Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Culture?

I noticed that Emo is present under the subculture category, and I personally don't believe this is a proper location for Emo. Unlike other musical subcultures, which are united by a relatively standard belief system, some form of communal gatherings, a "class" structure, and even culture-exclusive language, Emo (arguably) does not possess these unifying qualities. I propose that Emo be removed from the Subculture category. --Adrian Anansi 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Adrian Anansi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the things you'll notice if you read Andy's book is that it talks about emo a lot using Internet sources. I would argue that this is fair enough. This is a youth subculture that (arguably) came to prominence at a time when the Internet was just starting to be used by adolescents - where else would you go for information? Indeed good Internet sources like [1] can be invaluable for defining emo. So too can Andy's book, but unfortunately it was written at a time when Taking Back Sunday was just starting out.

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

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

* Andy's book also has something to say about emo and its link to adolescence. --Cedars 13:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

←Cheeser, is this source good enough? Or do we need to seperately prove that the article also contains the claims which the title and abstract [[2]] says it does? Or should we find a source which actually states these people are "proper" sciologists first? I see Cunningham is only an "associate" professor, does this mean the article is not sufficiently academic?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well Done

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

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

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

The "new" source

I would like to hear from anyone else how they view the talk/non-published article/abstract source, found here [[3]]. The source is an abstract of an unpublished, peer-reviewed talk/paper given at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association 2003 (and, to some degree, the paper we can infer from it). It is called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the top:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhm, please stop misinterpreting everything I write?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new source, seen strictly through the rules

As has been established ad nauseum on these pages, I believe the source [4] to be good and sufficient reason to make the move from Emo_(slang) to Emo_(subculture). Other reasons to do this includes that by having an article on the slang term which describes the "group of people" out there, we are already making the claim that these people exist and "slang" becomes a weasel word at best. Also, no contributors I have communicated with seems to believe emo does not denote a group of people (making the alternative "social group" a great compromise). Lastly, keeping this article about the slang word means a lot of good material on the social group gets cut out be reference to the fact that "this is not about the slang word", which is a shame as a lot of this might be good information.

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

The relevant policies are:

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

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

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

Conference proceedings [5]. There has been a discussion on something similar before. It warns of non-peer-reviewed conferences (not a problem here) and less-than-reputable-conferences (not a problem either). But you can read it for yourselves...

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Says:

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

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

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

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

Now, our source here is mentioned in three places (and thats just the web, mind you): [6], [7], [8] - all of them within academia - one (sorry, the) sociological asociation, and within two university sites. So there has been editorial control, as the "peer-reviewed" bit also hints at... The policy also says:

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

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

The first one is of course most pertinent. I hope to get some comments and evaluations of my arguments. --Lundse 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

none of this qualifies this as published in any way. "Academia" does not extend to the personal websites of professors. I could post anything I want on my department's website, does that mean it's academically verified??? No! All it means is that I happen to have access to dot-edu webspace, like thousands of other people, all of whom can post whatever they want, whenever they want, through the magic of FTP (let's not even go into the fact that personal websites are not a secure or reliable source of information either). Professor's blogs are not reliable (per WP:SPS). Nor are their manuscripts, conference abstracts, or personal websites. You see, the ASA publishes 10 journals [9], and this article was published in 0 of them. The fact that the conference listed some unknown type of review is irrelevant. Do you know how those criteria compare to the criteria for publication? No. Do we know if the manuscript has meet the criteria for publication? No. Is the manuscript even finished? No (it's a manuscript). For all we know, this form "Review type: peer review" is asking for review, not saying that it has been reviewed. None of us have any idea what kind of review process, if any, this manuscript has been through, or if has passed any such review. In academics, and in the eyes of Wikipedia policy on academic works, the only peer-review that matters is the review that approves your article for publication. Until that happens, the work is not accepted in the field and does not constitute a reliable source. I know you want to trust anybody with a PhD, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Finally, we don't even have the paper. All you have is a citation. Do you know what the contents of the paper are? No. It is not available for anyone to read because it has not been published. Maybe before it's published he will change the terminology to something other than subculture. Maybe it will never be published. Maybe he says somewhere, in a footnote or sidebar, that "emo" isn't really a subculture, but that he's using those methods of analysis anyway. This latter conjecture is reasonable, given the conference abstract stating: "While the study of subcultures has largely been abandoned by American sociologists over the last two decades, we propose a methodological approach that takes seriously Fine and Kleinman’s (1979) call for the examination of subcultural artifacts in the context of an interactionist framework.". For all we know, this is a new and untested kind of analysis, and it appears that this topic has been "largely abandoned" by sociologists - meaning that this is not necessarily within the framwork of accepted theory. In the end, it is just not a reliable source, no matter how much it agrees with you and no matter how much you want it to be. Sorry. --Cheeser1 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will try to respond to your objections on an indicidual basis. If possible, please respond to each in kind.

