Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

gallery revisited

EMC - the removal of the gallery was objected to. There was no consensus for removing it. You did not cite valid policy (as one user pointed out, one was never a policy, and the other no longer a policy). That means there is neither consensus for removing the gallery, nor policy to support it. Removing the gallery before consensus is reached violates WP:BRD, and as I've pointed out, that means things stay put until something better is agreed upon. As I see it, this removal is entirely inappropriate, and the fact that everyone got so frustrated that you were the only one left paying attention to this page is not consensus. I've still had it on my watchlist, and I've watched others who were not involved in this discussion previously (see above) revert your removal of the gallery at least twice now. I suggest you stop, because neither policy nor consensus are on your side, and there is no justification for removing the images, except that you (subjectively) consider them to be "substandard" and that you wish there were photographs to replace them. Until there is a policy that lets your personal critique of picture quality justify cutting content from articles, or until you find photographs to use in this article instead, the gallery stays. If you remove it one more time, I will request that an administrator intervene. I will not pick apart policy with you, as there is none in question. I will not debate image quality with you - it is irrelevant. Your argument has no merit. I've laid it out for you. It could not be clearer, and I will not waste my time frustrating myself and everyone else trying to haggle with you about things you want to unnecessarily cut from the article. Sometimes compromise makes sense, but what am I supposed to say, "please, let's just cut half the gallery"? --Cheeser1 04:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I give up. Keep your trivial gallery. I no longer care. And on a personal level, I think you're an incredibly rude person. Not because we disagree on the gallery; that I can tolerate. It's your abrasive attitude to other editors that irritates me. Here's my policy for removing the gallery. Wikipedia is not all about policy you dumb asshole. Some things are common sense, and for you to even bring policy into this is utter stupidity on your part, but apparently you're just another editor who wants Wikipedia to be more like a bureaucracy. Sorry if I don't have policy to justify my edits which were based on good faith and made to better the article. As I've pointed out, the images in that gallery are of questionable quality to me, and that is how we do things on Wikipedia. But, as you've stated, you don't care about my opinion, and neither does Wikipedia. So you and your little gallery can go rub eachother raw in a corner. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 05:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Assuming good faith and trying to be constructive has gone out the window. What is wrong with you? WP:IGNORE does not justify whatever you want. Don't try to make this me being a "rude person" or an "asshole" or a terrible "bureaucrat." Anywhere, anytime, in any article, if you want to remove content, you must have a reason and you must have consensus to remove it. Usually, when there's no reason to remove content, we call it vandalism. That's how Wikipedia works. Excuse me for asking you to cite policy. I always assumed good faith, but carefully and precisely explained to you over and over and over that you must cite policy to remove content. I kept waiting for you to cite policy or build consensus, but neither happened, and that means you can't remove it. That's how things work. And I'll thank you not to take my comments out of context - I made it clear that your input is important to Wikipedia, but it must be an opinion about policy, not just "I don't like this part of the article so I'm deleting it." That kind of opinion is not helpful, and I made that distinction perfectly clear.

Now, if all this makes you break down to the point of highly uncivil comments like above, fine. If you think the images are "questionable" then question them. When others disagree, as is the case, then you don't have consensus, and you'll have to deal with it. That means don't be a whiny baby, stomping around because I'm such a big meanie. Good day, sir. --Cheeser1 05:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser appears to be the only one supporting the inclusion of the gallery (others please show me wrong). You cannot come up with a good reason as to why they should remain.

1. They do not illustrate any particular part of the article. Yes, they are remotely associated with the article topic. But in the light of:
2. Poor quality. They all appear to DIY jobs of attempts to illustrate emo subculture. Its a bit tacky considering...
3. They reinforce a POV bias as to what emo subculture is. They are unreferenced. Nobody says all pictures need to be referenced, noone is going to argue that this [1] is not a tiger. But calling this a typical emo hairstyle, or stereotypical emo or a common emo fashion motif, requires some sort of back up. If Chuck Taylor Allstars are so common, why aren't they mentioned in the main text _{(please consider WP:DISRUPT) in your next action}...

A final note, removal of the gallery doesnot violate WP:BRD, it is the Bold step in that process. Hopefully you will abide by consensus once this discussion is complete. WP:IGNORE is fine to cite here by EMC. Edits you do not like are not vandalism. --ZayZayEM 06:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated removal of the gallery, when neither consensus nor policy support the removal, does violate BRD. Please read the entire policy carefully, as it clearly points out that you cannot "revert the revert" until consensus is reached to instate your changes. And although I never called it vandalism, I did point out that in other contexts, unjustified removal of perfectly good content is considered such. Do not misquote me or misrepresent what I say, it is offensive and highly inappropriate. The gallery does illustrate the fashion section (it is not useless), and if the use of the word "typical" bothers you, take it out. That's an issue with the caption, not the image, which still provides illustration for that section just fine. And honestly, all they do is illustrate part of a fashion section in an article that is not the best-referenced ever. The only thing we can do is illustrate the "average" or "typical." That's what this article is about, that section is about emo fashion in general. Obviously it will illustrate what is typical or average. If you have a different idea of what is typical or average, get some sources, work on rewriting that section, and if the images become too out-of-place, we'll work on it then.

