, we are using a hypersimplistic example from math in order to make you understand something else by analogy. We agree about it (although you may side with Kant against me on whether 2 follows 1 being synthetic, but this is not important to the analogy).

Secondly, claiming I do not understand my own analogy is not constructive. I humbly suggest that it is you who do not understand my analogy, and that I actually know where I was going with it. Otherwise, please specify how you have better access to my thoughts than me.

And thirdly, in my message, it was abundantly clear that I agreed that 2 comes after 1 and that we use our definition of integers when we infer this. Please try to answer this one: how did you get the idea that I disagreed with this? I submit that not only does one have to assume good faith, one also has to assume that people mean what they say and are able to understand the things they describe accurately. Now, I am sure you are right in saying this claim regarding the definition is sourced correctly, but this is entirely irrelevant! I was talking about sourcing the claim "2 follows 1". Again, I said this specifically, how did you get it wrong? Are you trying to misinterpret me?

Where the synthesis is ostensibly going on is from "theory about integers" (properly sourced) to a specific claim about two specific integers! (unsourced, as few mathematicians run around writing papers proving 55 follows 54). The difference is between the rule and using the rule to describe eg. 2 in relation to 1. Please make sure you understand this last part before you answer. Lundse 14:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"2 is the number after 1" is verifiable and reliably sourced by pointing to one of hundreds of books on set theory or logic. This is not "inferred" from the definition, it is the definition. More importantly, this is irrelevant, inflammatory, ignorant, and tangential nonsense. Just stop. --Cheeser1 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, apparently you did not understand the last part, so I cannot really do much with your "answer" as it still does not begin to address the point. Let me know if there is any specific area of the analogy/example I can help clarify - otherwise I will assume you either cannot or do not want to understand it.

BTW, if you truly believe the statement "2 is the number after 1" (and other comparable statements in the number articles) is directly sourced why don't you point me to the sources? The ones which do not state a general definition of integers but contain the claim directly? Apparently, being so much better at math than me, you seem to know about some branch of mathematicians who do go around writing "55 follows 54" in their papers.. Lundse 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I already said, this is the mathematical definition of the number 2. See here and here. The number 2 is defined as the successor of 1, which is itself the successor of 0. While it's not in any modern paper, this fact can be found in virtually any introductory text on mathematical logic or set theory. I've already said all of this. Stop repeating your made-up non-mathematical nonsense analogy, it is nothing but an invalid, irrelevant analogy wherein you don't eve know what you're talking about. It is absurd, off-topic, and nonsensical. --Cheeser1 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, you do not seem to have grasped what the analogy is about or what it is trying to establish. Given this, I hope you will excuse me if I do not take your evaluation of it too serious. I am aware that you have "said all of this" - but the fact still remains that it is all irrelevant to my point. Try reading it again.

You claim that "2 follows 1" is in modern textbooks. This seems fair enough. What about similar statements on other numbers (such as 54 or 124)? Can you not see the difficulty in finding a source for these claims? Lundse 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a multitude of books on number theory as well as many reference books that contain lengthy tables of solutions to mathematical functions. I still maintain that Emo is a subculture and that the current title of this article sucks, however I must concur with Cheeser1 at this point: without an adequate source the title shouldn't be changed. Neitherday 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection to renaming the article is not simply that I am unconvinced how much of a subculture it is, but also that the article seems to be primarily about emo as a slang term. If the article is updated so that it primarily gives information about the emo subculture (e.g., information about the history of the subculture, things like clubs or festivals, and referenced information on what the people actually wear), rather than things like stereotypes, then it might be worth renaming. Mdwh 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree. Only, I also believe there is no reason to have the Emo_(slang) article at all. Lets have an article on what it denotes instead. And I think we should make the move and then worry about the content (otherwise we will never make a good article as there is only so much one can write on a slang word).Lundse 11:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's better to adjust the article first ("slang" can cover the subculture too). Alternatively you or someone could work on a test article (I think you can put them as sub-pages in your user page, or something?) to see what people think. Mdwh 11:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that might work too. I am afraid, though, that good content for a page on the emo subculture might not be accepted in the article. A userspace article might be the solution, but then I am afraid not enough editors would want to add content (given the danger that it never becomes used). That said, I am all for expanding this article to cover the emo subculture better and then making the move when it becomes more clear that this is what the article has become. Given the controversies, I just thought it might be better to make it clear that such content is desirable. Lundse 11:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Done

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

Article looks good - you have improved it a great deal!

A respectable article now. Good work! --Mattisse 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The new source, seen strictly through the rules

As has been established ad nauseum on these pages, I believe the source [[12]] to be good and sufficient reason to make the move from Emo_(slang) to Emo_(subculture). Other reasons to do this includes that by having an article on the slang term which describes the "group of people" out there, we are already making the claim that these people exist and "slang" becomes a weasel word at best. Also, no contributors I have communicated with seems to believe emo does not denote a group of people (making the alternative "social group" a great compromise). Lastly, keeping this article about the slang word means a lot of good material on the social group gets cut out be reference to the fact that "this is not about the slang word", which is a shame as a lot of this might be good information.

