Talk:List of emo artists/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fall out Boy

Is there a reason why FOB is on the list twice? If not I'm going to delete one of them. (Please note I'm not talking about sources) --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Article Move?

How about this article is moved to something where it is a list of bands that have been called emo. But it couldn't be if we find one website that calls a band emo, that means we put it on the list. A band should only be put on the list if atleast 3 sources say thet band is emo. And we should note that it is a "list of bands called emo", not "emo bands". How's that? --icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 15:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh... what do you mean? What I'm seeing is that you want this to be a list of bands that have been called emo... that's what it is already. "This is a list of notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as 'emo'." Says it all. Although I do agree with you about the three sources thing... that's because if we only use one this list *could* get out of hand. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Only one reliable source is needed to fit the stated criteria. The list is deliberately inclusive to avoid controversey over personal opinion which should have no baring on article content. Remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.. We don't need to title it any differently because policy dictates that it is a list of bands that have been called emo by a reliable source. The only reason the criteria reads as it does is for the benefit of less experienced users who are yet to comprehend the policy. It could easily read 'This is a list of emo artists' and still be valid. --neonwhite user page talk 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"The list is deliberately inclusive to avoid controversey over personal opinion which should have no baring on article content.". Thank you for explaining this. "Remember The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." No one was arguing against it so... why did you bring it up? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the bold. Having a bit of trouble with my computer right now. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in common with emo!

Please, please! The most of these bands have nothing in common with emo! Nothing! --[| Mc-ralph] 88.75.65.185 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What they have in common is that verifiable sources have referred to them as emo as the criteria states. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be re-done

Mainstream magazines do not come into whether a band is Emo, in genre, or not. It's the sound. A band such as 'Bring Me The Horizon' is a deathcore band, due to its heaviness and guttural vocals. It even says it on their Wikipedia page - Bring Me The Horizon!! In most of these bands pages, in the Genre section it says Alternative rock. Emo is a sub-genre of punk! How does a Deathcore band become Emo? Bands such as Rites of Spring and Sunny Day Real Estate are true to the genre, but not My Chemical Romance or Taking Back Sunday. Fall Out Boy are pop punk, always have been. I have no idea why they are suddenly emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigmund Strife (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources such as newspapers, journals, magazines etc. not original research. --neonwhite user page talk 02:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

HIM (his infernal majesty)

They are the pionners of the LOVE METAL!!!!! stupids Ignorants wikipedia!!! HIM=love metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm back. Second there is no such thing as "Love Metal", it's not an established genre AFAIK. Third, if it's sourced properly it stays, however I don't see a source. Fourth, isn't this a list of notable artists that have been called emo, keyword being notable? Some of these bands don't seem notable at least not to me. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you see any red links? --neonwhite user page talk 03:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Not!!!!!!emo!!!!!, they are Love Metal stupid AMERICANs ignorants!!!! HIM= gothic,metal,"LOVE METAL!!!!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

@Neonwhite: No but... nevermind. I see what you are saying. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

@207.248.44.241: First, there is no such genre as love metal. You directed us to the name of an album, which means nothing (note what the band thinks it is means nothing either). If Distemper (sorry their wiki page sucks) made an album called Love Punk (dosen't exist does it), it wouldn't change the fact that they are Ska Punk. Second, why did you post something from spanish wikipedia without a translation. Third, "...stupid AMERICANs ignorants!!!!", that's an attack against other people, which violates policy. Fourth, wikipedia is based on properly sourced information (although I see none for HIM), if it is sourced properly it stays, be it true or false. Fifth, sign your posts. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I cant find any sources for this artist so i'd leave it off the list. --neonwhite user page talk 16:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three Days Grace