So now your only concern, like EMC, is is that they are of "poor quality." How do you assess that? You don't like them? They are properly licensed, they are of relatively good resolution, they are not distorted, marred, or otherwise damaged. What are your criteria, because at this point, it looks like a couple of you have beef with images that they don't happen to like. Until you find better replacements, they are contributive parts of this article and you cannot remove them without citing policy (real policy, not outdated policy or guidelines that don't really even apply) or until you've built consensus. Other editors have reverted the removal of the gallery, eg [2], and even if they hadn't, that isn't to say they wouldn't have if I hadn't taken the lead on keeping this perfectly good content in this article.

You can't pretend like you're the voting commission, put it to a vote, and if people who agree with me don't pipe up in time, you do what you want anyway. Wikipedia is not a vote-on-every-issue democracy, and consensus is not built by finding one person who agrees with you or accusing the "other side" of not having "enough" support. I've offered to compromise from the start, and would gladly accept any number of compromises so long as the content is not simply cut wholesale from the article. That's how you work towards consensus - consensus is when everybody agrees on a compromise, or at least a middle-of-the-road course of action. Until consensus is reached, the article is not supposed to be changed per BRD. There is no burden on me to prove that images that clearly illustrate part of our article must be kept in. It's up to you to either build a much more solid consensus otherwise or to find policy that necessitates their removal.

And please don't come here after someone has already ruled that EMC has completely misused IGNORE and tell me that it's okay. I'm not stupid. You aren't an administrator. They already made it clear on the ANI that his use of IGNORE was totally inappropriate (as was his conduct at that point). --Cheeser1 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing WP:IGNORE is fine here. Please do not wikilawyer. There is zero consensus to keep the gallery either. More than one independent editor has questioned its use and appropriateness. --ZayZayEM 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not, per administrator comments on ANI and also per WP:WIARM. Please stop antagonizing me over what is clearly stated in policy and has been further delineated on the ANI. And like I've said 100 times, if content is perfectly good, then it doesn't need any other reason to stay put in the article. Removing it requires consensus or policy. Don't pick apart a "no consensus" situation as if that justifies bold edits, as we all know that is not the case. Unless there is consensus to remove, it stays (regardless of if there is no consensus, or if there is consensus to keep). --Cheeser1 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I came here from the ANI. I do not see anything akin to your vision. WP:IGNORE. WP:BRD is greater part of WP:consensus, wikipedia does not have clear rules, the main rule here is consensus - there is no consensus to keep the gallery, there have been several independent editors who have questioned its encyclopedic value. It's time to go. --ZayZayEM 03:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the verdict down at the ANI was pretty clear. In case you missed it, look again. Use of WP:IGNORE is completely inappropriate, and WP:BRD is very clear. Bold changes (eg gutting portions of an article) require consensus or policy. If people object, per the BRD cycle, then you cannot simlpy insist that they need to "prove" consensus. Consensus is not required to leave things as they are. Consensus is required for changes, especially bold ones. I've reverted your bold edit. I have reported you to the ANI. I will not edit war with you, but I will see to it that policy is followed. The fact that several people have "questioned" the encyclopedic value of particular content does not amount to consensus, nor is there any objective reason or policy cited. You just don't like them. That's nice. But it's not how we do things in an encyclopedia. --Cheeser1 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in here, I think the gallery template where it is now disrupts flow of the article. I've attempted to make a compromise edit that preserves 2 out of the 3 images. --Neitherday 05:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the style of how you've placed the images, however, I don't see how deleting part of the content addresses the fact that there's no reason (be it policy or consensus) to remove any of it. I'm not big on stylistic elements of pages, so I'm not sure if I could do it, but if you could add the other image back into the page (hopefully in its section), I would consider the style change to be a very positive contribution to the article. I would however appreciate it very much of you added the content in question back to the article, even if you rearrange it. According to the BRD process, compromises on contested bold edits should have consensus before being integrated into the article. According to this, we shouldn't start removing the content in question until we've formed consensus on if/how to do so (that is, assuming the BRD process is in play like it is here, as opposed to content removal based on policy). One thing you could do is set up a sandbox and show us your ideas there. --Cheeser1 05:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally like my latest edit less than what I proposed earlier, but it does address you concern in keeping all three images. What do you think? --Neitherday 05:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

←Cheeser please view WP:OWN. Wikipedian editors are free to make any bold changes they feel necessary. If you wish to use WP:CONSENSUS to keep a gallery, please show consensus for keeping something, not lack of consensus against. Also keep in mind consensus may be wrong especially amongst small and biased editorial cliques. --ZayZayEM 06:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

@Neitherday: I think it does well to keep the article from being split up by the images. I still think it's a positive improvement, and perhaps continued work on the article will find an even smoother way to integrate the images. --Cheeser1 10:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