You say that RS says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications and respected mainstream publications". What does this mean? Are you claiming that these are the only sources we can use on wikipedia? --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You claim that "Presentation of anything at any conference qualifies as self-publication". This ignores what I said regarding the stated reason for this, namely that we cannot trust it because of the lack of "editorial control". Since the article is peer-reviewed, this reason becomes moot (see below). --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You then belittle the mentions this article got and I gladly concede your points except where noted otherwise. But they are not terribly relevant, as all I wanted to show was that this article is not made up by the allacademic website (a fact I hope you will concede and which do not require academic sources). --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The fact that the conference listed some unknown type of review is irrelevant." Then I simply disagree, I am also annoyed that we do not know how this peer-review happened, but we must assume that when the American Association of Sociologists call a paper peer-reviewed on their online conference system, then this carries some weight. Your guesses about how wrong he might be, how lacking this process is, etc. are all arguments from ignorance and carries no weight. I say we trust the association on this, unless we have reason not to. You further claim: "In academics, and in the eyes of Wikipedia policy on academic works, the only peer-review that matters is the review that approves your article for publication." Regarding academics, I will gladly concede you point for now - I am not trying to write a paper here. Regarding wikipedia, I would like to see the quote from policy which says we can only use published sources. --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You then go on to make a lot of other guesswork, saying the paper might not say what its abstract says. This is again pure ad ignorantiam - we can guess until the end of the world, but at the end of the day we have to go by our best guess. Lets assume that a professor in sociology, at a sociology conference, uses the word subculture like a sociologist, shall we? --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You also make a quick personal attack "I know you want to trust anybody with a PhD". Please stop doing this, and stop assuming you know anything about me and my academic skills. I would also like to note that in matters concerning sociology, then given a random stranger on the internet on one side (thats you) and a sociology student and a professor of sociology on the other (the two papers we have found for you), then I think I am going to trust the later. Let me know if you find fault with this logic, apart from simply attacking me. --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You then proceed to sow more doubt about the article. It is all guesswork and argument from ignorance again, of course, but your point about how the theoretical framework for the analysis of the subculture somehow make the analysized subculture not a subculture at all I just have to pick out. He is not using this analysis to come to the fact that this is a subculture, it seems that within sociology, this is entirely unproblematic. Why is it again you are a better authority? --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention to something you failed to comment. Namely the first policy I cited, which clearly states that even self-published material can be a reliable source (given certain conditions which obviously apply here). Now, since you yourself claim that this article is self-published, and you have mentioned no problems with the two conditions (expert and published in the field), can I assume that it is all right that we simply apply this policy? Or is this the one case were we should ignore policy? --Lundse 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have asked other people to enter the debate at this time, as I think two people arguing this much is... too much. I am being up front about this, since I am not trying to "stuff votes" (which would be pointless here anyhow), but because me and Cheeser1 seem to be talking past each other or something. I left messages on talk pages of people from a closed AfD [10], who all seemed to have opinions on whether this is a term and/or a subculture. Please let me know if I forgot someone, as I do not want a oneside debate, just a better on. --Lundse 18:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have decided to stay out of discussions on this subject. I am now neutral, based on the negative history of these discussions. Remember, silence is consensus, so if fewer people than you'd like have a unanimous opinion, you have generated consensus. --J-ſtan ^Talk_Contribs 18:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I a bit vexed by your last sentence - are you saying there can be a consensus even if only a few people agree? I don't disagree or anything, I just don't see how this applies here and am a bit unsure of what you mean. --Lundse 18:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual words are "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." There has definitely been enough exposure to the community. So let's say you and 3 other people agree that emo is a subculture. If you and the three others agree that it should be moved, and you let that opinion sit for a few days, and no one challenges it, there is consensus. So far, you and Cheeser1 are the only participants in this section. If you two can agree that emo is a subculture and should be titled as such, and no one else participates here after a while, you can move it. If anyone gives you a hard time about waiting for more opinions, it's not your fault that no one else made their opinion known. --J-ſtan ^Talk_Contribs 19:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just got lost in the sentence. I thought it was pretty clear that me and Cheeser are not going to reach a consensus alone :-) --Lundse 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that this is indeed a (pop) subculture. Since Emo is commonly viewed alongside Goth and Punk in my experience (which means what I hear from my teenage daughter), the presence of the pages Goth subculture and Punk subculture and maybe even Youth subculture seem quite relevant. The academic reference helps, but the treatment of Goths and Punks here on WP is what's convincing to me. I would suggest moving it to Emo subculture (no parens). At this point calling it (merely) slang seems a bit dismissive. --JJL 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been several users who contend that this is "clear," "obvious," or what they "think." That is original research. Also, you cannot cite the "treatment of [other articles] here on WP" as a source. Those articles could be wrong - would we want to repeat their mistakes? Those articles could also be "treated" differently because they are, frankly, different subjects that have been studied by sociologists and (published, academically reliable) works have called each a subculture. This is not the case here. --Cheeser1 02:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about we be bold, ignore all rules, and move it to Emo subculture? Even if just as a test run. If we hear few complaints (Cheeser, we all know your opinion on the subject), we have generated consensus. If not, we move it back, and we'll see where it goes from there? --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundse, I have not been making any "guesswork" - I did not say that "review type: peer review" meant any of those things. I simply stated that it might mean anything. "Article needs peer review" "article has been peer reviewed" and "article has passed peer review." Even if we assume it's the latter, it does not imply that this peer review is anything like the review required for publication. Finally, please note that this "exception" you are citing explicitly warns you However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. While not a "conspiracy theory" this could easily be considered a fringe theory. Not a single other sociologist has, as far as we know, published a work postulating that emo is a subculture. We have found the conference abstract of a pair of young sociologists who are studying what is admittedly not the focus of sociological study in America. Their claims have not been published, and like I said, until you have the actual paper, it's really a bad idea to assume that their definition of subculture is standard. One can apply subcultural methods to study many groups of people - a sociologist may say, in an aside, that they are using the term even when they are stretching or even defying its boundaries. But there's no way to know that, because you expect us to cite a conference abstract.

The fact is, there's only three ways we could accept this as reliable: if it were published, or if it were not objected to, or if these theories were somehow not likely to be reported by other experts in the field already. That is what the clause is for. Many sociologists study American culture, including popular music etc. Things like hip hop culture are widely studied. If we had a conference abstract stating "the hip hop culture etc..." we could easily find another reliable, published source instead of having to cite a self-published abstract. But this is not the case here. Despite many people studying popular American culture, not a single article or book out there has stated that emo is a subculture. Why? Apparently, no one saw fit to make such a claim and get it published, despite ample opportunity. The fact that there is only one paper, that might be peer reviewed, whose peer review might resemble the peer review required for publication - this is not what the exception in WP:SPS is for. And please note that in SPITE of these guidelines, conference abstracts are not considered reliable, in general, which tells us that your appeal to the SPS exception is not how WP:RS/WP:V are interpreted. --Cheeser1 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

←There are other academic references, as in these pdfs which both use the precise phrase "emo subculture" (with varying capitalization of Emo/emo): [11] (Emo, short for "emotional music", is an evolving and complex American youth subculture that listens to a specific genre of music"), [12]. A Google scholar search on emo scholar turns up other references to Emo as a subculture. In any event, to call it merely a slang term no longer captures its impact. Being bold is fine by me, though calling this consensus may be an exaggeration. --JJL 02:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have Google on our side. Can't get any more reliable than that :) Please add those sources that state emo is a subculture. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

J-Stan, I would just move it back. The use of the term is not backed by reliable sources, for which reason I staunchly oppose use of the term. "Silence implies consensus" does not generalize to "if only a few people or only one person complains, it's still consensus." Wikipedia is not a democracy, so outnumbering the non-consenting people and/or having very few of them does not matter. Especially when the non-consenting opinion is based on policy, while the bold consensus actions are based on ignoring all rules. If you make bold edits and they are reverted, then you are supposed to work towards consensus and/or compromise by discussing the issue. We're in the middle of that, and I don't think it's appropriate to try to force a consensus by sticking the contentious material back into the article to attract people's attention.

The fact that we've been discussing this for so long and only one dubious source can be found - what does that mean? Lundse has been dragging out this argument with inapplicable, incorrect analogies and continual assertions that this solitary, unpublished conference abstract of a manuscript is reliable. I don't see alot of consensus or sourcing for this move - moving it in the hopes of generating more discussion/consensus would appear to be an unnecessary drastic edit, which would at best show that people don't care enough either way or don't want to participate in this discussion. It doesn't prove the point I think you intend it to: if we move it and only a few people object/revert, that does not establish that there is consensus for the move.