it s not emo because they classified as POST GRUNGE and Rock alternative and your My Space, and Hate to all those who believe that every artist with black long hair (like a THE BEATLES,pioneers of the hairstyle,and they are not!!!! EMO) is emo! They share a tour with bands POST GRUNGE like a:NICKELBACK,BREAKING BENJAMIN and SETHEER THREE DAYS GRACE= POST GRUNGE and ROCK ALTERNATIVE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verfiable sources not personal opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is based on verfiable sources not personal opinion.". That is correct but we don't have any source for this (and I doubt we will find one). I'm gonna delete it for now. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i couldnt find one but i think the best thing to do is to tag it as uncited, in case someone finds one. --neonwhite user page talk 23:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine but still, I don't think one will be found, at least not one that is good. When media or other such sources confuse a genre with emo, it's usually a genre that is closly linked to emo, like pop-punk or something. However, I have never seen anyone in the industry confuse Metal with Punk so far. Think like the Nu Metal band, Linkin Park. People call them emo because of lyrical similarities but I ain't seen a good source that calls them emo ever. All you other wikipedians can look for a source but agian, it is unlikely that you'll find one. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

it would probably be a better use of time to try and source some of the more obvious entries. --neonwhite user page talk 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew all this arguing would happen...

I personally don't think all these groups are emo, but i'm not arguing. Note it says that it says "have been called emo", not "are emo". So don't argue about this, because this isn't a list of "emo bands", its a list of bands that are often called "emo", and these bands are definetly in that category. --icelandic hurricane #12_(talk) 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, as stated in policy the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The media defines genres not individuals. We should really write this is in big letter at the top of the page. --neonwhite user page talk 02:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Woooow.

MCR, PATD, Hawthorne Heights, Fall Out Boy, Dashboard Confessional, and The Used are not emo. Pop Punk is not emo. These "verifiable sources" aren't very good. Just because those websites (I looked at MSN, The Village Voice, Music & nightlife, The Michigan Daily, and Rolling Stone) say they are, doesn't mean that they are. They all seem to think emo is the stereotype. MSN even says "Is emo a movement, a catchphrase or just a euphemism for guys with guitars and mascara?" which, in my opinion, pretty much explains that they don't know what they're talking about. The Village Voice says "MySpace emo" which I think means that they are talking about the stereotype. The Michigan Daily says "Emo, short for "emotional" rock, is the toddler-aged genre sweeping the industry with a fever and momentum unseen since the early, pop-punk infused 1990s." Emo isn't Pop Punk. The Michigan Daily also says "and cry their way into new musical territory." Stereotype. These aren't reliable sources. --Tyler5794 (talk) 00:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You think that Rolling Stone, possibly the most important and established music magazine in existance with a distinct history of over 40 years, that has reported on just about every major music event since then is not verifiable? the same with MSN, village voice, The Michigan Daily, all have a clear reputation and verifiability. Verifiability isn't based on whether you agree with them or not. The popular media defines musics genres not you. I'd highly recommend thoroughly reading WP:V. --neonwhite user page talk 02:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you people on about?

right for a start its a bit drastic that the person who started this put "there's not a single emo band on here" What? hhhmmm Rites Of Spring weren't emo? Sunny Day Real Estate weren't emo? as the emo article on wikipedia says the sound has canged over three waves. The Hardcore stuff, The indie stuff and the modern day stuff. the latest Deep Elm (the people who claimed the genre in the 90s) claim that emo now should be the combination of indie and Hardcore. So i'd class that as Thursday and Alexisonfire wouldn't you? As for Fall Out Boy and My Chemical Romance they are an embarrassment and anyway what does all this matter. A group of people who like to be different like these bands and the media calls it Emo who cares? its stuff like this that causes assaults on our streets, unnecessary hatred. i cant get on a bus anymore without been hassled by someone, weather it be a rocker or a chav! stop the hating and at the end of the day IT DOESN'T MATTER!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.209.105 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, sign your posts. Second, what's with the rant? Third, as long as a band is sourced as emo, it belongs on the list. This isn't a list of artists that are emo, it's a list of artists that have been called emo. There are no absolutes here. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This List is a fake emo!!!

