Talk:Emo (slang)

See Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive1 for discussion prior to this article's move to Emo (slang).

== This is not MySpace.com

Everything - including this discussion-page - needs to be cleaned.

Does anyone agree with me that this article needs to be visually represented?

The article itself seems to be reaching the phase of acceptability, in terms of the information and knowledge it contains on the slang meaning behind emo, but I think the best way for people to understand is to be visually stimulated; it would be great if someone could find the picture of an acrhetypal "emo" person. Now I'm not saying to flood the article with pictures of emo kids. But, rather that we need to show a picture of the traditional attire/culture of the emo kids (girl pants, tight black shirt with a random design, the straight black eye-covering hair, etc). --John Brown 03:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...the problem with that idea is no one can agree with what a "typical" emo looks like--we have some examples of clothing, but they're the Lowest common denominator of what emos wear. Good luck, just remember copyrights and stuff--if you want to take anything off of a website, you need to be sure it's ok to do so. I'd go for something in a well-known source, not MySpace or some personal page.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful. See my comments below. youngamerican (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This article should be at least rewritten and at worst deleted

This whole article is a joke, there is no connection between the mallcore generation of nu-emo groups and the Goth movement of the 1980s, whoever wrote this article needs to get a clue - Deathrocker 06:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"Lots of people" have written this article. It's what a wiki is about, and is why the article seems to be some sort of battleground for people with opposing views about something which is essentially ill-defined. Someone42 07:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For starters, mallcore doesn't exist. No band or person walks up and says "I'm into mallcore" or "I listen to mallcore music". It's bullshit. It's an insult coming from someone who sees no value in a certain style of music or dress.

Beyond that: did you even bother to read the article or understand the implications? The reference to the Goth scene of the 80s talks about how DIFFERENT the "emo" scene is from the original "goth" scene. The point being made is that the goth scene dressed "goth" to identify themselves as part of the scene, but dressing "emo" doesn't serve the same purpose.

This article rather blatantly asserts that the "emo" style of the modern era borrows significantly from the older "goth" scene - it says NOTHING about goth becoming a part of "emo". That's not the argument that's being made whatsoever.

Oh, and you deleted the references to MCR and AFI being "goth". AFI has been called a "goth punk" band for YEARS. They may or may not have been considered part of the "official" (whatever the hell that is) goth scene, but they have been REGULARLY mentioned as having goth influences, which is precisely what this article is addressing. Both MCR and AFI fashion themselves in a way that very strongly resembles the old goth styles, a style that is being newly lumped in as "emo" now that the music media has decided that they're "emo". That's the entire point of that paragraph - that some elements of old "goth" are being co-opted as "emo". -- ChrisB 09:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The media calls Mairlyn Manson a goth, that doesn't mean he is, Davey Havok of AFI often says that his band is NOT goth. Nothing is "borrowed" from the Goth movement of the 1980s, wearing black clothing doesn't make somebody a goth, incase you didn't know people wore black clothing before the 1980s and the goth movement. Infact using Google you could probably get an image of George Bush wearing black, should we start an article about George Bush's presidency been influenced by 80's Goth?? I don't think so.

You are clearly clueless in the department of the goth movement as you say “Whatever the hell that is” I suggest you try educating yourself. - Deathrocker 10:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are 100% accurate. Marilyn Manson is not goth, and neither is AFI. We're not claiming that whatsover. AND THE ARTICLE DOESN'T CLAIM THAT PEOPLE WEARING BLACK ARE GOTH.

If I put on a tye-dye shirt and birkenstocks, my outfit borrows from the "hippie" style - it doesn't make me a hippie. You're fighting a battle that has NOTHING to do with what this article is addressing.

And you're "Limp Bizkit and Goth" Google comparison is completely irrelevant, given that NONE of the results actually calls Limp Bizkit a goth band. By comparison, a search for "goth punk" and "afi" turns up results that say things like, "Many people refer to A.F.I. as a 'goth-punk' band."

I DON'T CARE IF MCR AND AFI ARE ACTUALLY GOTH BANDS, AND THAT CLAIM IS NOT MADE IN THE ARTICLE. Why do you think "goth" is in quotes in the entire paragraph? The point is that styles that have been previously called "goth" BY OTHER PEOPLE are now also being called "emo" BY OTHER PEOPLE.

If you actually bothered to read and comprehend what the article says, there is absolutely nothing in it that warrants you getting this upset.

Here's a twist: I don't personally believe that any of this article describes "emo". It wasn't "emo" five or six years ago when I was a part of the scene. But people are now using the term "emo" in this manner, and here I am writing about it.

And my point about "official" is that I think it's UNBELIEVABLY pretentious to claim that there's a certain brand of something that's acceptable, but people who do the same thing but don't have the same "credibility" are unacceptable. People shouldn't be demeaned for doing something they enjoy doing - liking a certain band or dressing a certain way - regardless of how "lame" it is. -- ChrisB 20:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed an individual's rantings about how society needs to accept gay people. This is not the place for telling others how they should conduct themselves, this is supposed to be an unbiased presentation of information. --

padonae 1:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding MCR or AFI being classified as goth bands - are there any references for this? Also, if we're in agreement that they are not goth bands, just because "some people say" they are, doesn't mean this is worth mentioning. Some people incorrectly claim all sorts of bands are some genre or another, but that isn't notable. The MCR and AFI articles don't seem to mention any goth classifications.

Regarding comparisons between goth and emo - in my experience, the comparisons have been purely in a derogatory sense. Eg, people would once brand people as being "goths" as an insult, especially for reasons related to what they wore, their sexuality, being depressed or being a self-harmer - now I've seen "emo" being used instead. I don't know whether this is worth mentioning or not - but I've never seen goth or emo used interchangeably in any other sense. Mdwh 00:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

MCR?

My chemical Romance is so not emo. who ever said that has no idea. MCR is more goth, ask an emo they wouldnt say they like MCR.

65.188.222.91 23:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)nepegg89

I'm emo and I like MCR.----SOAD_ROCKS

That's all personal opinion. Whether or not you consider them "emo", they have been considered, by many, to represent the emo (music), not the emo (slang). In fact, MTV and other pop culture media such as LaunchCast popularize them and categorize them under the genre "emo". Another good example of an emo (music) disputable band would be Avenged Sevenfold. And please, don't get all upset just because people call a favored band of yours "emo". We state facts, not opinions or emotions. Please be sure to look at NPOV. --EMC 04:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish, Trash, Wrong, and Insulting...Is objectivity DEAD!?!?

Yeah I "vandalized" this article, but being that this is a FREE encyclopedia, for anyone to edit, I have a right to change things. No I have a duty to change things IF the content is wrong (not factual) and/or biased. If you have to place a disclaimer at the beginning of an entry, the entry should be removed or edited to remove the questionable content until a non-biased definition is compiled. Until then less is more. This entry was VERY biased and it is a shame that I had to "vandalize" to make it more honest. Look at a real encyclopedia for examples of how to define a term in a NON- BIASED fashion please. Other entries in Wikipedia are quite well done, this one, however, was complete rubbish. [edit by 151.201.238.248]

This brings up a discussion on how this article could be written. "Emo" is such a loosely defined term, like existentialism, and it suffers from the same problem in that there is a disagreement about what it actually refers to. However, unlike existentialism, scholars have not written works on how they perceive "Emo". So we're stuck with a dilemma: either we have a short article describing a broad concept, or we have a collection of different viewpoints which will require heavy editing to NPOVerize. How do others think this article should be written? Someone42 07:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I can help? Emo = kids listening to crappy, depressing music while they cut themselves and write about it on their myspace sites; haven't ever heard of The Cure, think they invented Goth, but haven't heard the term; often addicted to Ritalin. Kar98 22:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you have no idea what you're talking about. Timeasimperialism

As quoted from the article, "don't cry emo kid" --Psycho78m 05:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you seemed to sum up the worst possible incorrect and mainstream definition for emo possible. This is exactly the problem with the whole artical. Too many people actually believe that's what emo is. -- Underwater 03:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Emo Getting Backlash ALREADY?