After all, if such an interpretation of "silence is consensus" works, then I could simply say that Lundse is the only one who supports citing this source, and since no one else has said anything about this in the last two weeks but him, I'll assume they support the article as it is now, therefore the source is excluded based on WP:CONS (disregarding my argument based on the relevant policy, WP:RS). The fact is, it only applies when silence is silence. Neither application of the "silence is consensus" principle is correct. The point of this "silence" clause is to explain that totally uncontested edits are assumed to have consensus support until challenged (even by a single editor). --Cheeser1 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Google sources are also unpublished. Both has been discussed already, and one of them, by the way, a "thesis" completed for a bachelor's degree - unpublished and NOT by any sort of expert. And please note that if we're talking about "emo music" we have a separate article for that, emo (music), which is of course, about a kind of music set squarley in hardcore punk, whose subcultural status is an unrelated matter for that article to consider. Let's not get our wires crossed. --Cheeser1 02:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Self publishing policy is not as significant when dealing with popular culture Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction. These current sources, through virtue of being actual sociological writings are far more reliable than the miscellany of self-published blog and casual website references used at present. I would suggest however that another poll be taken, these sources directly mentioned in that poll, before such a significant change occurs - as previous experience has shown, that despite vocal appearances objections to the subculture phrasings do exist beyond Cheeser. --ZayZayEM 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that this is not a matter of pop-culture. If the object in question is the "emo subculture" then this becomes a sociological matter. Note that sociologists are precisely the people who study pop culture. If we have an article on an element of pop-culture prima facie, then we need only consult sources that can reliably report pop culture (newspapers, magazines, etc). If we want to make sociological claims about a subculture, then our sources must have sociological authority - it makes the matter an academic one. --Cheeser1 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Cheeser, when such a small number of editors are involved, I am not going to go for consensus when just one is so vocally against it. That said, his above comments that I only want to ignore all rules and that my analogies, which he does not want to try to understand, are incorrect are of course bordering on personal attacks (as usual). But there does come a time where we have to ignore a single user who will not enter the discussion but just persists in strawmanning and attacking the other side of the debate. As Cheeser said, this is not a democracy and we are not obliged to listen to someone who will not explain his views. --Lundse 07:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note that Cheeser has never established that we need academic sources for all claims which has to do with the humanities. Also, all the sources we do have with ties to academia support the move. --Lundse 07:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have explained my views repeatedly and thoroughly, and it's not up to you to decide to ignore me. We could just as easily ignore you - you're the only one who continues to insist that these sources are reliable. You are also out of line - when I tell you that your analogies are irrelevant, and that you are being pedantic, it's not a personal attack, it's true. You are examining analogies in an unnecessarily literal and detailed sense, contributing nothing to the discussion. That's why I asked you repeatedly to stop. I even made it clear that I wanted nothing but a constructive discussion - something we were not getting. I had already repeatedly and thoroughly explained myself based on policy, the analogies were totally unnecessary and were creating undue conflict. Please do not "summarize" the discussion in this fashion, as if it were for the benefit of everyone involved, so that we can all conclude to ignore Cheeser and get on with things. It is misleading and demonstrates a lack of good faith assumptions. End this line of discussion immediately. You are making unfounded and unnecessary accusations, in order to discredit my interpretation of policy and try to end this discussion prematurely. --Cheeser1 07:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sociology is a social science, and even if it were "the humanities," it is still an sociological claim requiring a suitably reliable expert source - the published work of a sociologist. Also, take note because I've said it twice already, personal content on .edu websites is not reliable. Being on a .edu page does not count as publication, verifiability, or reliability. --Cheeser1 07:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can both you guys state in about one or two sentences what you want done (or not done, for that matter). It might assist those of us who are trying to understand what's going on here, but don't have enough time to read the mass of text up there. Thanks --Cowicide 07:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See here (or above, where it was posted). I will try to summarize (accurately) what has gone on: Users suggested a move. It did not pass, due in part to the fact that no reliable source establishes this group of people as a subculture. There was also discussion (by Mdwh, for example) of the fact that this article is not strictly about the group of people, but a broader subject. Lundse has repeatedly revived this discussion, citing the same unreliable sources (conference abstracts from unpublished manuscripts, self-published papers from an undergraduate's personal website, etc). These sources don't meet the burden of WP:RS - and if the claim were so "obvious" or so clearly true, as Lundse states, he'd be able to find a more reliable source (something published, of course, would be what meets WP:RS). Some of his argument has also incorrectly presumed that he can simply concoct some sort of "common use" or "lamen's" version of the term subculture (which is a highly specific sociological term), for use here. Another argument of his has been to simply say it's allegedly obvious or common knowledge that emo is a subculture. None of these arguments are valid, based on policy, and he has even suggested ignoring all rules in order to introduce unreliably sourced information into the article (which is not what that policy is intended for). --Cheeser1 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You claim not to have made any guesswork, then go on to say that you did point out a "might". This is what I meant. No amount of "might" proves anything (excuse the pun) - within academia, we call this arguing from ignorance. Your claim that "peer-reviewed" could mean "article needs peer review" is not guesswork, though, it is simply laughable.

You keep on guessing, then, that maybe his use of the term is wrong and he knows this. This is again arguing from ignorance (X might be true, let us assume X). The fact is that we have a sociologist (I know its really three) who does use this term and does not qualify it on his own web page, nor in the abstract he has submitted to the national association. No amount of "maybe he did not mean what he ostensibly says" is going to change the fact that this is the source we have. Your pointing out that the policy wants us to be careful and use a better source if we have it is completely irrelevant, we have no other source - and this is not a sign that emo is not a subculture, it is a sign that it has not been studied much within sociology. This in itself proves nothing, despite your claims this is included in the policy (lets see a quote) - and no, the quote you did supply is not a carte blanche to dismiss all self-published sources which you disagree with, it is a incentive to keep looking.

You claim to know what the "exception" in the SPS policy is for - could you give us an example of how you do believe this exception can come into play? Or do you just want to ignore this policy altogether?

To sum up: We have no sources that this is not a subculture. We have a student and a professor's paper which use the term subculture about emo. We are not talking about inclusion of a unconfirmed theory, we are only out to find out whether "emo" is called a "subculture" within sociological sources.

You do raise one good point - that maybe sociology does not in general study emo and this can be taken as a sign it is not a relevant topic for that field. This is, on its face, ad ignorantiam; but it could be bolstered by eliminating other reasons emo is not studied (such as "new field", "not taken serious because this is 'just kids'" or other possible reasons. A milder version of this objection might fare better - if we see sociologists discussing emo without using the word subculture and/or using an incompatible term then we would have a good positive reason not to make the move, as the good source we have is not "strong" enough. Realizing this, I googled "sociology emo". I found these: a Phd who discusses with her students whether emo is a subculture or counterculture (no, thats not an incompatible term) [13], a student looking for sources on the "emo subculture" [14], a student not using the term, but who prefers "sterotype" (not incompatible, but indicative that the use is not widely accepted) [15], a blog calling it a "culture" (not incompatible) [16], another post calling it a culture [17] (not incompatible). The best one I found was from a newsletter [18] mentioning a paper on emo which does not use any term related to subculture: "Punk as Historical Source Genre: Constructions and Applications of Punk in Emo" - do you want to use this to argue your point? That we have one (ok?) source not taking a stand, many non-usable sources saying there is some connection or not mentioning the classification at all and one student and one professor+friends who claim emo is a subculture - and we are somehow meant to use the one newsletter and say "this source is good, so lets assume that since it does not mention that emo is a subculture, it isn't; while completely disregarding the professor over there?

I am not including these because they are good sources, I am including them because these are the best sources against my claim. --Lundse 08:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lundse, this is nonsense. I do not have to prove that the source is unreliable. It is assumed to be unreliable unless you can show that it is reliable. Likewise, I don't have to prove that emo is not a subculture. It is assumed to not be one unless you can show that it is. This is ludicrous. The burden of the proof is on inclusion - if a claim cannot be proven, it is always excluded. I do not need to prove that it should be excluded. --Cheeser1 08:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

←@Cowicide: Of course, good idea: I think the article should be named Emo_(subculture) or Emo_(social group). The reasons are:

There is a very obvious topic to be covered and so far I have heard no better description for it than these two terms, "slang" is a weird way of putting it because it denotes the thing which the article should be about and is similar to having a Car_(word) article - it also suggests a bias that the group should for some reason not to be taken as serious as eg. punk.