@ZayZayEM: Right. A small and biased group of editors whose editorial opinion is not based on policy. Sounds like we have three of them right here: you, EMC, and OysterGuitarist (although his conduct has been perfectly reasonable). You three don't like the images. This is not a statement about policy or an objective evaluation of the pictures' encyclopedic worth. It's just a statement of personal preference, and I (and at least one other editor, who also reverted this bold change) do not agree. You are free to make a bold change once, but when it is reverted, and then you are supposed to stop making that bold change until consensus or compromise is reached. Who are you to say that your personal opinion of the images is more important, or that because there are three of you, that you have claim to some overwhelming consensus? WP:BRD is an explanation of consensus guidelines with regard to bold edits, and it makes it clear that until consensus is reached to either include your bold changes or to include some compromise, you do not revert the revert - you do not add your changes back in. EMC did it once or twice, and you've reverted the revert yourself now. How many more times would you like to preempt consensus by instituting your changes, when people have raised objections and no policy supports what you're doing? BRD and the consensus building process make it plain and clear: When you make a bold change and it is reverted, you leave the article as is (with regard to the content in question) until either your bold edits are accepted or a compromise (be it temporary or permanent) is agreed upon. I've agreed to accept changes to the image line-up, since real-life photographs or other new images could easily be an improvement, but I strongly object to the outright removal of that entire portion of this article because a few users don't happen to like it. That's not how we judge content, your personal opinion of the images is not objective or universal.

Furthermore, the content in question is not the issue at hand - your bold edits are. Those are the edits that require consensus. I could decide to object to chunks of content, and blank entire sections. So long as an administrator or an overwhelming majority do not object, it would appear that my "side" has as much support in the no-consensus situation as anyone who wants to keep the article as-is. Does that mean there is no consensus to keep the content, thus I'm allowed to continue blanking sections? Absolutely not. You're misinterpreting consensus policy. Bold changes require consensus. The other two possibilities (consensus against bold changes, and no consensus either way) err on the side of previous consensus - leaving the article as-is. This is how consensus policy works, as explained in that policy and as further expounded in the BRD guidelines. I've explained it myself more times than I care to. If you want to hijack this article and cut content for which there is neither policy nor consensus to remove, fine. I'm not here to waste my time dealing with that. BRD also makes it clear that If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. I'm getting frustrated by the continued reversion of my revert, and the unwillingness to generate alternatives or work for compromise - it's all or nothing, it seems, either we remove it all or you'll remove it all yourself, continuing to revert the revert in violation of BRD/Consensus policy.

But I still would like to assume that you want to contribute to Wikipedia in accordance with policy (despite your blatant disregard for proper application of WP:IGNORE above). I would ask that you abide by the consensus policy and try to work for a compromise. I've made it clear from the start that I'm willing to compromise, if those of you wishing to make bold changes would simply do anything besides eliminating the content altogether, with no replacement or supplement to take its place. And yet you continue to remove the content, reverting my revert, in violation of BRD, working against consensus-building, as if reverting the revert enough times amounts to a reason or consensus to remove the content. This is not the case. Frustrating the objecting editor(s) into leaving the discussion is not the same thing as consensus. They even took the time to spell that out in BRD. Well congratulations, because you've succeeded on that front. I'm sick and tired of explaining consensus-policy to you. Even though I know that my giving up does not amount to consensus, I might guess you'd happily take it as such, so feel free to continue to violate policy. My objection stands, as does the policy behind it, but I won't participate in an edit war with the two of you, and I'm not going to continue to explain policy to you. You aren't a 5-year-old, you should get it by now, and I'm not going to continue to suffer delusions that I'm supposed to hold your hand and read policy aloud to you until you get it. If to you, WP:BOLD and WP:IGNORE look like carte blanche to remove content from Wikipedia whenever you don't personally like it, then maybe it's a lost cause for me to help by citing the correct and applicable policies. --Cheeser1 10:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Emo (slang) → Emo subculture — Since several times in history, arguements have raged over whether or not Emo is a slang term or a subculture, I shall end the battle once and for all —Marlith ^T/C 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Support

1. ZayZayEM 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Neitherday 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Marlith ^T/C 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me. "Emo" as a term describes a given subculture, defined by musical tastes, a fairly uniform manner of dress and presentation, and a "typical" outlook on the world. Even as a pejorative, it specifically references the stereotype of the subculture. It would be worthless as a slang word without the accompanying subculture to define the word, therefore I support a move to emo subculture. ♠PMC♠ 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Lundse 16:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Reginmund 06:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
7. The article certainly has grown from describing a slang term to describing something larger. It covers extensions on the fashion, music, and personality of a culture. That, to me, constitutes a subculture. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Cheeser1 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2. The articles describes the term "emo" as slang for what it means and the subculture, not the other way around. When an article about the actual subculture is written, then it should be changed. — Moe ε 10:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
3. ChrisB 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Mdwh 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments

• There is absolutely no verifiable or reliable source cited that states that this is a unique subculture. Its boundaries are poorly defined, if defined at all. It is a highly versatile, broadly-used slang term with a wide variety of meanings, as detailed in this article. There is no foundation for this move. I would also like to point out that this is not a battle - Wikipedia content is based on reliable sources. It is our purpose to detail, illustrate, and expound upon what we find in other sources, not to battle over whether or not to use a word for which there is no basis. We should simply stick to what we have - and nothing we have says that this is a subculture. --Cheeser1 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This article does not concern a slang term. An article on the definition of a slang term would violate WP:NOT a dictionary. In the interests of WP:ATT, there are no VRS for "slang" status either. This is an article about a widespread neologism used to refer to members of a disorganised, and growingly commercialised subculture. Emo may be a youth slang term, but this does not accurately portray this article's content. In interests of accuracy and navigation, the articles title would be better served as subculture --ZayZayEM 06:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Numerous articles sourced call emo a "culture" or similar term, and draw parralels (or point out emo's origins in) punk. But I agree, these are not V/RS --ZayZayEM 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article on the dictionary definition of a slang term, it is an encyclopedia article about the subject of that slang term. Many (most, perhaps) Wikipedia article could also be in the dictionary. They are, in fact. That does not mean that we can't have them, so long as we're not parroting the dictionary. You are misusing WP:NOT. We are allowed to have articles about slang terms: see Cool (aesthetic) for example, which is a pretty good article. You've admitted that it is a slang term, and it seems that there is consensus to this effect. The title is appropriate: "Emo (music)" is about the musical term and "Emo (slang)" is about the slang term. Furthermore, I'd ask that you point us to a reliable and authoritative source that states that this is "a disorganized and growingly comercialised subculture." You claim sources to that effect are already in the article. Which is it? Is it gURL.com? Is that a reliable source of sociological analysis? Or perhaps it's dobi.nu? You're the one citing WP:ATT, and although it is not a policy, it is a summary of WP:V and WP:OR. So give me a reliable and authoritative sociological source that states that this is a subculture, per WP:V (and WP:RS), or else what you're proposing is original research, per WP:OR. --Cheeser1 10:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the subject of that slang term?? If this article is not about the slang term itself, it needs to be renamed. Please give a V/RS for slang usage. I have pointed out this articles current sources (which may or may not hold up to V/RS) call it a culture. --ZayZayEM 12:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the subject of the slang term? The content of this article. Duh. It is about a slang term and all it encompasses, like the example that I gave. The fact that it is a slang term does not necessitate renaming it. As for what makes it a slang term, there are two things going in favor of that: (1) the definition of slang you threw in my face during our discussion above. It clearly delineates that variably defined words, words that are used in particular ways by particular subsets of a population, words that are not incorporated into standard English, these are slang words. Now, none of our current sources explicitly state that emo is a slang term, but if that is not self evident, I could probably find a source that says so. (2) It is now titled Emo (slang). I do not have to make my case to leave an article as it is. The onus in any content dispute is on the person who is adding, removing, or changing content. That means it's up to you to prove we need to change it, not up to me to prove we shouldn't. That being said, it's fairly clear to me that this is a slang term. And in case you don't believe me, here's ABC radio, although not an expert source on emo, a source qualified enough to verify that this is a slang term. Unlike the only reference we have now that states it's a subculture, which is self-published, humorous, and completely unreliable. You have no case for change, not yet, which means the article stays as-is, regardless of what evidence I have. Although I have presented a modest amount of evidence to support the use of "slang" anyway. --Cheeser1 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And before you do it, I'll preempt you. The ABC radio commentator does say "subculture" but only when quoting an unnamed, "unkind," and presumably unreliable web-source. Furthermore, neither that site nor ABC radio commentary carries enough authority to stake such a claim (whereas ABC radio commentary can certainly serve as verification for the fact that "emo" is a slang term). --Cheeser1 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"punk" was/is a slang term. But it is also a subculture. This article does not deal with "emo" as a slang term. It deals with emo as a subculture (fashion, music, attitude and lifestyle), which is one of the many uses of the (slang) term "emo". --ZayZayEM 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's debating that either is a slang term. "Emo" "punk" and "goth" are all slang terms. If you want to introduce content that states that emo is a subculture, you must have a verifiable source to back it up. Until then, all you're doing is adding OR to the article. It's plain and simple. You can't say "but ____ article gets to be a subculture, why not this one?" That "what about article X" argument is never applicable on Wikipedia. You want to introduce a sociological term into this article, you must have a reliable source to verify your use of that term, or else it is original research. These are fundamental policies of Wikipedia, I don't see how it could be any simpler. --Cheeser1 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is clearly about a subculture, it does not discuss the use of emo as a slang term. There is no more need for a V/RS for the name change, as there is to identify emo as a slang term - i.e. there is a need, but it is not all too imperative. --ZayZayEM 03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no longer going to entertain this absurdity. If you think there is "no need" for WP:V and WP:RS, then there's nothing more I have to say to you. However, I do support making this decision based on the most fundamental policies of Wikipeidia, regardless of whether or not you think we "need" them. --Cheeser1 03:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not quote mine. I explicitly say "there is a need". I do however note that in this instance there is "no more need" for V/RS for "subculture" than "slang". While it is important that phascogale is a marsupial, and this should be verified, it is rather less important to verify this than it is to verify that different species are determined by nipple counts. In the interests of article clarity and accuracy, this page should be moved. The current title does not accurately reflect its content, nor does it portray an encyclopedic subject. --ZayZayEM 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Way to assume bad faith. Regardless, there is no need to justify what has been in the article for years. The onus is on you, the editor(s) wanting to change the content of the article. Changes to articles require consensus, policy, and/or reliable sources. The fact that we already have a source for the title as it is now is just icing on the cake. There are no sources for the name change, and even though leaving it as-is does not require sourcing, there is a source anyway. I don't see what your deal is. You think what's in the article constitutes a subculture, and that's fine, but for you to draw such conclusions from the material in the article is, by definition, original research (and bad research, given the fact that you're using Wikipedia as a source - Wikipedia is a reference, not a primary or even secondary source). --Cheeser1 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

