Talk:Emo (slang)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected?

Hey if this article is semi protected, how come anon. IP addresses keep editing this article? J-stan 01:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it just had the protection banner - even though it wasn't protected. I'm not sure who we appeal to to get that fixed. --Cheeser1 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See here. --Cheeser1 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we request page protection? J-stan ^Talk 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the personality section

I would like to know how the editors feel about creating a subsection in the Personality section about poetry. J-stan 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Grammar note

As editing is fucked disabled, I put this here - the second "adjective" in the grammar bit is an ADVERB. This needa be changed - anyone authorised?

No, it is an adjective. Compare:

I am happy.

I feel happy.

I am stupid.

I feel stupid.

I am emo.

I feel emo.

Those are all adjectives. To be an adverb, it they would have to be "I feel happily" or "I feel emoly" (not a word). Also, please note that editing is locked to prevent vandalism, it is not "fucked." --Cheeser1 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On the note of grammar, I believe it's also accepted as a verb (I emoed over to the corner). Scrapingoutbrains 02:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Source it properly and you can add it... but it wouldn't matter. That's not standard usage: it's clearly verbification. Doesn't seem worth mentioning - you could verbify more or less any noun that isn't itself derived from a verb, especially one that is slang already. --Cheeser1 03:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

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

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

Survey

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

Any additional comments: Marlith ^T/C 03:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose - A) It can't be proven (or cited) that an emo subculture even exists. It was often claimed in the 1990s that there was a "grunge subculture" - but said subculture was mostly just people listening to grunge and wearing flannel. Neither grunge nor emo are like the punk subculture, which is founded on common ideals and beliefs (a key element to defining a subculture). Any claim of a subculture should be a subsection here, since the existence of the common "emo" elements are what suggest (if at all) that such a subculture exists, not the other way around.

B) The only reason that "slang" is included in the title of this article is for disambiguation purposes - nothing else. If the music article didn't exist, this article would just be "Emo". If "slang" is not acceptable, the proper solution is to find something else to go in the parentheses. (And I would oppose "subculture" for that as well.) -- ChrisB 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Lundse 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here is your source: wber.monroe.edu/EmoECYC.pdf.

Lundse 11:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Insufficient context?

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

Yeah, the intro seems fine to me. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on

this article looks like a seventh grader put it together in two days. I mean realy theres barely any history or discription and plus it intirly bland i mean realy

If you believe you can contribute well and properly sourced content that is both notable and spelled correctly, feel free to do it yourself. What content do you allege is missing? Did you check Emo (music) as the music section recommends? Or do you want something flashy and exciting? (An encyclopedia is often bland, you know.) --Cheeser1 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'd like my source taken out, please. I am Bradley Glasco. My article was in the Entertainment section of a college newspaper. I was only poking fun at my own image. I don't honestly do those things. I enjoy shows, I don't stare gloomily with my arms crossed. I buy records, but not to collect them. I buy them to listen. Check your sources better and look at what context they placed are in, please. Its5 06:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What Is your source? J-stan 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glasco, Bradley (March 06, 2007). No one understands just what it is like being a emo kid in the South [sic]. Retrieved on 2007-03-08. It's reference #14 at the moment. I'll point out that I raised this point about several of our sources months ago, and I was dismissed, because apparently random college paper op-eds and various self-published sources meet WP:RS. Looks like even the authors of the op-eds disagree. I say remove the source, it's only used for one statement and that statement has three other sources anyway. --Cheeser1 19:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. J-stan 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey cheeser, who put the source back in? I specifically remember removing it. Either way, It's gone. J-stan 14:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an accident - a reversion for some other reason to a version that had the source. No worries. --Cheeser1 20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. It's cool. J-stan 20:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you guys, really. Because, through the editorial process at my paper that article became a mistake. Haha. I would've gone for a much less serious headline for the article, really. :] Its5 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Emo or Scene?