not opinion personal? ok, but this list is your opinion personal! """neonwhite""" and """13Tawaazun14 """ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.248.44.241 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as 'emo'. --neonwhite user page talk 17:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello mister anonymous user who didn't sign his post by typing four tildes. It's NOT a list of emo bands at all. Thus, NOT fake or real. It IS a list of bands that have been CALLED emo. Our personal opinions arn't involved. I honostly don't think all of the bands that are listed are emo. HOWEVER, they have been CALLED emo by reliable and verifiable sources. Thus they belong on the list. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Slight problem

added a source for thursday and tokyo hotel dissapeard...WTF? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

NVM... fixed it. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New one, added source for Thursday and Thrice, ref part of the article has them as 1 and 2. How do I fix that? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean but i'll have a look. --neonwhite user page talk 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. What I mean is that when I added the sources for Thursday and Thrice, they were references 31 and 32. Now they are 32 and 33 but that is beside the point. Under the references sheet at the bottom article they were listed as follows:

31. [ 1 ]

32. [ 2 ]

without the spacing. It didn't show the name of the sources as it did for all the others, but now it's fixed. Did you do that? If so, thanks. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to add it yourself. Put the URL, a space and then the name of the article inside of the [] --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

umm...

Next to Underoath there is a link to the next step article...reason for this? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

an strange addition by a anon user. --neonwhite user page talk 18:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed... --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

correspondence with Emo

"In an even more expanded way than in the 90s, emo has come to encompass an extremely wide variety of bands, many of whom have very little in common. The term has become so broad that it has become nearly impossible to describe what exactly qualifies as "emo"." - It seems to be that the groups that this statement encompasses occupy the vast majority of this article, Fall Out Boy, Paramore, The Academy Is, etc. etc.. Very few of the bands mentioned in the article itself seem to have made it to this list for whatever reason. --122.106.53.121 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a complete list, feel free to add entries if they can be cited. --neonwhite user page talk 22:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Expert flag

This is in need of attention from an expert. Coheed and Cambria brings doubts, the failure to mention anything pre-1995 seals them in my mind. Synchronizing with Category:Emo musical groups could be a start. Regardless, this needs serious work. --Caribouforyou (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs nothing like that, this is not an expert subject, it's an element of popular culture. See the Emo. Coheed and Cambria is sourced here [1]. --neonwhite user page talk 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

this person had no clue what they were talking about why is the page even still here why is it not deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenGraham (talk • contribs) 02:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it breaks no policy or guidline. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how an expert (if one exists) could be any help with any list article. What could they do other than help find citations and formatting? --neonwhite user page talk 14:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Death Cab for Cutie

I'm trying to find a sorce for Death Cab For Cutie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.34.236 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I tried. I could find sources (and here is the odd part) stating that they weren't emo but none saying they are. This is odd because most sources arn't going to say what a bands genre isn't at leaste not in the matter of "never user (insert genre here) to describe (insert band here)" but that's what I found. But I digress, if you can find a good source then go ahead and add them. BTW, please sign your posts. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

That was a lot of vandalism and it's not all gone. Is it possible to get some one to semi protect this page?(13Tawaazun14 not signed in) --71.179.227.101 (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Already requested. --neonwhite user page talk 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rise Against ref

I seem to be having trouble viewing the source for Rise Against. The ref section says it is invalid. Any one else having trouble with this? --71.179.227.101 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just cheked it and it doesn't seem to be properly sourced, Deleted. It just says : ref name=cbs...that's it? --71.179.227.101 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

should have been cbc. [2] --neonwhite user page talk 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no problem with them being on the list provided they are sourced. They were not before so I deleted them. --71.179.227.101 (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Up a long time

Some of the bands here seem to have been up for a while without being sourced. The 3 I'm refering to are Alesana, Blessthefall and Elliott. Can I delete them or should I let them stay a bit longer? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's up to you, there's no minimum or maximum time you can leave unsourced stuff, any editor is free to remove them at any time. Allmusicguide says blessthefall are screamo, calls alesana post-hardcore but does call elliott emo so i'll add that. --neonwhite user page talk 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo artists? Or artists called emo?