In the past, theese discussions have grinded to a halt, once with a vote which did not secure consensus for a move. I personally do not feel there were any good causes not to make the move, nor have I been able to discuss matters satisfyingly here - sorry to those sick of seeing the discussion going on so long :-). So I'll try the policy route. To summarize, the source is a "paper presented at a conference" and it has been peer-reviewed. We have the abstract for the paper and we know its primary author and presenter is a professor of sociology and that it was presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association.

The relevant policies are:

WP:SPS - is basically against self-published sources. My opponent in this debate so far has himself cited this policy, and while the analogy between non-printed, peer-reviewed paper and eg. blogged content is not entirely without its problems, then this is a clear case of a source being "semi-published". But the policy also says:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

First of, we know this is a professor of sociology and he is published in the field. Regarding the end warning, then we do not have a better source for the claim, but nor do we even seem to have a single individual who actually disagrees with it! On the strength of this, I think we can use the source.

Conference proceedings [[13]]. There has been a discussion on something similar before. It warns of non-peer-reviewed conferences (not a problem here) and less-than-reputable-conferences (not a problem either). But you can read it for yourselves...

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Says:

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

While I would love to quote from a book on my shelf (at this point, after long discussion - initially I would never have found it necesarry), then I am of course aware that the source we do have is somewhat less than this. I quote this policy to make it clear that while the former is prefered, then "mainstream publications" are also accepted. I maintain that the annual meeting of sociologists is a better source than a newspapers article on a sociology topic. This is counter to claims made here on this page that we absolutely need an academic, published source.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#arXiv_preprints_and_conference_abstracts. Is really a policy on math, physics and medicine, but I believe we can extrapolate some things from it (although we cannot wield it like a bible). Specifically, the policy on history clearly recommends certain abstract services. This policy does make it clear that:

Such websites exercise no editorial control over papers published there. For this reason, arXiv (or similar) preprints and conference abstracts should be considered to be self-published, as they have not been published by a third-party source, and should be treated in the same way as other self-published material.

Now, our source here is mentioned in three places (and thats just the web, mind you): [[14]], [[15]], [[16]] - all of them within academia - one (sorry, the) sociological asociation, and within two university sites. So there has been editorial control, as the "peer-reviewed" bit also hints at... The policy also says:

Similarly, material presented at a conference may not merit publication in a scientific journal.

This is of course true, but I think that given the conference in question, this paper is not without merits. It has also been pointed out that the paper may have been totally unacceptable, etc. etc. While this is true (of any source, published or not), I tend to think that "peer-reviewed" is more important than "put to actual paper". I believe this is in the spirit of the policies and trying to use the best source.

The first one is of course most pertinent. I hope to get some comments and evaluations of my arguments. Lundse 20:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS says Academic and peer-reviewed publications and respected mainstream publications.. Key word "publications." This was never published. Presentation of anything at any conference qualifies as self-publication. The fact that the abstract of a manuscript is mentioned at:

1. a list of conference abstracts,
2. a different, redundant, list of conference abstracts from the same website,
3. the author's personal (self-published) website, and
4. the other author's personal (self-published) website

none of this qualifies this as published in any way. "Academia" does not extend to the personal websites of professors. I could post anything I want on my department's website, does that mean it's academically verified??? No! All it means is that I happen to have access to dot-edu webspace, like thousands of other people, all of whom can post whatever they want, whenever they want, through the magic of FTP (let's not even go into the fact that personal websites are not a secure or reliable source of information either). Professor's blogs are not reliable (per WP:SPS). Nor are their manuscripts, conference abstracts, or personal websites. You see, the ASA publishes 10 journals [17], and this article was published in 0 of them. The fact that the conference listed some unknown type of review is irrelevant. Do you know how those criteria compare to the criteria for publication? No. Do we know if the manuscript has meet the criteria for publication? No. Is the manuscript even finished? No (it's a manuscript). For all we know, this form "Review type: peer review" is asking for review, not saying that it has been reviewed. None of us have any idea what kind of review process, if any, this manuscript has been through, or if has passed any such review. In academics, and in the eyes of Wikipedia policy on academic works, the only peer-review that matters is the review that approves your article for publication. Until that happens, the work is not accepted in the field and does not constitute a reliable source. I know you want to trust anybody with a PhD, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Finally, we don't even have the paper. All you have is a citation. Do you know what the contents of the paper are? No. It is not available for anyone to read because it has not been published. Maybe before it's published he will change the terminology to something other than subculture. Maybe it will never be published. Maybe he says somewhere, in a footnote or sidebar, that "emo" isn't really a subculture, but that he's using those methods of analysis anyway. This latter conjecture is reasonable, given the conference abstract stating: "While the study of subcultures has largely been abandoned by American sociologists over the last two decades, we propose a methodological approach that takes seriously Fine and Kleinman’s (1979) call for the examination of subcultural artifacts in the context of an interactionist framework.". For all we know, this is a new and untested kind of analysis, and it appears that this topic has been "largely abandoned" by sociologists - meaning that this is not necessarily within the framwork of accepted theory. In the end, it is just not a reliable source, no matter how much it agrees with you and no matter how much you want it to be. Sorry. --Cheeser1 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)