As far as I know Emo is a brand new, not dying genre. If it's getting backlash I don't know what's hot now!

-Mike the Rocker, www.soundclick.com/posseoftwo

i'll redirect you to Emo Mwhale 15:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Emo has been around since the 80s just never really been insulted before now. So now they can all cheer up because they are being noticed. -Helena Rayne TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Emo is simply WAAAAAY to easy to pick on! Essentially they're goths who kind of overdid it a hell of a bit too much and therefore lost their street cred. No wonder we Gothic people think they're kinda stupid! Start supporting good music and stop stealing my f*cking eyeliner! If you want to mope about, go buy yourself a copy of The Cure's Pornography album and slash your wrists to that soundtrack instead of Texas Is On Fire or whatever. If you want to BORROW my eyeliner, ASK me first and then RETURN it! My only wish is for some kind of rehab where these poor, mislead, children can come and learn how to be proper goths. It would include losts of Punk Rock and Goth history lessons, and Strictly No Emo Music! Okay, I throw in exception to MCR, as they have proper goth bloodlines, they are just a bit offbase is all! -Morticia

This has to be one of the funniest comments I have read, ever. 68.63.219.112 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Obsession With Emo

What is the obession with Emo these days? All the goth and punk kids hate emo. What is the point? What is the obsession? TearAwayTheFunerealDress 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll just point out that emo was started by punk kids. Ian Mackaye of minor threat for one. Stupidkrazykarl

Believe me, the only people who hate emo more than punk kids and goth kids are metalheads. I'm a metalhead, and some of my friends go around beating emo kids and everything (I don't do that though, but I still hate emo)

• No, TROO TUFF STRAIGHTEDGE HC KIDS is the group who hates emos the most, just because emo focused on emotions while they focused on politics, being tough, and straightedge. Also, emo is very abstract and artsy, so obviously it will be looked down upon by some. You probably are just beating up little mallcore/mallgoth kids. Timeasimperialism

^^^ Actually, Ian MacKaye didn't start emo at all, not even close. Minor Threat didn't even sing about that kind of stuff. However, MacKaye might have had a musical influence on emo, as he had a very huge musical influence in D.C. at the time emo was invented. -- Necromancer 00:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ian Mackaye may not have started emo (I think Embrace and Moss Icon more or less did), but Ian, in an interview, discussed how Rites of Spring was coined "emo" so yes, he plays a major part. By the way, just because MINOR THREAT didn't sing about that kind of stuff, Rites of Spring (Ian produced them) and Embrace do.Timeasimperialism

Emo IS a recognised off-shoot of Punk. However, that dosn't mean it's good music just like the rest of punk more or less. There is emotional punk rock out there, and if they're that desperate, all emo kids have to do is wipe the tears from their eyes enough to safely drive to their local record store and pick up any of a bazillion titles in Emo's sister genre, Goth. God knows goth can be just as beautifully depressing as emo! Just go and pick up some oh, I dunno, Black Tape For A Blue Girl for example. They're suitably depressed.~Morticia

• How can goth and emo be sister genres when they sound nothing alike and look nothing alike?

I can't say for sure about anywhere else or anyone else, but in my school it is not cool to be "emo". Period. I doubt that anyone in my school even knows what "emo" music is besides My Chemical Romance. Out of my entire school only two people are probably identifiably "emo". The rest are being tagged with this new term for wearing black. However, most of the people who accuse anyone else of being "emo" in my school wouldn't be tell apart punk from metal from goth from emo. Most of the people that I know personally are not "emo", they are either (heavy/death)metal or punk and very few consider themself gothic but even the number of self-proclaimed Satanists outnumbers anyone who would actually want to be "emo". I wouldn't know about emo as a music genre. It's still too small to really be considered a new genre though it must be getting there. I believe that if people who try to be "emo" keep following the sterotypes, then as much as any true "emo" would hate for it to be, "emo" will officially become a term to describe over-emotional, dramatic, depressed people. This is already what the word supposedly means in my school, but I only know of two people who actually follow that sterotype and write dark poetry and such. I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but here it's not exactly making waves. Maybe "emo" is so obsessed over because teenagers already have enough emotions but they're embracing the darker emotions much more (maybe to get attention, I don't really know). There are three things that teenagers generally experiment with: spirituality, drugs, and sexuality. Teenagers always have emotions, but they shouldn't be labeled "emo" by other kids because they're depressed or (heaven forbid) feel sad after a break up. Let them bounce back, let's just help out the poor misguided kids. Adolescence is hard enough without fearing what people will call you for the clothes you wear, grades you get, music you listen to and now the emotions that you feel. - Josie

Emo is the new "goth" to the musically ignorant. They both wear black and are depressed, so according to musically ignorant kids they see the same thing. It's just a new insult word, like "I hate goths, there creepy." Now it's "I hate emo kids." It's become an insult coming from the mouths of the ignorant. Almost everybody who gets called emo isn't. In fact most of the emos that would get called it probably shouldn't care what society thinks since their trying to be disenfrachised. And as far as it being used as an insult The Emo Song hasn't helped any, mainly it's just stereotyoed Emo kids as a bunch of wrist slashing bipolars.----SOAD_ROCKS

VOTE FOR REMOVAL.

definate bias, and opinion/POV showing here i can draw a great phycological pict about this/these authors. get it out. despite my opinions about "emo", (what it is, is it cool, is it not)

Reasons for complete deletion

1. this article has problems that can't be solved or agreed upon

2. dosen't belong in a COLOABORATION of FREE, SHARED, human knowledge if it is to be respected.

3. requires constant updating from a non-biased source.

Imagine a journalist, who is not involved in music or fashion, delving into the shady nether-world of emo day and night to get the real scoop on the situation.

I'll do it, but only if you teach a monkey to suck my cock whgen i snap my fingers. Its my opinion that it should go and its my opinion that should be yours. [email removed] User:66.167.44.130

-NO! article is dead on! keep it!

I'm with you. 24.124.112.89 04:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Childe Roland

You're quite welcome to put the article up for a deletion discussion (see WP:AFD) but frankly, I think it's too much of a well known word to be removed. The article needs to be improved, not deleted._└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I say don't delete it. As soon as some author or journalist creates a credible source, we can fix it. Until then, we'll just keep it very short and conservative so not to piss anyone off. If you delete this, the article will be rebuilt within hours, because emos are a giant part of the current pop culture. The users and visitors of wikipedia won't stand to purposely leave giant gaps of information in the encyclopedia.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Verify and OR templates

I originally added the verify and original research templates because, frankly, a lot of the information in this article seems unverifiable. As such, it appears to be original research. Of course, if it's verified, then it's clearly not original research, and if it's original research, there's no way to verify it. So, unless both of these conditions are shown to be false, I'm pretty sure the article should carry those tags.