Isnt emo being lifestyle and actions and scence the look? just wondering

I think the accepted difference is that emo has a lifestyle and a look, and scene is basically a fashion trend that looks similar to the emo look. J-stan 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its:Emo - Music Genre, Scene - The Fashion thats associated with it. As quoted here, "First, lets get to understand emo, if only a bit. Emo is the convergence of melody and hardcore punk. First recognized in tha bands (Now Pay attention): Dag Nasty, Sleeptime Trio, Moss Icon, Indian Summer, and Rites of Spring. Emo is a music genre and nothing more. It's short for Emotively Charged Hardcore. Emo is not a fashion, the fashion is called scene." Source: http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/showthread.php?t=1869923966

Emosexuality

I am pretty surprised that nothing has been said about Emo's Pansexual attidude towards life. Should it be added??

Sexuality really depends on the person. Even if you could source it, it could almost be offensive. J-stan ^Talk 15:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A person's sex depends on the person not what group they are in and I think that would be hard to source. Oysterguitarist 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You couldn't really source it, unless you got every emo in the world together (impossible in itself, some emos (note:"some emos" is the same backwards as it is forward) don't self identify as emo) and got them to agree they were pansexual. J-stan ^Talk 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter 'Emosexuality' should be left out. Oysterguitarist 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's break for coffee and donuts. J-stan ^Talk 19:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There are absolutely no reliable sources, as of yet, explaining or discerning any sort of sexuality related to or correlated to emo fashion. Furthermore, sex, gender, and sexuality are all socially constructed categories that do, in fact depend on the social groups in which one finds oneself. The role that emo music, fashion, etc. might play in one's sexuality is highly dubious, and varied. Further, the idea of sexual category (especially when associating a particular social group with a sexual category) is extraordinarily dubious, because both such categories are poorly defined, locally defined, and dynamic.
This is me speaking from the perspective of someone who has studied human sexuality and social interaction in a great deal of depth (anonymous internet credentials aside, I think my point is still clear). And J-Stan, nice palindrome observation, I saw it too. How bizarre! I guess that makes the case that some emos go both ways. Bad puns all around! --Cheeser1 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a big day for me once I found it. Beers all around, gentlemen, on me! J-stan ^Talk 02:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

gallery??