We have a pretty good source (and lots of worse ones) where sociologists use the term "subculture" about emo. We have no sources to the contrary, nor any sources that it is something else (apart from a word, which is obvious and does not contradict it being a subculture). --Lundse 08:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are a few misconceptions here which I have not been able to clear up so far:

Cheeser assumes that "selfpublished" necessarily means a source does not meet RS - this is simply not true. I have shown him the policy which says this (WP:SPS: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.").

He also assumes that an obvious claim would have sources - despite being shown counterexamples (eg. that the claim "54 follows 53" is obviously corrent but not sourced directly). If "subculture" is trivially the right label for emo, then we cannot assume that sociologist write this in papers, but rather that they would simply assume this (and maybe writing it as non-problematic in their abstracts).

Cheeser claims "some of my argument" hinges on a "laymens definition" of the term. This is incorrect - I tried convincing Cheeser with a different argument which had the existence of this term as a premise. I am not retracting this claim and argument, I am simply not going to argue it with Cheeser as he seems adamant that "subculture" can only be used in its sociological definition.

Regarding my argument that this is common knowledge, then it was more of an appeal. Given the burden of proof that subbculture can be applied to emo (a phd., a bachelor student, one professor, numerous blogs) then I said that anyone would come to this conclusion - regardless of whether it lives up to specific policies. I am appealing to Cheesers better knowledge that this information is correct and saying we should, yes, WP:IGNORE the rules which says we cannot include it - in order to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia (which is exactly what the policy is for). --Lundse 09:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You continue to cite WP:SPS despite the fact that it makes clear that this exception is generally concerned with uncontested material that we just can't find a better source for - if something is contested, and the best you can come up with is a SPS, you should really start to wonder "Gosh, why hasn't thus been published?" Your math analogy is still wrong because the number 54 is explicitly defined as the successor of 53 in dozens, if not hundreds, of texts. There are reliable sources stating this, and no one disputes that 53+1=54. Your claim about emo, on the other hand, is (1) not obvious, (2) not explicitly stated in a published source, and (3) disputed. STOP making this analogy. It is distracting from the issue at hand, not really analogous, and you really shouldn't be demanding that I answer to all of your analogoes - I've already explained my argument in terms of this article. If you really went and made this objection at 54 (number), you'd be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The fact that you assert that you would, hypothetically, do so is just as irrelevant. If you want to discuss this article, discuss this article. I've made my points without using analogies. Do not demand that I make them in the context of the analogies you've (incorrectly) presented. --Cheeser1 09:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding SPS, then policies and their exceptions do not suddenly become moot because someone (not even you) disagree. If we had some other source which disagreed, then you are perfectly right that we should not allow a self-published source. But we do not, we just have you (do you even, at this point, claim that emo is not called a subculture within sociology)?

Regarding the math analogy, then I am getting confused. Are you claiming that we do have good, academic sources for every number up to, say, 1000, defining it explicitly? And no, I am not asking if this fits the definition of integers, we know it does and that is not the point. Lets take it step by step if it is so difficult - do we have such sources?

Please also onte that I am not demanding anything of you - I am asking you to address my points instead of just outfitting me with some weird opinion and then attacking that. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then there is no pressure from my side - you are just writing yourself out of the consensus-seeking process. Also, you are of course right in claiming that it would be disruptive to actually demand these sources - eben though it would be in line with policy. So it seems there is a time to IGNORE? (Do you begin to see how the analogy may have a point relevant to the current discussion?). --Lundse 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC?

Since arguing this point here is just not getting us anywhere, I say we open an RfC on this article, to determine how the community feels about this. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 13:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, but I don't have a lot of experience with the procedure... --Lundse 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

More sources for subculture

From Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo by Andy Greenwald [19], pg.37: "...and that's what I came to see emo as. It's not a genre. It's a subculture." From Authenticity, Subcultural Capital, and the Rise of an Internet Scene by J.P. Williams [20]: "The punk subculture and its offshoots, including hardcore, emo, and straightedge, have been conceptualized primarily as music- and style-based subcultures." From Editorial: On suicide and subcultures by Graham Martin

in Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health (AeJAMH), Volume 5, Issue 3, 2006 [21]: "There have also been suggestions that influences may not have been just personal, but rather that identifying with Emo culture may in itself influence toward suicidal behaviours. / We should really begin by examining whether any subculture increases the risk for suicide." and "...is said to be high in the group, and a key feature of Emo culture. Of course, such associations with suicidality are not just found in youth subculture...." --JJL 23:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

One is a primary (nonobjective) source, and not a sociological authority. We are supposed to use reliable, authoritative, and objective sources. Furthermore, to characterize the group of people as a subculture is an analytical claim - one that cannot be made in a primary source (only a secondary source will do). See here for the relevant part of OR policy. The other is an editorial by a psychiatrist. Editorials are not peer-reviewed, and are not considered accepted research in the field (which would be psychiatry anyway, not sociology). --Cheeser1 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We're fortunate to have such an authority on authorities here. --JJL 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm, but in either event, I'm just here pointing out what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't, it's not like I'm any sort of expert, since all I'm doing is typing Wikipolicy out to everybody. --Cheeser1 03:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do not move

Four weeks ago we had a discussion on the proposed move to Emo Subculture, we did not move because there was a consensus not to move. It shall stay. --Marlith ^T/C 18:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. We just had this debate and Lundse simply refused to let it end. This isn't even a new discussion - he's just dragged this one out for a month, mostly by drawing on long-winded and non-applicable analogies. --Cheeser1 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

While I understand that this is not new to the page, the original discussion was almost entirely based on OR. Lundse has introduced sources that argue in defense of an emo subculture, so I believe it is relevant to revisit this discussion. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

His proposal includes explicitly asking us to use WP:IGNORE to ignore WP:RS for two different reasons. I'd say that's still highly dubious - we used to have other unreliable sources about emo being a subculture. They didn't seem to help in the last move discussion. And for the record, he did not introduce those sources to this page. Others did, and when explained that a conference abstract is not published, nor reliable as far as WP is concerned, the issue was dropped (by everyone except Lundse). Now that it's been a couple weeks since anyone but him (and me) talked about it, he's asking people to jump back in as if he's re-enlivened this debate with new sources. These are the same sources we've been discussing since right after the move failed, and everyone who brought these sources forward originally, they all let the issue go after I explained that abstracts are self-published and that conference manuscripts and their abstracts are not reliable sources. He's the only one who's run with it, picking up the torch (figuratively speaking) because no one else would carry it once they saw that conference abstracts do not constitute reliable sources. He's just dragging out a long-dead argument by continually insisting that these things he has are reliable sources, despite the fact that those who originally proposed using these sources have already had a change of opinion due to policy on this matter. --Cheeser1 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's try this. Here are the contents of a book. I surmise that we must now include "lesbian balladeering" in this article, because this book is actually a published sociological source. Nevermind that all we have is the table of contents or abstract, nevermind that we have no idea what the book says, after all, this one is even published and we can just clip a term out of it and insist that how we're using it is correct and consistent with the author's use. The fact is, the manuscript was nto published, we have no idea how it used the term subculture, we have no idea if/how it was peer-reviewed, and it is not available for others to read. We cannot cite sources that are not available for anyone to read. --Cheeser1 19:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to note that the "move" camp did not have anywhere near the number of references they have now. No matter what Cheeser's personal evaluations of them may be.