←I am not advocating article content. (Though I would support it as current article violates much of V/RS, a cornerstone of wikipedia. I am advocating that the article title be changed in order to more accurately reflect upon article's content, and assist in navigation and encyclopedic value of the article. If a current status quo is not supported by the guideline you are quoting (no R/VS verifies "emo" as a definite slang term), you really can't use it as a counterargument. (Damn you ABC). --ZayZayEM 00:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles on slang terms - one relevant example would be chav, which is introduced as "slang term in the United Kingdom for a subcultural stereotype", which I think could be said for emo too (except for being in the UK, of course). --Mdwh 00:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Would although support "emo subculture" since it isn't a proper noun. --Reginmund 08:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed the capitialization issue above. Improper capitalization isn't a reason to oppose, either you agree that it should be renamed, or not. — Moe ε 10:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I support the move. If "Emo" is an ill-defined subculture, then article should mention that it is ill-defined. However, the current title does not imply that. I personally found the current name confusing and am sure others do too: I was expecting an article on common slang used by emo kids. Emo is a slang term, true, but the title would do better to describe the nature of what the word describes rather than the nature of the word itself. --Neitherday 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But it's not an ill-defined subculture until we have sources that say it's a subculture. We can all agree that it's ill-defined, and I think that provides a great deal of evidence that it is not a subculture (subcultures ought to be well-defined, and speaking as a mathematician, when I say something is not a well-defined subculture, that means it is not a subculture at all). There is no reliable or verifiable source being cited to support this change, and thus the onus has not been met to change the name of this article. It's really that simple. Find a reliable sociological source to verify your claim, and make sure the article is really about what this source is talking about. Then we'll have something to talk about. --Cheeser1 17:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise subculture was a branch of mathematics. I expect its under social science, which certainly doesn't use well defined terms much, favouring paradigms. --ZayZayEM 01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you quit badgering me. I simply explained my use of the term, since it was questioned by someone else. And of course, an intelligent mathematician has sense enough to logically think this through, instead of making armchair-academic decisions like wanting to introduce OR into the article because you feel like it. But apparently you are a scholar of social science! We'll just take your word for it! Not. --Cheeser1 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - A) It can't be proven (or cited) that an emo subculture even exists. It was often claimed in the 1990s that there was a "grunge subculture" - but said subculture was mostly just people listening to grunge and wearing flannel. Neither grunge nor emo are like the punk subculture, which is founded on common ideals and beliefs (a key element to defining a subculture). Any claim of a subculture should be a subsection here, since the existence of the common "emo" elements are what suggest (if at all) that such a subculture exists, not the other way around. B) The only reason that "slang" is included in the title of this article is for disambiguation purposes - nothing else. If the music article didn't exist, this article would just be "Emo". If "slang" is not acceptable, the proper solution is to find something else to go in the parentheses. (And I would oppose "subculture" for that as well.) --ChrisB 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad A: when does something become a subculture? And if it is not a subculture, what is it then? A music genre? Does anyone here honestly believe that there is no such thing as a loose "culture"/milieu of people listening to Emo music? How do you guys feel aboutGrunger? The slang term, as we define the article now, is about the subculture - with the other possible meanings being dependent on this.

Ad B: I would be fine with using parentheses, but I cannot see what is wrong with "subculture" - it is even on our list of subcultures! Several online dictionaries has the subculture as a definition, let me know if we should check a printed Websters too. Just because it is not as big a subculture... "Style" is the second-best idea I have seen, BTW. --Lundse 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Two responses to you: (1) When does it become a subculture? When we have a reliable source to verify that claim. Note that the article Grunger that you give as an example cites no sources. And (2) it does not matter if it's on the list of subcultures or if there are comparable articles. You can't point to one Wikipedia article to justify changes in another. I could easily log off and then go add emo to that list, or add subculture references to dozens of articles, in order to justify this name change. Wikipedia needs reliable outside sources. That's how it works. Also, I take it that by "several online dictionaries" you mean dictionaries that are either referencing inaccurate information from Wikipedia or that are user-edited (read: self-published) and completely unreliable. --Cheeser1 15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ad. 1: I am sorry, but it is a subculture or it is not, it does not become anything with the inclusion of a source. This seems obvious, but I think what is happening here is over-reliance on the rules (which we have rules about, btw). Some things you will not find sources for, because it is so damn obvious - I would not stick a "sources needed" comment on "An automobile or motor car (usually shortened to just car) is a wheeled passenger vehicle that carries its own motor". But you are right, my dictionary defs. are not good sources, they were only meant to show that the word "emo subculture" is in use.

Ad. 2: I think we can use existing articles (when they do not have problems) as a guideline, and bringing sockpuppeting into it just obscures the issue. And I do not think it is a problem that Grunger does not cite sources (although they would imporve the article). Sources should help the reader, not be a way to fight about content about which there is no real dispute (noone would serisouly claim grunge was not a subculture).