As I read in the talk page, there is a lot of confusion of the name List of emo artists. So I think the name of the article should be renamed to List of artists called emo. --008'/,treme (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree when I first saw it I removed bands I knew weren't emo because the page does say "List of EMO ARTISTS" implying that those listed below are emo! So the title should be changed because a little explanation isn't enough. It has to be made very clearly by changing the title. --Krysta now (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on your personal opinion of bands. All are cited and the criteria is specific. The title is in line with policy and all other list articles. It is as simple and clear as possible. As far as wikipedia is concerned if it can be sourced reliably it is considered a fact. Wikipedia does not make any claims to be the 'truth'. It merely reports what other sources have already published. --neonwhite user page talk 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not emo

Seriously. Compare this to the real deal and you'd see that this page is just pop and rock straight out of MTV and has absolutely NOTHING to do with emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.67.7 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled

hm.... im a bit puzzled here... the article is named "list of emo band", yet there's not a single emo band in the entire list.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmeneatcorn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is titled List of emo artists and contains over 30 entries. --neonwhite user page talk 21:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not what he means. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What he means is that there are no REAL emo bands on the list. This is just a list of what ignorant people refer to as emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.17.67.7 (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added an emo band

Fall Out Boy May not be emo but they are not possers, Alexisonfire is so screamo so they arent even close to emo, from first to last is emo they are entirely an emo band... so ha! -Victoria Emma A Rock Knoe It All —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.183.243 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple Plan

In my opinion Simple Plan is not emo and there is no source either. Should we keep it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.34.236 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not yet. There is a fact tag next to it so if someone can find a source then it stay's however if it says unsourced for a long period of time I would not be opposed to its removal from this list. BTW, please sign your posts with four tildes (~). --71.179.8.102 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

they are not emo they are pop rock at best altho some of there older stuff was kinda emo its not anymore. -Victoria Emma A Rock Musik Knoe it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.183.243 (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

none of these bands are emo

Not one of these listed bands are of the genre emo. Most of these bands are either post-hardcore, Pop Punk, [[Pop Rock], Alternative Rock, and even Progressive Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcore (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based off of varifiable sources and reliable sources. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Weezer is not emo

Just because MTV says it doesn't make it true. --Themikeg (talk) 11:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that it's properly sourced which is how wikipedia works. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so stupid!

Wanna make a list of emo-groupes? then ask the band not the mongols with their opinions! Ill even make you a list! and plz dont ever put FOB in the list of emo-bands! Its an embaressemend to all Emo's if they are put in that list. If they aught to be put in a list, then put them on the "Things-To-Do-list" next to "take out the trash" or prefirably with the trash! Have a bad day! Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.23.33.179 (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verfiable sources not personal opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 19:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If Fall-out Boy is pretty emo, although they lean more towards pop-rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.243.254 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What?!! Please make those resources reputable!!

MCR and FOB. I found these two bands on the F****** list!!. The resources are MSN and another. Those are NOT reputable resources. If you listen to FOB, you will know that it is POP PUNK not EMO. Although, they admire an emo band, this don't mean that they are emo also. MCR is not emo. It is just a piece of crap when they are classified as emo. When you listen to any song on any of their first albums, you will know that they are PUNK ROCK. PUNK ROCK is different from emo, so please make the sources reputable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.208.226 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You do not know how wikipedia works. Read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13Tawaazun14 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Any song? Does that "any" include "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)"? or "The Ghost of you"? --200.8.9.54 (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with it? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article lacks of any real references

My Chemical Romance is not emo. Alexisonfire is not emo, Fall Out Boy? just posers. Real emo music is emocore emo violence, screamo, emopunk, indie/emorock. --Jpkmaster (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a hard article to start because as your comment above goes to prove is that a lot of this is opinion based. Where you may see one band as not being "emo" another person might. --crazzycorbe (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note wikipedia is not based on personal opinions. It is based on verifiable sources. Which are easily found for all three bands mentioned. Also note the criteria of the list is a list of notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as 'emo'. --neonwhite user page talk 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes wikipedia is based on fact this I know. I was trying to point this out by saying that some comments made are that of opinion and not one of fact. You also have to be careful when using sources. Just because some news source or some magazine calls them emo does not make them emo. --crazzycorbe (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as wikipedia is concerned it does. See WP:V for more info on how this policy works. --neonwhite user page talk 16:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's a fact.