I again, will reiiterate the conclusion of the last RFC was not a consensus not to move, but a lack of consensus to do so (not the same thing)

However, I too agree it is a little too soon to think about instigating another RFC on the issue just yet. I think it would be wise for parties involved to WP:COOL for a while, and cease arguing over the matter. I think sources should be mentioned and provided to the talk page for analysis, but not evaluated until the next RFC. That is unless they are clearly not up to any wikipedia standard (ie. WP:FRINGE or personal blogs). Editors should also avoid pushing for the move, instead just provide sources. --ZayZayEM 04:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions, especially about WP:COOL. I have been (essentially) repeating myself for so long (mostly to Lundse) that I (1) haven't had a break from this "discussion" since the official move discussion ended and thus (2) I'm pretty frustrated, due to a number of issues in this discussion (like this for example). On those grounds, I am temporarily removing myself from this discussion. I've made my points clearly, repeatedly, and unequivocally. Certainly, there are other opinions out there, but I've seen and addressed them pretty thoroughly so far, and I don't really think I have anything more to say. I'm not required to respond to existing or future comments, of course, so I'll take a (probably necessary) break - and don't forget that my bowing out of this discussion temporarily is not "silent consensus" for anything. So that's that. I'll be back in maybe a week or something, to re-enter the discussion (if necessary). --Cheeser1 06:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous archived of the Proposed move discussion can be found here [22] Support 6 / Oppose 4. Result from Admin User:Stemonitis was do not move : no consensus to move. (11 August 2007) This was an accepted outcome. I would strongly advise against instigating another RM prematurely (i.e. make sure your sources will survive scrutiny etc.). I'll also note that both myself and Marlith who are arguing for a stay at the moment both supported the page move (and I still do). There is nothing that says an article cannot be nominated again, just make sure the situation has changed. --ZayZayEM 08:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that an overemphasis is being placed on having a board-approved sociologist render an official opinion. First, it's not clear to me that only a sociologist(s) is able to render judgment on that. You can trust a physicist pretty far on math. and a psychologist pretty far on statistics, for example. But more to the point, especially if the move is to "Emo subculture" (vice "Emo (subculture)"), it's enough that the term is used by those commenting on the scene, as in the Greenwald reference and the comparisions to the widely accepted terms Goth and Punk subcultures. In that sense, it's not much different from allowing Dr. Dre instead of insisting on having it be just Dre because he's not a real doctor. If the phrase is being used--and that is certainly well-attested--it's being used. This justifies the move, but the argument against a statement such as "Emo is a subculture in the sociological sense" within the article would require adequate sourcing as that is indeed a stronger claim.

I realize Cheeser1 is taking a break and am not trying to draw him back in. There's certainly no rush on this move, and marshalling sources isn't a bad idea. But I do feel some of the current soures are being overly deprecated. Indeed, I feel that the two sides are talking past one another in this way--over whether the phrase is used vs. whether the phrase is accurate. --JJL 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been drawn back in. It's not up to us to decide how terms are used, or to report it. I mean, if we want to report on how the term "emo culture" is used, we might as well just move the whole thing to Emo culture based on this and this. However, we are not here to report "some undefined group of people consider emo a (sub)culture." And we're supposed to weigh the verifiability of claims, paying attention to the authority of the source. That's certainly not grounds to move the article. If we intend to call something a subculture in the title of the article, it shouldn't just be called a subculture, it should be a subculture. After all, the article Joshua A. Norton is not called The Emperor of the US for a reason - he wasn't really the Emperor, even if people called him that. Now, if there were a substantial reason to mention that people call emo a subculture I would understand including that (in Norton's case, an alias is always relevant in a biography, here it is not so clear). But moving the article essentially constitutes a claim that the new title is accurate - not just how people misuse a term.

This is the same as your claim about Dr. Dre. "Dr. Dre" is an established alias of a particular person. "Emo subculture" is something people use not just as an "alias" of emo, but as if they believe emo were a subculture. The fact that they are wrong notwithstanding, it is not another name for emo, it is a claim about emo. There is a HUGE difference. It would be like moving the article to "Dre Ph.D." which implies that Dre has a doctorate (since this is not an alias of any sort). An alias is a poor analogy, because it is, in its own right, a way to identify a person.

Furthermore, since your claim about calling it "subculture" is based on usage, should we not remind ourselves that the usage of this word is already more aptly indicated by its current title? The fact that its use in slang also collides with misuse of the term "subculture" should be somewhat expected. --Cheeser1 04:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to Emo_(subculture)

Better description for the topic, emo is a social group of actually extant people and not just a word —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundse (talk • contribs) 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: I (Lundse) initiated this RFC, after suggestion by J-stan. I would equally support a move to Emo_(social group), although I will argue for "subculture" below. My reasons are:

Better article. Having an article on a slang word is not all that interesting in itself, and does not allow for a lot of content, which we could and should add to wikipedia regarding this phenomenon. This content (on how the group dresses, how they are viewed, what they typically believe, etc.) does not fit under Emo_(music) except as a note and a link to a fuller article. Retaining Emo_(slang) unfairly stops us from adding good content, so anny alternative which makes it clear that this is about a social group and not just a word would be fine by me. This is my main reason.

Common usage. I will point this out, despite its non-existent sourcing, since there has been confusion in the past over what I mean. It is important to note that this is a distinct argument from those below. Here, I am claiming that in addition to its original, primary use, then "subculture" is also used "on the street" and hence that we do not need a sociological source for this, but that a newspaper article or similar would be fine. I further claim that we have such non-academic sources and therefore that the move should be made. This argument does rely on WP:IGNORE (not all of my arguments do) - I am asking the community to apply common sense. I accept, of course, that if we had a sociological source saying different, then we should not rely on this argument.

Denotation analogy. This is basically an argument made up to support the "better article" reason. Consider that we had an article called "Car_(word)", this would obviously be absurd and whether (policy or not). So why is this article different (I assume we agree that there are actually people out there which fit the emo sobriquet)? This analogy fails if there is some difference, and only goes to show that the current "slang" designation is bad, not what we should replace it with. I would be happy if we could just agree that this needs to happen.

OK synthesis. This is another argument which does rely on WP:IGNORE. It simply states that sometimes we need to go WP:SYN because the case is overwhelmingly clear. For example, it would be disruptive wikilawyering to demand a source for "123 is the natural number following 122 and preceding 124." and all similar statements - even though this is obviously a synthesis stemming from the definition of integers. We have a definition of a subculture under which emo fits about as well as 123 fits "number", so I really see no reason behind all this debate. I am not going to defend this argument further, here (except if it is strawmanned against, which I have had enough of lately) - I am including it to make it clear which arguments do depend on the IGNORE policy and which do not.

We have sources. I have already admitted the sources are not perfect, they would not be enough to add a new, unknown theory to an article or to defeat any well-sourced claim (such as a source saying emo was not a subculture). But since we have no other sources, and those that we have are good enough for inclusion. I have been told time and again that we need a proper, academic source which is published and peer-reviewed - but I do not believe this is the case. We are not making a huge academic claim here, we are just reporting how sociologists use the word. This we do have sources for:

An abstract service used by the American Association of Sociologists annual convention tells us of a paper called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’" [23] and the abstract confirms the usage a few times ("...“emo,” a youth-based musical subculture... "). The paper is peer-reviewed and written by "Cunningham, David" (a published professor of sociology), "Hardman, Emilie" (a major in Sociology and Communication Studies) and "Spinney, Ann. " (an Assistant Professor of Music and Irish Studies). It was presented at the annual conference and its existence is verified on a couple of private webpages of the writers.