Incidentally, ChrisB, I'm a big fan of the work you've been doing on the Emo (music) page. I hope we can come to a good conclusion with this. I won't re-add the tags until (or unless) we decide that's a good course of action here. --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 04:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly, the problem with this entire article is that it largely exists to keep this crap out of Emo (music) since it has practically nothing to do with Emo as a music genre (which long predates the use of the word "emo" in this way). This article started as "21st Century Emo", but said nearly nothing about the music, largely focusing on (largely false) stereotypes.

To be honest, I wish this article didn't exist. I'm not particularly comfortable with the word "emo" being used as it is. (I was active in the Emo scene of the late 90s, and "emo" was never used like this back then.)

The problem is that it's definitely out there. If this article didn't exist, someone would create it to express their vision of what "emo" is, and it wouldn't be pretty (or accurate). (That's basically what "21st Century Emo" was.) And, in essence, it would be even more on the side of "original research", granted that journalism doesn't cover how "emo" is "gay", is for "people who slit their wrists", and "sucks".

The truth is, unlike terms like "fashioncore" and "mallcore", "emo" describes something that actually exists. The former terms are entirely derogative: nobody gets dressed, looks in the mirror, and says, "Man, I'm so awesomely fashioncore." If someone dresses "fashioncore", they're doing it for an entirely different reason - somebody's just calling them fashioncore because they don't see any value in it. "Emo" is being used in that manner as well - the major difference being that some folks intentionally dress "emo" and refer to themselves that way.

It's arguable as to whether this article counts as original research, but I think most of the elements of the article have been discussed in the music press. Admittedly, I recoiled when I saw the template tags, given the absolute disaster of an article that 21st Century Emo was. This article is readily more verifiable and even-handed than that one ever was. (That article was largely written by a handful of specific people who conceded that they were simply writing their observations of the folks they knew who fit their description of "emo".)

Is there a specific part that reads like original research or that needs to be cited? Admittedly, it's tough to find specific articles that go into detail about "emo" as it pertains to fashion and attitude, given that nobody with any journalistic integrity is going to touch the subject. But I feel like most of it is at least relatively confirmable via media outlets like MTV, Rolling Stone, and Spin. (Even if, half the time, they don't know what they're talking about.)

My concern is that even if the article could count as "original research", labelling it that way automatically casts it as biased or untrue. And I think that opens the door to more vandalism, or, at least, to more ricidulous and unfounded stereotypes.

I feel the focus shouldn't be to cast the article one way or the other - it should be to improve it to describe the popular perception of "emo" as closely as possible without diving into negativity. -- ChrisB 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You know, I totally understand your points. I agree that "emo" as a term has this weird recent connotation that seemed to have come out of nowhere, and anyone who's followed the timeline of the emo label can see that a couple of years ago, it took some sharp turn into very new territory.

At the same time, I'm inclined to think that, and this is idealistic, I know, but as much as Wikipedia needs to fill the void left by the obvious existence of the term emo and the lack of information available, original research is pretty much unacceptable. It does seem like the lesser of two evils, though. I agree with that.

Ultimately, I think the best solution would be to find an article or two describing what is now known as emo, in some back issue of Rolling Stone or something. I believe they'll exist, and I'll start looking if you do too, because a source would totally calm my concerns. Frankly, though a topic like "emo" decidedly merits inclusion here, it is only borderline encyclopedic, and suffers from an unfortunate conundrum; either the article comes off like one man's opinion (which, I think, is the side it's leaning towards here- the lesser of two evils) or it reads like some overwrought Britannica entry and doesn't really inform the reader about the actual topic at hand.

I have no issue with the content here. In spite of being, perhaps, original research, it is all, as near as I can tell, true. So, one or two credible sources, and we have our-self a genuine article. I'm not going to re-add the templates (I agree it makes the article seem wrong) but let's find those references. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 10:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay! I'll keep poking around to see if I can find solid sources. Which may be harder than it sounds. So far, I've got this.  ;) -- ChrisB 10:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Social Impact

Some of the recent additions are precisely the kinds of topics that this article should not be covering. For example:

1. Using Myspace does not lead to suicide. (Nothing in the formerly-linked article references emo.)
2. Not all "emo" kids are suicidal.
3. There is not a predominance of bisexuality in "emo".

No, there is just a predominacne of bisexuality in poser rebels, many of whom happen to be emo. --ScWizard 03:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Kids have been ranting about angst issues since the beginning of time. The shift to Myspace and Livejournal simply reflects an opening of what was previously kept private. This is not unique to emo.
2. Okay, so there isn't a tv program that focuses on "emo". There is no need to include a section saying so.
3. The position in American Culture bit is dubious at best. Emo does not have the kind of widespread mass popularity or recognition as any of the other genres mentioned. Emo is not even close to rising to the level of "cultural movement".

While this article is intended to cover the wide topics related to "emo", we should be making an effort to retain some kind of verifiability. Saying that everything that's "emo" relates to a melancholy attitude is a generalization that is factually dubious at worst and unprovable at best. -- ChrisB 03:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• “While this article is intended to cover the wide topics related to "emo", we should be making an effort to retain some kind of verifiability. Saying that everything that's "emo" relates to a melancholy attitude is a generalization that is factually dubious at worst and unprovable at best.”

Agreed, we should retain some kind of verifiability, however, “emo” as slang does relate to a melancholy attitude. Source Urbandictionary.com

“Defining Emo is like telling people what's in Heaven; you're just bound to piss someone off. For me, it's the obvious - it's short for 'emotional'. His highs are real high, and his lows are real low. He over analyzes and just feels too damn much. As you'll see in the comic, there's a constant monologue running in his head, the world is a bad poem. ” :-http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=176

I realize that “emo” as a musical style does not mean emotion, but as slang it does.

• “Using Myspace does not lead to suicide.”

Agreed, using MySpace does not lead to suicde. The article never said it did.

• Not all "emo" kids are suicidal.

Agreed, The article specifically said not a “emo” kids are suicidal, however, there is a large population of children who identify themselves as “emo” and write suicidal thoughts or poetry in their blogs.

• “There is not a predominance of bisexuality in "emo".”

This is possible, however, there does seem to be a predomincnce of a bisexual friendly mindset. Which is notable. It is hard to reference this because “emo” is so new that not many articles are written on it. However this interview of the writer of the “emo boy” comic does mention bisexuality

“Yes, definitely. There's going to be some larger stories, and more short ones. Issue 2 will be one 28 page story, where Emo Boy goes to a concert and finally meets a girl he's longed for since the 2nd grade. In issues after that, he'll play some dodgeball, attempt suicide, confront some old demons, consider bisexuality, and do an autobio comic book, all kinds of fun stuff. And prom! ”

<http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=176>

and from searching the web emo+bisexual you can find many profiles of children who are self proclaimed emo and bisexual

<http://www.google.com/search?q=bisexual+emo+myspace>

You get even more hits for <http://www.google.com/search?q=bisexual+christian+myspace>, but I'm not sure that proves anything. Mdwh 00:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• “Kids have been ranting about angst issues since the beginning of time. The shift to Myspace and Livejournal simply reflects an opening of what was previously kept private. This is not unique to emo.”