Why was the gallery removed? There was no justification, and this history page is (of course) impossible to pick through due to the constant vandalism and people making long chains of micro-edits. Anyway, I've added it back - if there was some reason for removing it, let me know, but I don't think there was and have no idea why it's been missing for so long. --Cheeser1 01:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My only problem is that all of the image captions use the word "typical". Do we have ANYTHING that isn't a drawing or single element of emo fashion (i.e. the shoes)? How about a picture of a real individual? Other articles on subcultures have pictures of people (see here, here, here, or here). --emc ^{(t a l k)} 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with these pictures, though. If you find better pictures (that are eligible for use on Wikipedia), put them up here. Otherwise, what do you expect? And if you don't like the wording, contest the wording. Badly captioned pictures need fixed captions, not deletion. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The captions are accurate actually. Therein is my problem with the pictures. The drawings and the image of the shoes in that gallery add little if anything visually informational to the article, and they necessitate the use of the word "typical". The term "emo" may be ambiguous, but "emo fashion" is not all that ambiguous, so I see little need for drawings, and again, all of these drawings and caricatures do nothing to help support the article. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole article is about things that are typical. That's how you describe a fashion or group of people. Your argument in that respect is absurd, and a caricature is just as helpful as a "real" picture unless that caricature is inaccurate. Since we all agree that it is typical of emo fashion, I think you've provided a better argument for keeping it than you have for removing it.--Cheeser1 20:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere in the section about emo fashion does it use the word "typical" other than in the image captions. That section points out very precise and accurate examples. Fashion of the emo subculture is distinct. Additionally, I don't know where you get off asserting that this is an acceptable visual representation. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We spend a few paragraphs describing emo fashion. Rather than repeat it in the caption, we say "typical." Typical is a word. Just a word. It means "more or less like we just described in that paragraph" or "average" or "something identifiable with this fashion." If you have an issue with one picture in particular, feel free to bring it up. However, I consider that picture to be accurate. I remember emo before it was MCR and droves of 7th graders, and the fashion was different then, and I'd like to see you find reliable sources that say otherwise. You can't just decide one day that you think the word "typical" is a no-no, and tell me it was wrong to put the gallery back in. It was removed for no reason, you don't have a good reason now, and if you have problems with some of the content, you address those issues one-by-one. That picture is fine, but if you think otherwise, cite some sources and work for consensus. You don't get to make your own consensus, and until one is reached, you have no place cutting it out of the article. --Cheeser1 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those images, are of unacceptable quality (no offense to the images' creators). I'm not the only one who thinks so. You can argue your case ad nauseum in the same discourteous, flamewar attitude that you've been using to defend this frivolous gallery (ex. "That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles.") for all I care, and you can pull out whatever bureaucratic red tape image guidelines just so you get your way, but my point and opinion still stands, and I'd in the least like you to consider it so we can hopefully come to a compromise on this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 02:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And I'll continue to wait for a reason, based on policy, to remove the gallery. You, like Oysterguitarist, have both now made it quite clear that you don't like the gallery. You think it's bad. It displeases you. I made it clear below, and I will make it clear now: I don't care what your opinion is, and neither does Wikipedia. Unless you're giving us an interpretation of policy that explains why we should remove the gallery, it stays. Accuse me of "flamewarring" - all I've done is make it clear that you should be citing policy, not how you feel about the matter, or how much you dislike the gallery. That's how Wikipedia works, thank you very much, and I'll let your opinion stand indeed, since your opinion should not be involved in this discussion. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of flamewarring. I said you have flamewarring attitude, as in you're behavior is coming off as belligerent. If you're so stuck up on policies, then read this. It is a decision of the editors of an article whether images are suitable or not. And your claim that Wikipedia doesn't care about my or any other editors' opinions is entirely incorrect. Articles are meant to be factual, while talk pages are meant to discuss improving or making changes to an article whereas opinions, concerns, and queries can be expressed, respected, and resolved. Again, I'm willing to compromise on this issue, and since I've clearly proven that my opinion and the opinions of other editors matter and determine whether the gallery should stay, be removed, or simply changed, I suggest you open yourself up for compromise on this issue as well and stop being rude and impolite on this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 05:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the gallery after one other editor expressed a similar opinion: "I don't really like the gallery." That is an opinion. An interpretation of policy is the only kind of opinion that matters. Talk pages are for discussing policy in order to form a consensus which is what I've asked you to do from the start. Up until now, you've just sat there insisting that your opinions are correct. Until you cite policy, the gallery stays. Stop assuming bad faith - I've continued, over and over and over, to try to get you to cite policy. That's all I've told you to do, because your "opinion," unless it's an interpretation of some specific policy, is irrelevant. You finally did cite policy, sort of. That policy says which we prefer. It doesn't say "never use sketches, caricatures, or pictures that aren't of entire people and their clothes." It certainly does not say "never ever use the word typical or you'll have to delete the whole gallery." As I read that policy, there's no reason to delete it. Unless other users work towards a consensus (and no, you and OysterGuitarist's "I don't like it" do not make up a consensus), then there is no consensus, and in that case, the gallery stays. --Cheeser1 05:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