I notice you did not respond to the fact that the slang term, as we now classify it, is a slang term for a subculture. This is akin to having Car_(word) telling people how this is a word for a car (only not all that ridiculous, of course, I am aware it is not as well-known a word).

Here is your source: [3]. --Lundse 11:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on Wikipeida, a reliable source IS required. And you CANNOT cite unreliable sources, nor should you be citing ternary sources, including Wikipedia itself (see this policy, especially the bold part). You seem to be entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, or you have a very serious problem understanding them. I strongly recommend you try reading WP:RS and WP:V. They are very clear. And although you've provided a source, I have three questions about that source, stemming from WP:RS-related concerns. (1) From the publisher: This resource serves as an important beginning for the scholar researching today's youth culture. Using a variety of sources ranging from academic to autobiographical--even poetical--an international group of specialists seeks to make some sense of the post-World War II youth culture by discussing topics like Queer Punk, Emo Music, piercing, and sex bracelets. Notice "Emo Music." We already have an article on that. Our article is on a different topic. There is certainly already evidence that what that article about may be a subculture or its music, but not this one. Also notice "ranging from academic to autobiographical." This is not a strictly academic source. The author, Brian Bailey, seems to have been a graduate student (at the time of writing), and if you read the article, it is puerile, speculative, vague, and totally non-empirical. Even if we accept it as a reliable source (a concession I am only making for hypothetical purposes), in the article itself, he says Emo, which seemingly started as a somewhat “agreed-upon” collective subculture, has in fact become a highly contested set of meanings. Sounds to me like it's not much of a subculture now, not the emo our article is about, even according to your source. Did you read it all? I don't see how it supports your claim. (2) I cannot find any instance of this book being cited or used in any way, it barely shows up on Google, [http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-5956820-1500465?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=encyclopedia+contemporary+youth+culture&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go barely shows up on Amazon, maybe] - it's under a different title than the one given in this pdf file, and it's not in any library I can search (I can search a few dozen university libraries throughout New York State - I'd link you, but it doesn't work outside the university network I'm on). Sounds to me like this work is hardly accepted in its field yet. (3) Why is this paper hosted on a radio station page? This source seems very fishy to me. You yourself say you believe strongly in WP:BALLS. I don't, but I can't see why it wouldn't apply here. --Cheeser1 16:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to lecture me on WP policies - I was making a point about how these guidelines can lead us away from the goal of making good artciel (see WP:IGNORE if you need a policy for everything). Thank you for helping me make my point, your entire response seems to me one great attempt not to explain away anything which clashes with your view. For your vanity:

1 - Quoting the books publishers blurb and trying to make that reflect poorly on the specific article itself is counterproductive. You also seem to have a problem with the author and article not being academic enough, despite the fact that it is clearly university-level stuff and has a bibliography. This is obviously someone who thinks the words "emo subculture" is a sensible way to describe the, well, emo subculture (I am sorry, but I simply have no other way to describe it, nor have I heard you attempt to do so).

2 - Of course this is not an important work within sociology, with that kind of demand we on sources, we could not write _anything_ here.

3 - calling a university paper which cites its own sources and is written intelligibly for bullocks is really just ridiculous. I presume this is because it goes so far as to call a group of kids who listen to the same music, wear similar clothes, talk about the same things and are recognized as a singular "type" for a subculture?

You are bending every policy you can find to fit your needs, and it is exactly why I pointed out that we should all just stop and think instead of throwing rules and sources at each other. I will take up your answer to PMC for a final example: you are saying it is OR to say make the inference about clothes, music, etc. to subculture. Under this interpretation, though, you cannot write anything. Saying a new Ford product is a car would be OR, since it infers from the abilities, look and ads of the product that it is in fact a car. We cannot call the holocaust terrible, water wet or anything else which uses any kind of inference - this is patently ridiculous. Again, what else would you call it? --Lundse 19:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is not carte blanche to do whatever you want. WP:RS demands a reliable source, and I consider a book that has never been cited, is not available in any library or retailer, and that is of dubious academic merit to be unreliable, insofar as you're using it to make an academic claim. What would I call the article? I'd call it what it is until there are reliable sources to the contrary. This is the fundamental way in which Wikipedia is edited. WP:IGNORE aside, WP:V and WP:RS are two of the most fundamental policies hon Wikipedia, and they demand that the new edits (be they changes, additions, or removals) to be verified by reliable sources and/or agreed upon by consensus. This is the third time someone has suggested abusing WP:IGNORE recently, and it's been made clear by administrators' and non-administrators' comments on these matters - you can't just throw WP:IGNORE at things when the rules aren't going your way and you don't have consensus. This is not a "university paper" - it's a paper written by a grad student. It rambles, minces words, is a part of some anthology that has ethereal, at best, publication status. And when it's all said and done, it doesn't even really support your argument! What more do you want? Academic sources MUST be accepted by the academic community in question. This book as never been cited and is not available in libraries or stores. That doesn't sound accepted to me. This isn't me "bending" the rules, this is me sticking to them. --Cheeser1 20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't need an academic source on something so trivial. And "call it what it is" is not helpful since we disagree on exactly that! And you still have not responded to the straightforward point that the article as it stands claims that "emo" is a word used for a subculture - why take the long route? --Lundse 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need a source for everything in Wikipedia. That's how Wikipedia works. Furthermore, this is not a trivial statement. The fact that you think it's trivial is irrelevant. Find me a source that says it's trivial. I see no reason to believe that such a claim is trivial, and your belief that the claim is trivial is just as much OR as the claim itself is. As for why the term "subculture" is used (once) in the article? I don't know. I've attempted to remove it, but I obey policy, and because the consensus is mixed about whether or not to use the word (despite the fact that it's totally unsourced), I don't push my changes down everybody's throat. Without consensus, I let the it-is-a-subculture side have the concession of not removing that content. But that doesn't mean I have to let the word creep even further into the article. When this discussion is resolved, if the article is not moved, I plan to remove the term, because its use is dubious and unjustified. --Cheeser1 04:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, if a new Ford product cannot be verified to be a car by a reliable source, then we cannot claim it is, or else it is original research in that we are taking it upon ourselves to synthesize existing sources into original claims. Of course, a verifying source as to the status of a new Ford product could easily be found. Here, not so much. If you're so convinced, get a sociology degree, write a paper, have it accepted by the sociological community, and then we'll talk. Until then, you're proposing that we introduce original research into the article, without even consensus, because some grad student happens to agree with you in a paper that carries, as I've explained, no academic weight. --Cheeser1 20:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So even if we have a picture of a car, we cannot call it a car because that would be "synthesizing" data from our dictionary with what is on the picture? Get real! There are jokes about wikipedia that are less ridiculous than this. For stuff like this, one does not need an academic paper - be bold and lets just call it a car, ok?