Culture groups such as: Blues, Jazz, counter culture Rock, and Hip Hop have all been based on “ranting” about issues, however, “emo” is notably different in that the words or lyrics are angst, melancholy or even suicidal where as the other cultural groups were not especially to the extent which “emo” is.

I think the point is that whilst it's notable to document the typical theme of the lyrics of emo music (though that would probably be better placed at emo (music), it's speculation to make claims about the attitudes of emo people on LiveJournal or MySpace. There are a lot of people writing angst on online journals in general (which is no different to the way people used to do it offline), but I see no evidence that there is any correlation between them and people who identify as emo. Mdwh 00:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• “Okay, so there isn't a tv program that focuses on "emo". There is no need to include a section saying so.”

I was hopping some one would prove me wrong and it is also notable because as mentioned MTV has started to pick up on the trend.

• “The position in American Culture bit is dubious at best. Emo does not have the kind of widespread mass popularity or recognition as any of the other genres mentioned. Emo is not even close to rising to the level of "cultural movement".”

Agreed, however, the “emo” culture is notable. It marks a sharp shift from previous cool sub cultures. “Emo” is similar to goth or punk, but neither culture had gained momentum and popularity as fast as emo has. It was never cool to be goth or punk. Many of todays youths feel it is cool to be “emo.”

I hope you find my reasoning satisfactory, I can understand your point of view Chris, but lets not leave out information about a culture, that calls them self "emo", becuase there is little documentation on it-- Kaddds 08:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this a joke to you? Do you have any idea what you're talking about? "Never cool to be goth or punk"? What? For starters, that's patently false. At the same time, since when has it been popular or acceptable to be "emo"? Half the shit you cited in your edit fucking insults anything and everything remotely related to "emo".

If you're going to insist on adding this complete and total garbage, I don't think I have any other choice but to add dispute. This is absolutely beyond unacceptable. -- ChrisB 11:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I appreciate your concern with the validity of this article. You have done a good job of moderating this article and for that thank you. I'm trying to see your point of view and I am sorry, that you take offense to what I have contributed to the article.

I feel the discrepancy's we are having is related to the fact that “emo” is a slang term that has many meaning to different people. To you I am guessing “emo” has to do with strictly a music genre. I feel it is important though to recognize the current subculture that calls themselves “emo”. To inform and shed light onto a subculture that is largely unknown by people over the age of 18 and largely misunderstood.

The reason I say the“emo” subculture popularity is different than goth or punk is that I have noticed that more and more of the so called “cool kids” - the trend setters and popular teenagers call themselves “emo” and embrace the culture. This is the first time that it has been cool to be bisexual. And is a sharp change in what fashion style is cool -- for men to wear tight pants. Goth and punk teenagers have never really been labeled the “cool kids” or trend setters, they have always been and wanted to be a subculture. Kaddds 12:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, so you've seen some kids dress "emo" and that makes you an expert in all things emo?

And don't patronize me. If you thought I'd been doing a good job, you wouldn't completely disregard my input.

Significant problems in your edit:

1) I called out the fact that the article about the suicide had nothing to do with emo, so you went out and found one that did. One article does not make a trend. Two articles would not make a trend. Suicide is not any more prevalent in "emo" than it is among any other popular music genre. (Suicide happened among fans of grunge, particularly after Cobain's death; that didn't make it part of grunge.)

2) You called "emo" a slang term here, but called it a "cultural movement" in the article. If it's a slang term, it cannot possibly be a "cultural movement". Read Cultural movement and see for yourself that it does not even REMOTELY rise to that threshold. (If you want a comparison, the trends and attitudes associated with grunge music were not a cultural movement. Fans of grunge shared the same attitudes and fashion trends. And, for the record, it was far more popular than "emo" is right now.)

3) The predominance of self-pitying blogs is not unique or specific to &quot;emo". If you go through Myspace and LiveJournal, you'll find hundreds of teenagers writing the same topics. They're not all emo kids, they're just teenagers dealing with the average teen angst.

4) Your (now removed) link to the Google search for "emo myspace bisexual" ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the results INSULTED emo kids. It didn't support your assertion that emo kids were bisexual; all it did was point out the stereotype. At best, the article could reference something like: "There is a belief among who do not participate in 'emo' that 'emo kids' are largely bisexual, a generalization that serves more as a stereotype than as a factual statement."

5) Until there is a tv show that covers "emo", the entire media section should be removed. There's not even an "emo" magazine. There are zines that cover emo music, and have for twenty years. But those do not belong in the context of this article.

6) Comparing emo to hip-hop, jazz, and hippies is absolutely irrelevant. In all three of those cases, the musical elements were clearly defined. Yet one of the most glaring problems with emo as a music trend is that it's undefinable. Nobody knows what emo music is, and most of the bands called emo want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERM. You can't have a musical-cultural "movement" if the bands refuse to be a part of it.

The factual elements of this article were entirely covered in the first half of the article. The second half simply repeats those elements, then adds numerous statements that have no foundation in reality.

But since it would be unacceptable for me for control content in this manner, I'm just going to leave it as 'disputed'. If no one else cares enough about the content to edit it in a responsible and factual manner (and if no one else is going to care that Deathrocker keeps removing references to the obvious similarities between "emo fashion" and "gothic fashion"), then so be it. -- ChrisB 18:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• “Oh, I get it, so you've seen some kids dress "emo" and that makes you an expert in all things emo?”

I don't feel that I am an expert, however, I do feel I have some knowledge of this subculture group.

“And don't patronize me. If you thought I'd been doing a good job, you wouldn't completely disregard my input.” I'm not trying to patronize you, I am trying to see your point of view. I do appreciate you explaining and talking with me.

• “I called out the fact that the article about the suicide had nothing to do with emo, so you went out and found one that did. One article does not make a trend. Two articles would not make a trend. Suicide is not any more prevalent in "emo" than it is among any other popular music genre. (Suicide happened among fans of grunge, particularly after Cobain's death; that didn't make it part of grunge.”

There is a subculture that calls themselves “emo”, this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes.

• “You called "emo" a slang term here, but called it a "cultural movement" in the article. If it's a slang term, it cannot possibly be a "cultural movement".”

I agree good point.

• "If you want a comparison, the trends and attitudes associated with grunge music were not a cultural movement. Fans of grunge shared the same attitudes and fashion trends. And, for the record, it was far more popular than "emo" is right now.)”

From where I live/ what I have seen, I have not seen grunge become popular, I have seen “emo” become popular.

• “The predominance of self-pitying blogs is not unique or specific to "emo".”

I agree.

• “If you go through Myspace and LiveJournal, you'll find hundreds of teenagers writing the same topics. They're not all emo kids, they're just teenagers dealing with the average teen angst.”

I agree., I never said different

• “Your (now removed) link to the Google search for "emo myspace bisexual" ignored the fact that the overwhelming majority of the results INSULTED emo kids.”

from the first page alone, the majority were links to profiles that did not insult “emo” kids, but rather supported my claim.

• “It didn't support your assertion that emo kids were bisexual; all it did was point out the stereotype. At best, the article could reference something like: "There is a belief among who do not participate in 'emo' that 'emo kids' are largely bisexual, a generalization that serves more as a stereotype than as a factual statement."”

The article simply says that the subculure is bisexual friendly, the links to profiles, t-shirts, emo boy comic and other blogs support this claim.