The relevant policy is WP:SPS, which claims the reason we do not as a rule allow self-published material is that anyone could then "...claim to be an expert in a certain field." But it also states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is clearly the case here, and neither the policy nor anyone else has notified me of another reason we cannot use a source such as this - the only reason behind the policies prima facie rejectin of such sources fail here, according to the source itself.

Technically, the paper is not even self-published. The abstract service in question is a way for the conference staff to keep track of the conference papers, events, etc. The abstract (as a source in itself) was therefore published by the American Association of Sociologists! I think this makes it a pretty good source, even if it is not (as an abstract) academic in its own right.

I further believe peer-reviewed and presented at a conference the major association in the field means more than "put to paper". Some may disagree, but I think this a good place to ignore the rules and accept this source.

There are other sources, but they are not as good as this one. These include newspaper articles: [24] [25] [26], a phd student (self-published) [27], the mention of other papers using the term about emo from a newsletter from a university [28] and a whole bunch of websites, forums and blogs of course. Nowhere do we find a claim, by a sociologist or otherwise, that emo is not a subculture or that it should be designated something which is incompatible with this (culture and counterculture do come up). It is this rather glaring imbalance in the sources which I humbly suggest tells us something about how the term is used, by sociologists and laymen. I really can see no reason wikipedia needs to be different than the rest of the world (even if it does violate policy, which I do not believe it does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundse (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As a point, what sources do we have that say that Emo is merely a slang term? I am in support of the move, because sociologists refer to Emo as a subculture, and who really knows subcultures better than those who have deeply studied it? Also, I believe that moving it to Emo subculture will give it more credibility as more than a word, as titling it as a slang term puts it on the hanging edge of violating WP:NEO. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Support move to Emo (subculture) or preferably Emo subculture. To describe it as (merely) a slang term is clearly no longer accurate; this is an improvemment (though the article will then need some expanding). I'm convinced by the references produced that it is an accurate descirption--that Emo is a subculture--and it does bring this article in line with similar WP articles. --JJL 18:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you propose we expand it? The closest thing to a reliable source we have on this "subculture" is the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript. There are zero reliable sources for content, if we want to write an article about emo as a subculture. Please note that "similar articles exist" is an irrelevant claim, and your evaluation of a conference abstract does not qualify as proper peer-review towards publication, which is what we require of academic sources. --Cheeser1 19:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. I have already addressed every one of these points, but will summarize once again:
1. The name of the article does not prevent you from adding any content. WP:RS does. If you want to add content that is tantamount to saying that emo is a subculture, it needs reliable sourcing. You should not be making move requests in the hopes of putting particular kinds of information into an article.
2. "Subculture" is a sociological term. It may be used by unqualified people to make claims they are not qualified to make, often about groups with which they are involved, but it is a sociological term nontheless. You cannot conjure up some secondary definition of the word subculture and presume to use it in an encyclopedia. People in general tend to misuse or misunderstand technical terms from any subject, be it science, sociology, medicine, or anything else. That doesn't allow us to misuse them too.
3. Emo is a slang term. Emo is a music term. Cone is a geometry term. These all make perfectly good sense because these parenthetical words are for DISAMBIGUATION. Your use of "Car (word)" is absurd, because every word is a word, and such a parenthetical would serve no disambiguation purposes. This is an inapplicable analogy. Emo (slang) provides adequate disambiguation. Its characterization as "slang" has been sourced.
4. Another argument relying on WP:IGNORE - you intend to use WP:IGNORE in two different places, both times to violate WP:RS by introducing disputed original research into the article. And don't tell me it's not original research - you prpose that we ignore WP:RS to make these claims, which means it most certainly is. And you again hearken back to irrelevant analogies. The set of integers is defined in hundreds of mathematical texts. This irrelevant analogy is (1) not disputed, (2) properly sourced and in no way constitutes synthesis, and (3) obvious. None of this applies to your argument, and you cannot continue to claim "well if you exclude my claims, we better go muck up all these mathematical articles." It's a hypothetical disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point (through flawed reasoning, no less).
5. That source is unreliable. Conference abstracts constitute self published sources. SPS has a small exception clause that is for undisputed information, and even then, it strongly warns us that if the best we can do is an SPS, we should really start to wonder why no one has published on this matter. There is no evidence that this paper was peer reviewed. It indicates "review type: peer review." Does that mean it was peer reviewed? Possibly. Was the manuscript peer reviewed at the same level as publications? Possibly. But we don't know for sure. That's why we (are supposed to) rely on published sources only. JStan is mistaken. "Sociologists refer to emo as a subculture" is a false impression he is getting - a few unpublished manuscripts (some by undergraduate students) have possibly used the term. We don't even have the text of this possibly-peer-reviewed draft of a paper that has never been published. We are expected to cite its abstract. This is highly inappropriate, and fails WP:RS. And do not continue to insist that we have to find a source to prove that it is not a subculture. This is absurdity - no one would write such a paper, and a source is required only to include content, such as what you are proposing. Exclusion of content is automatic until a reliable source is found.

I'm afraid this is a case of "oh just trust-the-experts" syndrome. Lundse has wanted from the start to move this article, and after digging and digging, after drawing out this conversation 4 weeks past the last move nomination (which did not pass), he is attempting to revive the discussion in a more formal way by requesting a comment. He has demonstrated that he knows very little about sociology (he thinks it's a part of the humanities), but insists that he knows that an abstract of the ASA is peer-reviewed thoroughly enough for publication - despite the fact that we have no assurances that this is the case (and it has not, not, not been published). He says "but it's the ASA, surely we can trust their conference abstracts." No, we can't. All academic conferences are held by academic groups. That still doesn't make conference abstracts reliable. We do not know what peer review, if any, this underwent, because it was not published. He is conveniently using WP:IGNORE to violate WP:RS in the hopes of adding dipsuted material to the article, because it's what he believes and he found an unpublished manuscript's conference abstract that might possibly have something similar to say. This is not a reliable source, no matter how he bends the rules. He insists that we're just "documenting how sociologists use the term subculture to describe emo" but until they do so in a scholarly publication, then this assertion is false. I propose that we summarily reject this move: there is no merit to Lundse's claims and we settled this only a few weeks ago. It's far too soon for a re-nomination, especially when this is a dragged-out version of the same discussion.