The Ford_2GA article does not cite sources that this is indeed a car - should I delete the article until someone comes up with a proper academic source? This is only a marginally clearer example of how, maybe, just maybe, there was a reason the "no rules" rules was made. --Lundse 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely misrepresenting what I said. A picture, if it can be verified to be the object in question, is a source just like anything else. Don't start setting up strawman arguments, when the fact is, you must have reliable sources, without synthesizing your own claims here. And when I say "call it what it is" I mean call it what it is, not what you're suggesting changing it to. The burden is on you to prove that changes are necessary, this is Wikipedia 101. Unless you can either show that the current title is inappropriate (hardly, given that it is sourced) or provide reliable sources providing a definitively better title (you've provided an unreliable source that may or may not support a change that is only arguably better). Sorry if you think WP:IGNORE is there for you to use trivial analogies to advance nontrivial original research, but it's not. --Cheeser1 01:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

←I thought I told you I did not need a lecture? We are disagreeing on what rules to use and not use (yes, that is an open question since we do in fact have the "no rules" rule). You "call it what it is" explanatino is redundant and simply restates your point, try to argue it instead...

As for strawmanning, are you now saying that an ad with a picture of a car is sufficient to source a claim about that product being a car? Is it not OR to conclude that the captions with the name is about the picture? Is it not inference to say that this looks like a car and so it must be one? You are not being consistent about what needs academic sources and what does not - how much thought, interpretation, inference, is allowed?

And please stop the personal attacks such as "Sorry if you think WP:IGNORE is there for you to use trivial analogies to advance nontrivial original research, but it's not". Thank you. --Lundse 02:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're comparing a the "conclusion" that "a picture of a car demonstrates the existence of a car" to the conclusion that "the group of emo people constitute a subculture"???? That's the most absurd analogy I've ever seen! One is obvious and not original research - the other would absolutely require a source. And my comment about WP:IGNORE is not a personal attack (assume good faith maybe?), it's me explaining (once again) that the consensus on the administrator's noticeboard has been established twice already that you simply cannot use abuse WP:IGNORE to push for changes in an article that would otherwise not go through, and that there was overwhelming (100%) consensus there that you can never use it to violate WP:RS. --Cheeser1 04:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, you did not get the car thing (hint: it is not an analogy but an example of people using inference all the time, and necesarrily so) and you don't want to answer it. And you seem to be adamant that any usage of WP:IGNORE is by default abuse and you do not want to go into a discussion on whether it could ever be otherwise. Fine, you just opted yourself out of the discussion.