• “Until there is a tv show that covers "emo", the entire media section should be removed. There's not even an "emo" magazine. There are zines that cover emo music, and have for twenty years. But those do not belong in the context of this article.”

The media section should not include “emo” music zines, that would better fit the emo music article.

• “ Comparing emo to hip-hop, jazz, and hippies is absolutely irrelevant. In all three of those cases, the musical elements were clearly defined. Yet one of the most glaring problems with emo as a music trend is that it's undefinable. Nobody knows what emo music is, and most of the bands called emo want NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TERM. You can't have a musical-cultural "movement" if the bands refuse to be a part of it.”

Bands don't define there fans, if self proclaimed “emo” teenagers listen to a band then, the band has no control. Jazz might be a bad term, however, the hippies and hip hop both exist out side of music, they are a subcultures.

• “The factual elements of this article were entirely covered in the first half of the article. The second half simply repeats those elements, then adds numerous statements that have no foundation in reality.”

The first part of this article describes one group of people that call themselves “emo” but ignores the younger generation of MySpacers and bloggers who call them self “emo”

Since you and others feel the subculture aspect does not belong here I have started a emo (teen subculture) article maybe this will clear up any confusion about which definition of “emo” is being used to describe which article. Kaddds 01:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

The subculture aspect belongs here. But statements like "this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes." is an example of the derogatory usage of the word - it should not be presented as fact! This is exactly the sort of thing people used to say of Goth - but if anyone tried to write things such as Goths embraced suicidal poetry in the Goth article, I bet it would be quickly removed (and rightly so). Mdwh 03:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a subculture that calls themselves “emo”, this subculture embraces suicidal poetry, blogging and attitudes.
This statement cannot be proven. It is a generalization and a stereotype.

From where I live/ what I have seen, I have not seen grunge become popular, I have seen “emo” become popular.
I'm not going to fault you for your apparent youth. Grunge music exploded in the early 90s and brought a broad change in style and attitude that reflected the scene. Flannel shirts, baggy pants, etc. Many of the die-hard fans shared a similar mindset to those who are interested in "emo" today. My original point: grunge was significantly more popular then than "emo" is now. Yet it did not rise to the threshold of "culture" or "subculture". At the end of the day, it was simply people sharing trends of fashion and attitude. I think the exact same can be said about modern "emo".

I agree., I never said different
Your edit heavily implied that getting on MySpace and blogging about angst was a significant element of "emo". However, "emo" cannot be defined by something that is prevalent outside its borders. It's kind of like saying that a certain group of people are defined by wearing blue jeans.

from the first page alone, the majority were links to profiles that did not insult “emo” kids, but rather supported my claim.
I'd double check that if I were you. On that first page of MySpace profiles, only THREE of the ten listed themselves as bisexuals. Most of the others didn't even have the word "bisexual" on the page - the word was included in a left comment that had since slipped off the page. I can't fathom how that supports your claim about emo and bisexuality.

For clarity: my comment about "insults" was about the general Google results, not the MySpace ones. Your linking to a general search for those three terms would send a Wiki reader to the general results, not to the MySpace ones.

The article simply says that the subculure is bisexual friendly, the links to profiles, t-shirts, emo boy comic and other blogs support this claim.
The article already said that the emo scene was gay-friendly. Focusing on bisexuality serves no additional purpose. Linking to Emo Boy is questionable at best, as it's more of a parody than anything, but would be acceptable as an external link, not as a refernce.

The media section should not include “emo” music zines, that would better fit the emo music article.
I'm not sure if you're unfamiliar with zines, but they cover more than just music. Regardless, you're missing the point that the absence of something should not be noted in an article.

Jazz might be a bad term, however, the hippies and hip hop both exist out side of music, they are a subcultures.
You're missing my point. The musicians in the hippie scene participated in its "subculture". Hip-hop performers participate in that genre's "subculture". "Emo" performers avoid the "subculture" like the plague. They want nothing to do with it. That makes it ENTIRELY different from the three you're comparing it to. Even if there is a subculture of "emo" (which you still haven't proven), comparing it to those genres doesn't work.

The first part of this article describes one group of people that call themselves “emo” but ignores the younger generation of MySpacers and bloggers who call them self “emo”
It ignores it because it cannot be proven. Period. People keep generalizing its existence, but there's no proof that it's out there. Now, we could mention that many people believe that the link between MySpace and "emo" exists. But it would still have to be properly cited.

Since you and others feel the subculture aspect does not belong here I have started a emo (teen subculture) article maybe this will clear up any confusion about which definition of “emo” is being used to describe which article.
I've already addressed this on that page's Talk, but this was absolutely the wrong thing to do. -- ChrisB 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge debate

Yes they should be merged, who the hell thought it was a good idea to start another article that says EXACTLY the same thing as this?? - Deathrocker 09:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree they should be merged. It's pointless having the same debates in two places. Mdwh 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Nu Emo"

"nu emo" has only 563 hits on Google [1], and many of those seem to be emo references on *.nu sites! I presumed you searched without quotes [2], which is incorrect (you can get millions of hits by searching for "nu" and all sorts of other terms)!

If there are really these two separate subcultures that have both been referred to as "emo", then please provide references to what this previous subculture was, since it seems to be completely ignored by the current Wikipedia emo articles (if I wanted to show someone the difference between nu-metal and metal, it would be hard to do that without showing what metal is). Mdwh 15:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

PS - Deathrocker, is your position that older emo (eg, the first wave as described in Emo_(music)) is unrelated to emo today? Or that the subculture described here is totally unrelated to emo music? If the former, you should take that up in the Emo_(music) article. If the latter, then I'm sure it can be explained that the subculture described here is quite separate to the music, without inventing terms like "nu emo" (just as, eg, many people dress in a goth fashion, without necessarily being fans of goth music - this is explained simply with "but not all those who dress in this fashion listen to Goth music"). If you mean something else, then please explain. Mdwh 15:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

He's talking about Emo music of the 80s, which has its own article. It wasn't a subculture, either. There were numerous edit wars over the content of the main Emo article from those who insisted that the Emo music of the 80s was the only genre of music "properly" referred to using the term "emo". (They're missing the point that inventing terms like "pop hardcore" to describe the "emo" that they feel isn't "emo" is entirely against Wiki guidelines, and ignores the fact that the use of the word "emo" in the 90s and 2000s is far more widespread than it was in the 80s.)

He also takes issue with anyone who uses the term "goth" to describe anything other than the scene from the 80s. I'll note again that he keeps removing comparisons between so-called "emo fashion" and so-called "goth fashion", even though the similarities are obvious. He also has a pronounced history of edit wars and not discussing his edits.

There is no established used of the term "nu emo". His insistence of "a million google hits" is obviously a fallacy: a search for nu emo without quotes generates a million hits because the search isn't for the term "nu emo" - it's for articles that include the word "nu" and the word "emo". -- ChrisB 17:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the emo of the 80s had a subculture, how the hell would it have existed without a subculture or people who follow it?.. it grew out of Hardcore punk. What are often called emo kids today (My Chemical Romance, The Used, fans) are to emo, what Kindergoths are to Goth rock, and what Nu-metal fans are to Metal of the 80s and late 70s... the fans that came later are unrelated to the original movements, some people have started calling these so called "emos" nu-emos, to distinguish those who follow, or were part of the original movement, try searching without quotation marks and actually look at some of the info there, instead of automatically discarding it.