I also dispute the "it's not just a word" statement. The article is about a slang term that describes many things, and in case no one noticed, all articles' titles are words. These include a group of people, who are already discussed on this page. The fact is, what Lundse wants is to upgrade that group's status to "subculture" instead of "loosely associated group" - something he's advocated from the start, because he is of this opinion. Furthermore, this proposed move will exclude all the other content, and make the article smaller. Besides narrowing the scope of the article, this will also require us to use sources about this subculture (if it were one). Since we only have a handful of unreliable sources, this new article could not be reliably sourced. We already have sources that barely merit inclusion in a pop-culture article. They'd never pass as refs for an article about a social science topic. --Cheeser1 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The first two sources seem to be reliable. KGET (which appears to have a relation to NBC) published something on the subject, stating that it is a subculture. Cheeser, please support your argument with reliable sources that state that Emo is merely a slang term. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Journalists do not have sociological authority, especially when writing a human-interest piece about local 13 year old self-described emos. Half of that article is about cutting for Pete's sake. And like I've already said, it's not up to me to prove that it's not a subculture. --Cheeser1 19:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, but if you insist on there being no reliable sources to prove that it is a subculture, you are responsible for proving that others have proved that it is not a subculture. All our sources (reliability aside) state that it is a subculture - now if you are so adamantly against this, provide sources (again, reliability aside) that emo is only a word. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

J-Stan, this does not make sense. Until we find a reliable source stating that emo is a subculture, it is not. Sources are required to include content, not to exclude it. I am arguing against inclusion. I am not asking that we add anything to the article, not even a statement like "emo is not a subculture." If I had proposed including such a statement, I'd need a source. But I haven't, and I don't. --Cheeser1 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So you admit, it can't be proved that emo is not a subculture. Therefore, this discussion should stay alive until we can prove that it is a subculture. Lundse has provided a paper (or at least proved the existence of one) whose abstract affirms that emo is a subculture. An abstract can't contradict the paper it summarizes, so therefore, it doesn't matter whether we have the actual paper - the abstract is enough. And again, it defends our argument. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Prove to me that George W. Bush is not a Martian. I demand a reliable source! Oh wait, you don't have to provide a source, because until I can prove that he is a Martian, we presume that he is not and do not include any statement either way on the article George W. Bush. This argument is lunacy - I do not have to prove that it is not a subculture, my argument is simply that you have not proven that it is. You are the ones who must demonstrate that it is (using reliable sources) before we can say so. The abstract of an unreliable source is not enough, especially when the actual paper is not (1) published, (2) publicly or privately available, nor (3) accepted in its field. The claim "emo is not a subculture" would never have reliable sources backing it because nobody is going to write a comprehensive list of everything that "emo" is not. Emo is not a type of bread either, I don't see you demanding that we need a source proving that emo is not a type of bread. --Cheeser1 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, while the full contents of a paper cannot "contradict" the abstract describing it, they can contextualize it. Like I said, we have no assurances that this paper demonstrates or claims that emo is a subculture, only that it uses the phrase "emo subculture" in its abstract. For all we know, they coined this phrase because they couldn't think of anything better, and for all we know stated that emo is not a subculture in a footnote. You might think this is unlikely, but terminology is often generalized, reused, and adapted beyond is proper use - this is common in almost any field of study. The fact is, if an article is not available publicly or privately, we cannot presume anything about what it states. Especially when it is a draft, and no part of it has ever been published. Like I pointed out, this is not acceptable for exactly the same reasons that our source is not accpetible (such sources are even explicitly stated to be unreliable in the relevant article, here. It is an unpublished, untested theory. And this one, at least the full text is available and complete. You expect us to accept the conference abstract of an unpublished manuscript. --Cheeser1 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at WP:COMMONSENSE. We know George Bush isn't a martian for obvious reasons. However, whether emo is a subculture or not isn't common sense, as most people have never even heard of emo, it being a relatively recent concept. So if you would be so kind, stop using obviously ridiculous analogies (see, I'm using common sense here. Are you?) and please prove that we are in fact wrong, rather than try to prove that we are violating policy. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheeser, I know you are frustrated, and I am willing to take a break from this to let us both cool down. But please, for the umpteenth time stop with the attacks. It is not persuading me (on the contrary) and I hope it does not persuade anyone else. Noone needs to be told that I have English as my second language and therefore went wrong in calling sociology a department of the humanities. It is not relevant. Saying I have "oh just trust-the-experts" syndrome is not helpful either. And neither is misinterpreting my analogies and still' claiming I want to use IGNORE for everything (I even told you specifically where I want to do this and where I do not, this is strawmanning). I will try to turn down the snideness in turn...

But you do respond to my points one at a time, which is great, I will respond back below:

You claim the name of the article does not prevent content - this is plain wrong. I should not add content on math under a car article and I should not add content on the emo subculture and their way of dressing under an article which is only trying to explain the word emo as a slang term. So yes, we should move the article in order to allow better content in it. Or we could just start an article on the actual social group... Your claim that this would make the scope of the article smaller is pretty weird, what is it we can write about the slang term that could not be included under the right section in an article on a real group of people out there who so far have no article covering them!.
Good point. I don't think the danger of misunderstandings is as great as you do, and at one point we even agreed that we simply have different views on how much a technical term this is and how much it is a "laymans term". Erring on the side of caution is fine, and so your point is well taken. As stated, I included this here so I would not be misunderstood in only applying WP:IGNORE.
The analogy is fine. My examples are not meant to be good disambiguation terms and I never advocated actually changing Car to Car_(word). You get really close to, though: saying that "every word is a word", is correct, but we could easily find another example - Punk_(slang) would be absurd too. And the reason is of course that Punk is not only a slang work but also the only word we have to denote the thing itself. So the article should be about that thing, not about the word. We have no other word for the emo subculture than "emo", so why should the article be about the slang term when we have group of people out there, whom we have no article on?
First of all, the reasearch is not disputed. There are no sources of any kind saying this is not a subculture. You are still failing to see the analogy: you say "The set of integers is defined in hundreds of mathematical texts". And this is correct and part of my point, I have no clue how you ever got the idea that I disagreed on this... What you fail to see is that if we were to use this definition to source such claims as "124 follows 123", then we would be violating WP:SYN. And we should! Anything else would be absurd. Hence, there is a time for ignoring the rules. You also try to make my analogy sound like a threat, which is again strawmanning and more than a little spiteful.
You then belittle the exception clause (do you want to ignore it or not, you never answered this), which ignores my point that this clause also fits with the reasoning behind the policy in the first place. The only reason we have this policy is to exclude any whackjob with a blog. It is not meant to exclude the opinion of published sociology professors. The policy "exception clause" is there exactly because we want to hear his opinion over that of others, even when he is not speaking "ex cathedra" from a published paper! It really is as simple as that - all the talk about how academic this is and is not is simply avoiding the issue. We have a source, and it is ok according to the V/SPS policy. Nothing more to see here, include the claim.

Also, a few points: you are asking my to stop claiming we need sources for the claim that emo is not a subculture. I never did this, I might as well ask you to stop beating your wife. You also say that I "...but insists that he knows that an abstract of the ASA is peer-reviewed thoroughly enough for publication..." which I never claimed. I am just claiming we have a pretty good reason to think this paper and its abstract is a good sociological source. This is because it has been through some kind of review-process, because it was used at the ASA and because it is written by a professor of sociology. I know you want to imagine that this professor is so incompetent that he was laughed out of the room when he gave this talk, or that he is completely new to academia and does not know how to write an abstract properly, or that he is some kind of fringe nut with a twisted theory. This is called ad ignorantiam and it simply does not fly. The source is good, on his reputation alone, no less. Your claim that "...until [sociologists] do so (use subculture about emo) in a scholarly publication, then this assertion is false." I assume you meant "...the assertion cannot be a part of wikipedia" - but this is also incorrect. We do not need a published academic paper for the claim "sociologist use the word subculture about emo", since it is not a scientific claim but just a claim about how certain words are actually used by certain people. A newspaper article with a sociologist's quote would be fine. So would, of all things, a blog entry by a sociologist. Or a paper abstract and title. Or do you think we should delete all material sourced by newspaper articles or similar? --Lundse 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongest support move to Emo subculture (I'm coming from the RFC). I think the many references provided below (including Contemporary Youth Culture: An International Encyclopedia, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Chronicle, a body of literature addressing the connection of emo to youth suicide/depression, and an _entire book_ written on the subject) suffice. I'm not sure what more we could have here. --Calliopejen1 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion vs. Exclusion