---

You're still not understanding this policy. Please reread it. Furthermore, I'd like to point out this one as well, which clearly states "Images of poor quality, perhaps uploaded only to support the work of editors on an article, should not be included in a mainspace gallery.", and the former noting "Beyond the basics of copyright and markup, editors face choices of image selection and placement. Some editors maintain that photographs are preferable to paintings and sketches." I am one of those editors. Those images are of unacceptable quality. I feel like I'm repeating myself. You're not a consensus either, but thus far, in this discussion, more have favored removal or changing of the gallery (2-1). --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some editors maintain that those images are just fine. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and a 1 vote margin is not a consensus. ESPECIALLY when the other vote is "I don't like the gallery." --Cheeser1 22:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia:Galleries#Mainspace_galleries is about articles that are only galleries, such as Gallery of the Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom. And yet I am accused of misinterpreting policy? --Cheeser1 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section." --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

PS, you said Wikipedia isn't a democracy, yet you're running around screaming about a consensus, which is, as Wikipedia states here: "...the concept of consensus is a particularly important one in the context of society and government, and forms a cornerstone of the concept of democracy." --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't really like the gallery. Oysterguitarist 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I don't like alot of things. That's not how we write articles. --Cheeser1 19:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, take a deep breath. The possibility of a conflict is getting too close for comfort. J-stan ^Talk 02:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All I asked was for an interpretation of policy, so that we can work towards consensus. Instead, I get accused of flaming people and suborning the use of "bad" images what people don't like? I'll take my deep breath and come back to this article if anyone besdies me ever decides to cite policy or work for consensus. Until then, the gallery stays. You can't remove a part of an article like that without a firm reason rooted in policy. --Cheeser1 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, okay. I changed the image captions to make less use of the word "typical" while keeping the basic meaning of the caption. I feel this satisfies both sides of the argument (Oyster, not quite sure how to satisfy your argument while keeping the consensus). Now can we all be adults? J-stan ^Talk 16:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey I like the page better with just the shoes. Maybe we should put the hair thing back in. J-stan ^Talk 20:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I like the page when it obeys policy. Policy is clear. You CANNOT remove chunks of articles unless there is consensus based on policy to do so. It doesn't matter how much people like or don't like the pictures, captions, etc. I've been waiting and waiting for policy and/or consensus to settle this matter, but until it does, the gallery has to stay put. --Cheeser1 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear - if the article can be improved by adding photographs, I would love to see it. If policy and consensus can agree that the gallery must be removed wholesale, fine. But at this point, I see no replacement photos flooding in. There is no consensus about removing the gallery. And there is no policy dictating that images that might be considered substandard (but not considered so by consensus) must be removed. Consensus (and often policy) are required to cut otherwise contributive content from an article. Until we have those things, I will not allow this content to be removed. Am I being a stickler for policy? Maybe. Am I being stubborn? Perhaps. But I'm making myself as clear as I can be, and I've explained myself time and time again, hoping that a solution could be reached if someone would come up with new pictures, find a policy that explicitly prescribes the removal of the gallery, or form a (real) consensus either way. But until that is the case, I will keep the article the way it is. Because that's how Wikipedia works. --Cheeser1 22:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? I've noted two policies thus far to back up my argument, and you've provided none. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 23:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. J-stan ^Talk 03:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The second policy does not apply. Read rule 8 of that section. It clearly states that it's talking only about things listed in this category, which are all gallery only articles. The first policy you cited states what is preferable to some users. If you come up with good photos to replace the illustrations, feel free to add them. If they replicate or supersede the content of the other images, I will agree that consensus isn't required to swap them out. Otherwise, the old images present content that, even if not in the most preferred form, is the only form we have for that content. As for the issue of consensus, see WP:CON and WP:DEMOCRACY. If you make a bold change like removing the entire gallery or portions of it, and someone reverts it, you are supposed to leave it and discuss until consensus is reached. You are not supposed to continue to remove the gallery, asserting without justification that you are right or that consensus is reached because a 2-1 vote is in your favor. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#The_BRD_process. That should clear this matter up, as a part of the consensus process, which is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again, in my second policy, that it is not referring to articles which are entirely galleries, as the second sentence in rule one states: "A single gallery section within an article should be titled Gallery. Few articles should have more than one gallery section.". Rule 8, as you pointed out, does only refer to articles which are entirely galleries, and this article clearly isn't. In that sense, this rule does not apply in any way to this article. However, as the excerpt from rule 1 suggests (see above), those policies are not standard to just full gallery pages. As you continue to use the word "consensus", I'd like to know how exactly you expect me, or anyone else, to gain a consensus on this issue as there are, thus far, only four of us discussing this matter, with you being outweighed. Furthermore, you're not even open for discussion. You just want policy after policy after policy, and most of the policies you've brought up (such as the the BRD process) state that we are to discuss this matter. You are not following rule 3 of the BRD process which you, again, brought up yourself, which states: "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change." You boldly said, not too long ago, that you nor Wikipedia care about my opinions (synonymous with "views"). I think it goes without saying that you are contradicting yourself. So, I'm going to say it for the last time: the two images (aside from the sneakers) in the gallery are of unacceptable quality. This is the issue we are to discuss, so let's oblige by rule 3 of the BRD process and do so without contradicting ourselves, shall we? --emc ^{(t a l k)} 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in cooperating with you any more. You assume absolutely no good faith in my actions, you attack me because I ask that you present interpretations of policy rather than off-the-cuff opinions, and you refuse (apparently) to consider the idea of consensus as anything but what you want. I've told you that I will compromise when anything but the outright removal of perfectly good content is an option. J-Stan and Oysterguitarist have contributed nothing (really) to the discussion of relevant policy, only off-the-cuff opinions. You ask me how to build consensus with only two (four) people, but BRD explains how that's supposed to work - you just don't follow those guidelines and then I apparently look like the bad guy. "If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit" is directed at you in this process. Instead, you attack me for daring to come after your "opinion," and you revert the revert. That is not how these things work. It is your behavior that is out of line, not mine. And you twist my words, because when I try to explain the difference between off-the-cuff opinions and opinions that are interpretations of policy, you accuse me of ignoring your opinions and acting like a big mean jerk. I'm done with this "discussion." You feel free to continue to ignore policy and screw this article up all you want. I'm not interested in dealing with this crap anymore. Oh no, why is Cheeser so mean? Well, I guess I am, but to quote the BRD, "If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies." Your inability to adhere to this most basic tenet of Wikipedia, your senseless and innane attacks on me as if I'm doing you wrong and not just quoting and obeying Wikipedia's most fundamental policies, and your inability to assume good faith have made me quite a bit frustrated. You want to violate the rules? The two random bystanders at the moment aren't doing anything to stop you? Fine. Steamroll right past me and policy. Delete whatever the hell you want from this article. Go ahead. There's your consensus. --Cheeser1 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I attacked you? Please, humor me and find one instance of where I "attacked" you. If you felt that I attacked you, I apologize for doing so, but I just don't see any instance where I did such a thing. I did however, point out that I felt your comment to Oysterguitarist was quite rude, and you've yet to apologize. I agree this has gone on long enough for something so trivial, but clearly our interpretations of policy are somewhat different, such as where yours are contradictory. Sorry to have driven you away; you just never stated you'd compromise on this issue up until now. But, seeing as you're done with this "discussion", I suppose I'll make the change(s) I desire whereas silence will equal consent, unless you change your mind and are still interested in discussing this matter. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 20:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can't come to a consensus about this I think a request for comment will be needed. Oysterguitarist 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you "don't like" the gallery, would you mind making a statement based on policy? --Cheeser1 04:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the discussion at this time...(need some more time to review everything)...but I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia:Images is not a policy page and Wikipedia:Galleries is historical. --OnoremDil 13:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say Congratulations to EMC and Cheeser1. In light of all the flaming that's been going on between the both of you, I am leaving this page temporarily. As long as there is this argument about something so insignificant, something that can go either way, I have no reason to argue with both of you. I tried to calm everyone down, but your arguing has got out of hand. I think a request for comment should be opened immediately. When the edit war has died down, I shall return to work on this page once again. J-stan ^Talk 15:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also leaving this page. Oysterguitarist 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oyster, you are a master of inexplicable brevity. :) J-stan ^Talk 18:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gallery doesn't contribute anything to the article. Poor illustrative and biased nature of the images really predisposes towards them not being included -- none of the captions are attributed to Reliable Source (who says bangs or beat up all stars are typical emo? is a self created emo caricture that really illustrative?) unless you can really come up with a reason for keeping these images, they should go.--ZayZayEM 06:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you mean by "poor illustrative and biased nature"? Nothing says every caption must have a reference. Would you also refer me to where it says that these images must "go," unless I can come up with "a reason" beyond the fact that they illustrate part of the text of the article? That's what images are supposed to do. --Cheeser1 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