It also must be noted ChrisB has a history of fandalism and writing bias articles, glorifing his own tastes. - Deathrocker 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Glorifying his own tastes"? What exactly are you doing? Any opinion you disagree with gets deleted. Just because you disagree with content or have a different perspective doesn't mean that the content is a lie. And I think I've already mentioned the fact that I'm not a fan of the new "emo" - the only reason I'm against your recent edits is because they're POV and favor the views of detractors. Not to mention the fact that they're uncited and unsourced.

Everything you've mentioned in your above comment is POV. The majority of people don't use terms like "kindergoths" and "emos". If those terms are in use at all, it's among a small minority of detractors. I don't have a problem with articles explaining phrases like "mallcore", but I do have a problem with someone writing in an article that a band is "nu-emo" and not "emo" just because a handful of people want there to be a difference. In the minds of the folks who adhere to current emo (who, unfortunately, far outnumber the fans of the original genre), it's just "emo". The articles should reflect the reality, not an alternate "desirable" reality. -- ChrisB 20:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

They don't "favour the view of the detractors" at all, you seem to constantly ignore the fact the articles are supposed to be neutral, it voices both sides, whether you like it or not there ARE many detractors of this trend as well as followers. To ignore either "side" would compromise the neutrality of the article.

You may want to do your homework if you don't think there is a difference between the new wave of emo and the emo of the 1980s, the information is already on this site. Is it so hard for you to type the word "emo" into the search function on the left and then press go? It wouldn't take you more than a couple of seconds and you would then realise the two are completely different movements. As is expressed in that article. - Deathrocker 21:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I was in the indie emo scene of the 90s, so the difference is obvious. The problem is your usage of terms like "nu emo" to note the difference. People in the emo scene today don't call it "nu emo", so calling it "nu emo" in this article is unacceptable. (If not just for that reason, then because this article is for "emo (slang)" not "nu emo (slang)".) -- ChrisB 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Any opinion you disagree with gets deleted." is ludicrous, I disagree with most of this article yet it is still there, and seemingly I'm not the only one hence why the article has a "neutrality and factual accuracy of article disputed." tag slapped on it by somebody.

Also the genuine emo movement came from the 1980s not the 1990s anyway. - Deathrocker 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the only "genuine" emo movement is from the 1980s is POV. I'll wholeheartedly agree that it was the first and the origin, but there was nothing ingenuine about the 90s emo scene. It existed, it was there, it was called "emo". Most of the bands of the 90s scene were heavily influenced by the original scene (unlike modern emo).

And the NPOV tag was added because someone noticed that there were edit wars going on. -- ChrisB 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

"Look at all my emo" - Ikiroid's content

Wait, you added tags asking for the article to be cleaned up, then ADDED MORE UNSOURCED CONTENT?

You can't possibly provide a source that says that people call their cuts "emo". That's ridiculous. (If "Look at all my emo" is a common phrase, why are there no occurrences on the Internet?)

Other issues:

1. The "focusing on angst and frustration" part of that sentence doesn't help. Beyond the fact that it creates a run-on sentence, the paragraph isn't explaining the music. It's explaining about how "emo" started to become a term of derision, using the comparison to other forms of music to describe why people had issue with it.
2. "Were simply looking for drama where it didn't exist" explained the same idea without casting aspersions. We should not be judging people in this article.
3. Masochism is not a defined element of "emo", even in a slang sense. It's something that a minority of people outside it believe is a part of it, but there is no verifiable evidence that it actually is.

Most of these fall on the line of original research. What you and your friends talk about cannot be included in a Wiki article without verifiable sources. -- ChrisB 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I presume he strictly speaking means self harm rather than masochism from his edit summary - but yes, it's nothing to do with emo. Mdwh 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The association with self-harm and emo culture is so common among emos where I live is so common that I was surprised to see it not in the article. I saw myself as adding in something so obvious it didn't need any sources, like saying communion is in catholicisim. Apparently, it's some rare exception that exists over here. Self-harm does have an association with strong emotions though, so you can see why I'd place it in the article. My concern with the article is that it only focuses on music and clothes, not attitudes, and I was trying to change that. It also doesn't really take the topic seriously, virtually all the links or so-called 'sources' are a satire of the culture. You might as well have no sources at all.--ikiroid 20:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually disagree with a lot of the sources as well. Most of them are leftovers from when this article was titled "21st Century Emo" and largely bashed Emo as a whole. Numerous editors argued that the derogatory use of the word was most important aspect, and the article was chock-full of largely false generalizations.

Honestly, what this article needs most is more input from people who are actually (and willingly) part of the modern "emo" scene. I've always gotten the feeling that most of the people who edit this article are doing so because they dislike the scene and want to express their hatred in words. (That's not to cast apersions on everyone here, just the regular occurrence of vandalism and/or the inclusion of satire or stereotypes.) But I think the modern scene is very insular, and, given the predominance of criticism, I don't know that people are willing to step forward and talk about it.

But there's definitely a major quandry here: the majority of the modern usage of "emo" is in a derogatory sense. However, unlike "mallcore" and "mallgoth", "emo" has a non-derogatory definition. So there needs to be some way to balance the two as a way to reflect how the term is actually used. -- ChrisB 20:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

There may be a lot of "emos" who self-harm, but then there are a lot of young people who self-harm. I don't see that this is anything to do with emo, nor that it is something typical amongst "hardcore" emos. Mdwh 21:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right about the self-harm thing. Furthermore, there are some outsiders are angered by the whole emo culture because it involves focusing on one's feelings and relationships, which may be interpreted as selfish. Also, since emos are more toward emotional goals than one giant group objective, it's not accepted as a political group. I'm not sure that there is a static definition of what makes a person an emo within emo groups either, but it should be appropriate to say that it means you are focused on your own relationships and emotions. However, I won't add this in until I get the agreement of the people contributing to the article.--ikiroid 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

two separate 'emo' articles is plausible

Whilst it would be sensible to merge this article in it's awful present condition with the emo (music) article, emo subculture as a widely recognised phonomena can be a separate aritcle. The focus of this separate article would deal primarily with issues such as the history, fashion, behaviour, cultural influences (in which music would get a smaller mention than at present), public perception (sterotypes), related subcultures. In short, an article that goes into the same kind of objective depth and detail as, say, the chav article as an example.

So many POV tags, so little article

And that brings us to, why so much attention yet so small a page? Instead of complaining about POV contribute to the article, then complain about it! Not to mention that many comments here are useless/SPAM. I will clean it if I have time... --Bky1701 10:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Its a small page because no one can agree on the content. If you want to make major revisions, discuss them here first. This is a very sensitive subject for a lot of people.--ikiroid 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Electroclash

It shares similar fashion. How about some references? 782 Naumova 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Electroclash is much more connected to, and in fact largly rooted in, the high-fashion world of NYC and LA than it is to high-school fashion of emo. User:zmbe 18:36, 19 January 2006

Aye, current electroclash fashion and current emo fashion seem to be HIGHLY different...I really don't see any connection at all... JapanLover 03:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SLANG-O

Emo is really just a misspelling of the word 'emu' which in french means 'man who walks backwards'

• Really Funny Story: A friend of mine works at Ye Olde Local Hot Topic, and she had a couple of parents walk in the week before christmas. They mostakenly referred to their son as an "Emu" as opposed to "Emo." How funny is that mental immage...an emo emu!~That One Goth Girl

* "Man who walks backwards?" Where the hell did you get this meaning?! In french when someone's "emu", it means that he's "touched" (emotionally) by something. -Selmy

• I hate you people.