I am making a sub-heading to clarify a point: I am not arguing that emo is not a subculture. My position is this: we have not established that it is a subculture. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. My argument is that there are no sources to justify including the statement "emo is a subculture". My argument does NOT advocate including any content, and I do not need to present reliable sources to prove that emo is not a subculture - that is not my claim, and I do not intend to include such content in this article. I will no longer respond to anyone insisting that I "prove that emo is not a subculture." I do not intend to do so, and need not do so. --Cheeser1 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I know. If you think anything I have ever said goes against this claim/point, then you have not read my arguments right. I am fully aware where the burden of proof lies, I just think it has been lifted. That said, there is good cause to compare the proposed title to the current title - if it is better and/or better sourced then it should be changed. --Lundse 11:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this was meant for me :) --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It was. --Cheeser1 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

From the RfC

I fail to see why this can't just be included in this article with a link from a redirected page to the appropriate subsection. As long as it is APPROPRIATELY referenced (abstracts are generally not peer reviewed, but published articles are). By definition, it is a slang term. If there is more than one thing it can portray, but they are related, then it should just be included in the basic article...maybe even as the opening subsection after a short history section? It certainly doesn't need its own page though, IMHO. --— BQZip01 — ^talk 17:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC

A move nomination failed four weeks ago, and the issue has not been dropped since then. Several users have formed a majority opinion that advocates moving the article based on sources that have raised WP:RS objections. It appears that the majority group intends not to form consensus, but to push their majority opinion by having votes and claiming consensus rule. Note that I am not participating in this RFC due to my leaving this discussion once again. I have repeated myself far too much and should not be forced to "[stare] down the business of a majority" or endure accusations that I am "blocking the article from being improved" just because I'm trying to work towards an article that satisfies WP:RS. Due to the disposition of others in this discussion, my contributions are being disregarded and dismissed due to the alleged singularity of my opinion. This is why, as I'm noting, I will not be participating in the discussion on this page - I would be unable to keep my cool in such an injudiciously hostile environment. --Cheeser1 03:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't move the push to include the word "subculture" appears to be due to a desire by the "majority" for this to happen, rather than a valid reason for it to happen. The sources that the "subculture" claim is based on are, as Cheeser1 has exhaustively explained above, not reliable. No amount of consensus will change that. The reliability requirements may seem like a pain to those in favour of a move, but that's the point; preventing this kind of thing is why they are there! Establishing emo as a subculture requires multiple reliable sources which, as yet, do not exist. My suggestion would be to drop this as a total waste of everybody's time and bring it back up only when some decent sources are available. When that happens, no one will have a reason to oppose the move. --Miremare 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe we have good sources. I am not trying to push something because I see things a certain way, but simply because it bothers me to see the editing process blocked and because I believe I have been strawmanned time and again - such as suggesting that those who support the move want to do it with a majority ruling against policy.

I have argued for why the sources are good. Please tell me what is wrong with those arguments. And please note that the claim is only that sociologists, journalists and laymen are using the term "subculture" about "emo", and that there is no other word which has the same popularity (counterculture, culture and social group would be candidates, though). --Lundse 18:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, social group (or a more acceptable variant thereof) appears to be a reasonable compromise. Subculture might be too much of a leap, but Emo does appear to be a subset of society. Can we just please move it from "(slang)"? It makes it seem as if Emo is an informal, perhaps derogatory collection of words, not a group of people. As far as I know, emo doesn't even have its own terminology. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Social group is (still) acceptable. --Lundse 19:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

While we don't agree that the sources say that emo is a subculture, and the ones that do are somehow decidedly unreliable, I don't think anyone (other than punk youtubers who claim "there's no such thing as Emo") would report that emo is not a social group. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not exactly what I am claiming the sources say (they tell us "subculture" is used about emo by a wide range of people, including sociologists). But never mind, I agree that emo is a social group and that we should not let the lack of sources hold us from stating the obvious, especially when the alternative (for now) seems a misleading "slang", which have a lot of connotations we do not want. --Lundse 20:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no matter what the prvious sources say, emo is a social group. Let's let this sit for a couple of days (I'll ~~tag it~~ post for a suggested move), and people can add their opinion. I would move it right away, but we seem to be the only two who agree at this point. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't move The article isn't about a "social group" - it's about hair, clothing, and other elements thrown under the term "emo". It's not about a subculture, as many of the people who wear the hair and the clothing (etc) identified with "emo" are in no way part of a subculture. If I get an "emo" haircut, does that automatically make me part of a subculture? Would it matter if I didn't personally think of it as an "emo" haircut, but someone else did? Whether or not the subculture can be proven through sources to exist is completely irrelevant as far as the title of the article is concerned.

Take the bands who are called "emo" because of their appearance and fashion sense. You're saying they're part of a subculture or social group, even though they flatly refuse to be associated with anything "emo"?

"Emo (pop culture)" doesn't work, either, given that the use of "emo" in "pop culture" is as a slang term. The simplest and most generic term is "slang".

Feel free to create a section or sub-heading about a subculture or social group within the article. But "subculture" or "social group" does not encompass the entirety of the article, making it completely unacceptable. --ChrisB 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really help our argument now that the Fashion Wikiproject came along and tagged it. --J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What does the slang term emo incompass that it is derived from the social group? The ridicule and how the word is used connects directly to the group and should be included in the groups article/section anyway. So should fashion, music (mostly a link of course), age, etc. What is left which can fit into the slang article but not the subculture? --Lundse 21:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Move. We have an article, for example, on Goth subculture. There seems no reason for emo to be treated differently. Also, Emo (social group) seems like a good compromise. --Grand Slam 7 | Talk 01:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is there no apparent reason to treat this group differently--the sources given here indicate frequent use of this phrase ("Emo subculture"), giving a positive reason for the move. Bringing some measure of uniformity to WP is desirable, and the fact that other groups made a similar decision is encouraging, but mostly it's the obvious term to use for a group that self-identifies by music, style, and attitude, as writers concerned with this group have obviously recognized. While Emo (social group) would be an improvement, the term "social group" doesn't seem to be used much in this way here. Presumably most people type in "Emo" or "Emo music" when looking for Emo anyway and hit the dab page! There's already Emo (music) and Emo rap, plus several redirect pages, about Emo. It's also interesting to note that Subculture mentions Emo (slang) in passing. --JJL 02:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid it isn't just "no reason to treat the group differently" - unless you have a reason to treat the group the same, it stays. You can't justify edits on Wikipedia by citing other edits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a source for itself, and this kind of circular logic would put us in a situation where mistakes can be repeated forever, justifying themselves. Not only that, but there is no evidence that the two are analogous (beyond what you assume or believe you know - see WP:OR and WP:CK on that one). You can't use subculture or list of subcultures or emo as justification for this move! Wikipedia is not a source of information to be used on Wikipedia. It's utter nonsense. The only other substantiate for your claim is that it's "obvious." Well, your thoughts on what is obvious do not constitute a reliable source. You're synthesizing analytical claims based on your impressions of emo and/or primary sources (which cannot verify analytical claims). --Cheeser1 03:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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