Regarding personal attacks, then you are (still) representing me as wanting to include problematic OR and as using WP:IGNORE for personal gain. It was not explaining anything, as you claim, but restating your claim yet again in a more derogatory manner - you have to get beyond this point, as I have heard and understood it. I am just not agreeing with you, which is not, I am sorry to say, the same as necesarrily pushing a NPOV agenda against all policies. --Lundse 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been explaining to you that this content is OR, and that there is large consensus by uninvolved parties (esp. admins) that you cannot use WP:IGNORE in this fashion. I'd ask that you assume some good faith, instead of taking that as a personal attack or presume that I think you're trying to get "personal gain" or "pushing a[n] agenda." And like I said, one can assume the following: "a picture of a car is a car." That does not constitute original research. But that is not as trivial when one says "this group of people is a subculture." Use of "inference" (or whatever) to call it a car in one case is not synthesizing original research, but in the latter case it is. --Cheeser1 18:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: How about "Emo (style)", "Emo (aesthetic)", or "Emo (music)"? --Neitherday 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo (music) is an entirely different article already. As for aesthetics, I think if you take a look at aesthetics, you'll see headings like "Indian aesthetics" "Chinese aesthetics" "Modern aesthetics" and "Post-modern aesthetics." Do you think emo measures up to those? I'm not so sure. "Style" might work, except that such a term limits the scope of the article. The term we have now is appropriate ("emo" is a slang term), and I see no reason why we should narrow the scope of this already short and hard-to-source article. --Cheeser1 02:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer "aesthetic" myself as it can encompass all the aspects of the article. Of course it does not measure up to the other aesthetics you mention, which is why its inclusion in the aesthetics article itself would not make the cut under WP:WEIGHT. However, to be an aesthetic it does not have to measure up to the monumentally notable aesthetics in aesthetics. --Neitherday 03:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that it need not weigh up, my point was more about the fact that emo has not been shown to be its own aesthetic category, trait, or anything of the sort. Again, it's another claim that might require some sources or backing. Reliable sources are necessary to verify any proposed changes to an article. We can't just decide that we "prefer" the term subculture, aesthetic, or anything of the sort. The only thing we seem to have established in our sources is that this is a slang term. Hence "Emo (slang)" is the title. --Cheeser1 04:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: How about moving it to Emo (term)? The disambiguation "term" is simply less defineable. Clearly the subject matter of this article will always mention the 'subculture' if it's about the slang, and if it's about the slang it's always going to mention the 'subculture. It's a term, so why not dab it as such? — Moe ε 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. The problem there might be that "term" is too vague, but I think the content of the article would clear up confusion about "hey, what does it mean emo term?" However, I still see no justification for changing the name at all, except that particular people want to introduce the label "subculture." The burden is on them to find reliable sources to verify this claim, and the "slang" label is far more evident, a less drastic claim, and has been sourced. So what's the rush to change it at all? --Cheeser1 16:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Makes sense to me. "Emo" as a term describes a given subculture, defined by musical tastes, a fairly uniform manner of dress and presentation, and a "typical" outlook on the world. Even as a pejorative, it specifically references the stereotype of the subculture. It would be worthless as a slang word without the accompanying subculture to define the word, therefore I support a move to emo subculture. ♠PMC♠ 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. Our article certainly describes dress, presentation, outlook, stereotype. Unfortunately, to take those commonalities and call it a subculture is original research, and is not acceptable on Wikipeida. See WP:OR and WP:SYN for more. (And not all slang words require the existence of a corresponding subculture - also a claim you haven't backed up.) --Cheeser1 16:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, emo (slang) sprung from emo (music). Music can be part of a culture. Thus, emo can be said to be a subculture drawn from the culture of emo music. Perhaps we might wish to consider Goth. I might be wrong. Marlith ^T/C 04:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What you have just stated is completely original research, even if it's based on information at hand. To draw such on your own conclusions is a violation of WP:RS as it constitutes original research. It's also highly speculative ("can be" "can be said to be" etc). --Cheeser1 07:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support: The article certainly has grown from describing a slang term to describing something larger. It covers extensions on the fashion, music, and personality of a culture. That, to me, constitutes a subculture. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To you it may, but you are not a reliable source, and thus your claim that it's a subculture is original research. Has no one read the relevant policy but me?? --Cheeser1 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not using it as fact, I was just saying that the article has grown to describe something larger than a slang term.

Also, I attempted to read that policy, but found it confusing. If you could provide a summary of it, that would help greatly! --J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't describing the slang term, it's describing what the slang term is about (see cool, which is not about the term cool, but about the term and its use). And that policy I quoted makes the following clear: no matter how much evidence there is that you or any other editor might believe demonstrates that this is a subculture, to draw the conclusion that it is a subculture constitutes original research, even if you are simply synthesizing the material in the article to form your conclusions. --Cheeser1 02:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the article talks about the term as slang, or the stereotype, not as a subculture (e.g., personality, fashion, and most of the criticism is addressing a stereotype rather than things that have actually occurred as part of any emo subculture). --Mdwh 00:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Insufficient context?

There is an insufficient context on the page now, added here with an edit summary of: "Marked intro with {context}. The only clue on the subject came to me at the bottom of the article". I was under the impression that when such tags are added, one is supposed to fully explain the problem on a new (or preexisting) section in the talk page. I have no idea what the bottom of the page (nor "clues" to this editor) has to do with the introduction and the context it provides. I see no rationale for including this tag - perhaps I am wrong, but I see no context issues. The {context} tag is for articles like this or this or this. I don't see a problem with our introduction - perhaps it is a bit too brief, but the article itself isn't very long, and we need not be redundant. Any thoughts? --Cheeser1 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the intro seems fine to me. --J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:36, 13 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)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by M2K 2 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.106.83 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture that I feel is more appropriate. I hope this helps your concern. --Lazorz 23:26, 17 August 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.219.29 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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 23:35, 17 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)

Rename

I think this should be renamed to Emo(subculture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.244.240 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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 20:03, 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)

You are making my comments look bad with your brevity :-) --Lundse 20:52, 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. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] --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." [9]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 02:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

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 [10]? --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)

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)

Unfortunately I couldn't the full paper, but the abstract here [11] 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)

Neitherday, 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)

ZayZayEM, 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)

←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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)