• Oh.

• Actually, to my knowledge, the term 'emo' originated from an online typo in which the speaking person was attempting to accuse a whiny man-bitch of being and 'emp' which is slang for one's testes being empty, but their finger slipped and they hit the 'o', hence, emo came about to the world of man.
  • Seeing as the 'e' is nowhere near the 'o', how is this possible? -- Doo Doo 11:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Seeing as the 'p' is right next to the 'o', yuo cnat reed fir snit.
      • Ok not to be critical or anything BUT ragging on someone who cant read is fine and all but then spell 5 words wrong.... Good point. This is how you spell your sentence. Y-O-U C-A-N'-T R-E-A-D F-O-R S-H-I-T. I thought emo was short for EMOtional

Definitions of Emo

Wikipedia is an URBAN DICTIONARY. People can write whatever the heck they want about subjects! So stop whining people! So start looking at all your emo. Hargle!

Moo 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Wikipedia isn't just an open source encylopedia, a place for people to post their opinions. Speaking of which, perhaps some suggestions of definitions or topics that should be covered in this article could be added to this sub-heading to turn it into something useful other than the above user, Moo's, well made point.

I move that there should be some discussion that emo is neo-goth. Discuss. 211.30.80.121 13:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• this is funny stuff, lo0l. 65.188.222.91 23:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC) nepegg89

Vandalism

Someone is vandalizing the body of this article. Can we have this reverted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arundhati bakshi (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted it. Did you know that anyone can revert an article? See Wikipedia:Revert for how to do so. :) -- jeffthejiff 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, but I wasn't sure how to do it. Thanks for the tip. :) Arundhati Bakshi 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Emo vs. Goth?

Outside the US, or at least in some European regions, Emo clichés seem to be more commonly associated with Goths, most likely because of the similar fashion in dress and musical content and the very loose definition of "Goth" (sometimes including anything from Emo to various forms of Metal other than Heavy). Add to this the unawareness towards the Emo genre in some places and people will think of Emo as a Goth subculture (or sub-subculture or sub-sub-subculture).

I guess the similarity is easy to see as many Emos and Goths alike dress in black with very dark make-up and occassionally even white face painting as well. This doesn't stop Goths from being prejudiced towards Emos (and Gawd knows Goths can be prejudiced towards a lot of things, just like any other music genre related subculture), though.

From my observations I guess that Emo is more defined by an overall melancholy (hence the "whiny"-ness) and Goth is a wee bit more optimistic (I know, "optimistic" and "Goth" in one sentence seems absurd to most people), i.e. Goths tend to be more about romance (till death and beyond) whereas Emos are more about loss and agony (in a less pathetic way than I'm making it sound).

Labels are a touchy thing so I guess the only person who can really say what they are is the one labeling him or herself that way, but that doesn't help much with what this encyclopedia is trying to accomplish, that is, define labels by the way they are commonly applied -- justifiedly or not.

A big problem here seems to be that both subcultures avoid clear definitions, but I strongly doubt that Emo can be called Goth as there seems to be a high tension between Goth-y Emos and Emo-ish Goths (so far the only rule of thumb I could find was the lack or presence of "emo glasses" -- any kind of transparent glasses with thick black frames -- and the obvious lack of mysticism and vampirism among emos (although many Goths would probably kill me for that cliché, vampirism is the one thing that's most common among them, not common, but more common than outside that subculture)). -- Ashmodai 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

pic???

A GFDL or public domain photo of someone all emo'd-out would be a great addition to this page, if anyone has a digi camera and an emo friend that is willing to pose. youngamerican (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Cant you just find a picture on myspace? Maybe I Should do that. *does it*

65.188.222.91 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)nepegg89

• • No, we don't know the copyright status of any of those photos. The best way to have an appropriate photo would basically have to have a wikipedian personally snap a picture of a willing friend that is dressed in an emo style. there are other ways, but this would be the best possible course to ensure compliance with the GFDL. youngamerican (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at the top of this talk page: Does anyone agree with me that this article needs to be visually represented?--ikiroid | (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The current image is really bad. We have dyed black, swept-down hair - that's it. It doesn't show the clothes, and the model doesn't even have the stereotypical labret.

Warped Tour

So I'm apparently the only person that has a problem with this statement?

"Followers of this trend are generally fans of pop rock groups who appear at Warped Tour in the 00s."

So we're basically saying that "emo" is an offshoot of the Warped Tour? Or that all "emo" bands play the Warped Tour, including those in the UK where there is no Warped Tour? Or that only pop rock bands play the Warped Tour? Or that all people who dress emo attend the Warped Tour? Especially all of the people who dress "emo" in the UK, where there is no Warped Tour?

I don't get it. And I certainly don't like it being jammed into the article without discussion and without a source. -- ChrisB 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't believe somebody would need this explaining to them, especially somebody who heavily edits the article.

In the Emo (music) article, it reads; "Correctly or not, emo has often been used to describe such bands as AFI, Alexisonfire, A Static Lullaby, Brand New, Coheed and Cambria, Fall Out Boy, Finch, From Autumn To Ashes, From First To Last, Funeral for a Friend, Hawthorne Heights, Matchbook Romance, My Chemical Romance, Silverstein, Something Corporate, Taking Back Sunday, The Starting Line, The Used, and Thrice."

These bands play Warped Tour in the 00s, particularly popular are the pop rock groups such as The Used, My Chemical Romance, Something Corporate, Fall Out Boy, etc.

And from the Emo (slang) article it reads; "The other popular style of dress focuses on darker colors. Commonly seen elements include dark colored hair (often dyed either black or an unnatural dark hue), males wearing pants tailored for females, lip, eyebrow, and labret piercings, and dark make-up on males and females (most notably black eyeliner, although red eyeshadow is becoming increasingly popular). Followers of this trend are generally fans of pop rock groups who appear at Warped Tour in the 00s."

Nowhere does it say everybody who follows that trend and listens to bands such as MCR, The Used, etc go to Warped Tour, it simply states that the people who follow the newest "sect" of what is labelled "emo" are generally fans of the pop rock groups who play Warped, similar to the "emos" of the 90s been associated/fans of the “indie emo” movement, which is also mentioned in the article. - Deathrocker 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, you drew up this conclusion on your own, explained right here, which makes it original research. Wiki explicity forbids original research. So unless you have a verifiable source for your argument, it can't be included, no matter how strongly you feel about it.

Beyond that, it's just ridiculous. There are a lot of people who display emo fashion that don't listen to the bands you're describing. What does "generally" mean? 50%? 75%? If it's "not all", then is it a majority? And, regardless of the answer, can you prove it?

Furthermore, your generalization doesn't need to be there because the paragraph describes the fashion for what it actually is - we don't need to quantify some random description as to who's wearing it.

The claim that the new "emo" is related to the Warped Tour belongs in the music article, not here. It doesn't have anything to do with "emo" attitudes or fashion trends. Again, there are significant subsets of people who wear the fashion but don't listen to the bands and who listen to the bands but don't wear the fashion. Your argument draws a link between the two where it doesn't exist.

Again, find a source that supports your argument, and I wouldn't make that big a deal about it. But I know for a fact that you can't provide a source. You're pulling this out of your head and forcing us to accept it.