gallery revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to Emo subculture

c.f. Punk subculture, Goth subculture.

This really isn't a slang term. Slang generally refers to colloquial and/or informal language. Emo is pretty universal English and has a real definition, as opposed to something like white trash, bogan or chav.--ZayZayEM 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All of what you just said is completely OR (none of the things you just stated, as if fact, have been established). I would contend otherwise on every count. The use of the term is highly colloquial and informal, it is not a well-defiend term, and it does not have use in universal English (nor does it have a universal definition). It has not been established as a subculture in the same ways the others have. Find me a sociology paper in, say, The Journal of American Culture, or a book that depicts emo subculture, or a reliable/informed source that can really establish that emo (as it exists in common use today) is some sort of subculture (and not a slang category/term/label like "freak" "poseur" "popular kid" or "dork"). Now, if you're talking about hardcore punk from the 80s, that already falls into punk subculture anyway, and whatever 80s-emo-related content we have can/should go there anyway. And don't forget that we also have emo (music) as well. --Cheeser1 15:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Explain how asserying Emo is a slang term is not equally OR. I linked to the slang page for a reason. The use of emo does not fit in with slang.--ZayZayEM 02:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I remind you that words that are used almost entirely by young people (and only in particular ways by particular groups) generally qualify as slang. That fits right into the definition of slang, which I read when you linked it. Let's assume a little good faith, and not jump to the conclusion that I didn't take the time to read what you said. I'll point you to where it says: usage of slang expressions can spread outside their original arenas to become commonly understood, such as "cool" and "jive". While some words eventually lose their status as slang, others continue to be considered as such by most speakers. In spite of this, the process tends to lead the original users to replace the words with other, less well-recognised terms to maintain group identity. Emo originated as a term used to describe particular musical and cultural objects, but has expanded in use and usage drastically in recent years. That expanse notwithstanding, it can easily be considered slang at one time, and given the fact that "cool" is still often considered slang, emo certainly is far newer and less ubiquitous. The term "slang" is quite appropriate for this article. --Cheeser1 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about a word or slang term. That would be here wikt:emo. This article is about a clear subculture. Article titles should best represent their content. It also does away with brackets in a title, which are always best to be avoided.--ZayZayEM 01:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't seriously think avoiding parentheses will justify introducing OR into an article, can you?? There is no foundation for the use of the term "subculture" as it is, and while I'm not actively cutting the word from the article, due to lack of consensus for such a bold move, I am opposed to changes that further ingrain this dubious, unsourced language into the article. It's about "emo" as it exists as an entity defined by the slang usage of the word. Hence, Emo (slang). I've laid that out for you, using the very definition of slang you threw in my face to start this discussion. If you want to use a different word, you'd better have some reliable sources, be it a sociology journal or whatever, to establish that is is a subculture. The fact that you consider it to be "clear" based on what "[you]'ve seen" is totally original research. Stop drawing out this issue. Until you have a source (a reliable one, at that), you should not push for these changes. I'm sorry if you think it's clear, but until it meets WP:V, it will be original research and as far as I'm concerned, that means it's not clear at all. --Cheeser1 03:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a proposed move for it, let us make a consensus. Marlith ^T/C 03:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)