And, for the record, there were no "emos" in the 90s "indie emo" scene. That term didn't appear until this decade. -- ChrisB 02:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

customs and rules

I am looking for some information on what the customs and rules of emo are. I couldn't really find anything on rules or customs, but I am interested. If anybody could get back to me soon, my e-mail is Dillybean418@yahoo.com and my myspace page is myspace.com/dillholio. Thanks a ton -Dylan.

there really aren't defined customs as emo is arbitrarily used. people who are considered emo at my school normally wear black shirts and white collared shirts underneath and act foolish and claim to laugh at morbid things. Just what I have seen.

Cartoon Image

I have drawn and uploaded a picture of a typical emo. Any questions or comments?--ikiroid | (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

wicked. youngamerican (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

commercial impact

Some information should be included about the commercial impact of the emo image such as how well products designed to appeal to emo kids are selling; the "emo style" has definately entered mainstream fashion by now.

Suggested move

May I suggest that the body of the article be moved to Emo subculture? It seems more appropriate than "Emo (slang)" as this implies an article mostly about the word's etymology.--ikiroid | (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that:

1. We can't conclusively prove that there is an emo subculture. The definition of what is and isn't emo is too varied to be as unified as a subculture would be. ("Grunge" wasn't a subculture, and it was significantly more structured in common ideas than "emo".) The media is dying for it to be out there, but there's no uninformity at the moment.
2. The term "emo" expands beyond any so-called subculture. Additionally, Emo subculture already links here. If such a subculture exists, there's no reason that it can't just be included as a section of this article.
3. If we move this to "subculture", several items here would have to be removed, as they would no longer apply. So there would probably have to still be an "Emo (slang)" article. And then someone would suggest that the two be merged.

So we should probably save ourselves the time and effort, and just leave the article here. -- ChrisB 04:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet "Emo (slang)" still doesn't sound like an appropriate name to me.--ikiroid | (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Counter Emo

Is there a group that is totally opposite to emo? Ok here is what I mean dark is to colorful as Emo is to (insert slang).

Go-Go? 64.112.183.66 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean a group that is too happy like Barney. ---Someone else 546

Ummmmmm yeah. Its called NORMAL PEOPLE! Come on emo's are emo because they want attention. Like the class clown but less happy.Join a sports team go outside have what is the word Im looking for..... FUN! I know it may be out of your grasp but emo isn't a feeling its a group. Its like the Jocks the blondes the goths, so im going to say it CHEER UP AND BE NORMAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.126.72 (talk • contribs)

First of all, everyone wants some level of attention, so that's a bullshit reason. You can't dismiss an entire subculture just by saying they're all a bunch of attention whores.

Secondly, if emos wouldn't enjoy what they're doing, they would hardly do it. Just because you think sobbing and listening to (no offense, emos) whiny music is boring that doesn't mean they can't find it enjoyable.

Yes, "emo is [..] a group". There's nothing abnormal about that. Prancing around without any worries whatsoever can hardly be considered normal either. Look into a medical dictionary and you'll see that extreme cheerfulness ("mania") is considered just as questionable of a mental condition as extreme unhappiness ("depression"). The former is just more socially accepted. -- Ashmodai 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I can think of the opposite of Emo music—probably something really upbeat and fluffy like ELO's "Turn to Stone" or Randy and the Rainbows' "Denise, Denise".--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm…

Based on what I have read on the history of Zombie.

"removed poor-quality non-encyclopedic amateur art, AGAIN. Please stop putting that nonsense back" (DreamGuy)

Maybe the image here should be removed too.

--FlareNUKE 22:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's amateur art, but I created it based on the descriptions of "emo" in the article. All of the other images were removed because they were too incomplete to fit the descriptions of emos in the article. It's very hard to find a fair-use image for the article.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 03:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A new link should be added

I believe the site emoholic.net should be added to the link section. I personally would appriciate it because that site give a great definition of what emo is and also intends to offer some samples of the music/dress/actions of "emokids" from an outsiders standpoint. Personally, I love the music by have my own style. Personally, I don't think you would know I listen to bright eyes if you looked at me. I am pretty much the antithisis of the commonly defined emokid (head of a fraternity, in student government, and I love sports). I think these people need to be just as represented as the 'emos' so people dont have such a negative take on the whole topic. Any comments - pgrit154@uwsp.edu (143.236.35.199 19:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Never heard of it.--Pro-Lick 16:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this notable at all or just some site somebody put up to try and make money off the emo fad?--Pro-Lick 17:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of WP:V, emoholic.net has no Google backlinks and Alexa's traffic ranker has it at 4,156,858 (1 being highest).[3][4] The message above from pgrit154@uwsp.edu just happens to correspond with the owner of the site, Philip Gritzmacher who lives in Wisconsin (uwsp.edu is a University there).--Pro-Lick 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with him, I think it is a good link that has helpful info (65.73.75.58 21:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

Methinks this anon is a meatpuppet. Only 2 contribs—adding this comment and adding the site as an external link.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 22:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, or at least an IP sockpuppet. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wrist slitters

Isn't Emo also a way of meaning a guy who slits his wrists? If so, why isn't it in the article? 138.130.12.163

It's a common misconception. Altho there maybe emos that do self-harm, it is something consistent across all types of people—especially teens. Emos merely used as a Scapegoat to criticize the popularity of such a thing.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 19:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. The wrist slitting is a stereotype applied to emos (before "Emo" became a widely known, the same stereotype was usually applied to goths) and thus self-mutilation is often considered to be "emo" even if the person doing it otherwise isn't. -- Ashmodai 20:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's often a blatant stereotype. Often people that appear emo (or are emo) are accused of slitting their wrists. I go to high school, so I know all about this. I think it's just a stupid stereotype. Take this quote from my friend's girlfriend, for example: "I hate emos. It's okay if you slit your wrists, just don't tell everybody about it." That kind of stereotype pisses me off, but I'm sure it's still true in some cases (stereotypes usually don't exist if they aren't true to at least some extent). bob rulz 08:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Classic Joke - does it have merit?

" How many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb? Only one, but they'd all rather sit in the dark and cry about it! " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.240.152 (talk • contribs)

No merit. --JapanLover 21:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

oh come on, thats hilarious! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JonathanMcCormack (talk • contribs) .

Please be relevant. It's a waste of bandwidth for you to state jokes and jibberish on a discussion page. --EMC 04:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

what is emo really?

ok im slightly new here and my spelling isnt the greatest so bear this |\|00|}(sorry had to say it^_^) for abit. now i see emo alot on the internet mostly but most are bais from one point of view. the article here says emo the word means "emotional" but what about the people? what makes a person emo and why? there are so many stereotype for any group of people out there but i just want to know in the basic context anybody could understand "what makes a person emo?" and dont say emotional becuse thats not an valid answer thats more of a brush off. oh yes and lets have some maturity people im not trying to start a flame war i just want to get my facts right here ok?

Pyrokingdragon 20:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)pyrokingdragon

The article is mostly saying that it's really hard to pin down, so I doubt it will be answering the question definitively any time soon. You might like the pages linked in the External links section. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

There really is no true definition of emo. It's all in the eye of the beholder. The fashion sense is usually pretty obvious, but whether a person is actually emo or not is all in the eye of the beholder. I think that this article gives a pretty good description of what's "generally" considered emo, but for the most part the definition of emo is muddled by many different points of views. bob rulz 08:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)