My Chemical Romance's music has been described by the media as "pop punk", "alternative rock", "post-hardcore" and "punk revival". The band themselves described their music as simply "rock" or "violent, dangerous pop" on their official website, as well as rejecting the term "emo" to describe their style. Although a source quotes frontman Gerard Way stating that they are "What-else-ya-got-emo", Way has recently stated in an interview that they were never emo, as he says emo is "a pile of shit." -My Chemical Romance - Wikipedia

While widely considered to be a pop punk and rock band, Fall Out Boy is often described as emo -Fall Out Boy - Wikipedia

What you really got here is a "fake emo" list. You guys say this is a list of bands that have been called emo... yeah, by the media. --Kmaster (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's all it requires, to have been called emo (I don't care if it's media, just as long as the source is good). I personaly don't think all bands listed are emo. FOB and MCR come to mind, Paramore is another, then there is PATD. But they have been called emo by sources. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone who's been listening to "emo" for more than ten years of my life, the amount of attention paid to this is pretty hilarious. I used to get all up in arms about what was emo and what wasn't, but I gave that up once I realized that the media is going to take any labels they want, slap it on whatever bands they want, and then run with it and shove it down the public's throat and there isn't a thing any of us can do about it. Seriously, who cares if My Chemical Romance is on this page? How does that affect you personally? Everyone just needs to get over themselves and leave the list alone. This is a classic example of a large group of people fighting a much LARGER group of people who are bringing about change on a widespread scale. It can't be stopped, let alone reversed. Move on with your lives guys. --74.69.77.28 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The media is the sole definer of labels, they invent them, popularise them and change them. I don't know who people think comes about with genres and styles. They think the bands all get together in conference and decide? --neonwhite user page talk 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which media it is. Usually the media that invent terms are the one which its members are professional not any commercial-purpose media. About emo, the term was not invented by the media, It was invented by the fans and then stoled by the media. Some clever media, write about this genre, to differentiate it with other genres, while stupid media (they only sees money) use this term to gain money. --Kurniasan (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The media is the only body that is capable of creating a genre. Fans have no voice at all. --neon white talk 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

←Oh my, the media beats the fact. The fact's helpless. Go media go!! LOL. It looks like Wikipedia is on the media's side. Oh well, it's better to leave this page alone, the media's undefeatable, since it has many alies. --Kurniasan (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources?

After adding "although most of these bands play a diversity of genres not similar to emo at all" it was deleted and I was told to add reliable sources. THERE ARE LIKE 2 EMO BANDS ON THE LIST! The rest play pop, rock, metalcore and other. They must have SOOOOOOOO reliable sources when they have a full list of bands which do not play emo at all. None of the sources here can be reliable if they contain false facts. --217.210.87.80 (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire list is cited by reliable sources according to policy, your personal opinion, however, is not a reliable sources and is not going to be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --neon white talk 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on another article, opinion has NOTHING to do with genres. Genres define a certain sound. Emo does NOT sound like most of these bands. Which would make them NOT emo. I'm sorry for knowing better. --217.210.87.80 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As you rightly said opinions have nothing to do with it, including yours. Wikipedia is based on sources only. --neon white talk 16:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought wikipedia was based on facts. My mistake... Well well, false information fits this era perfectly. --217.210.87.80 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

As this article contains false statements, very few emo bands, bad sources, many unsourced artists, badly sourced artists etc etc etc I have put it up for deletion. I can see that nearly everyone on this discussion page agrees with me on this. If the media says Britney Spears plays death metal, she still plays pop. Now, thanks and I hope this article is deleted since wikipedia is supposed to be based on facts. (as it is an encyclopedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.87.80 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No. All the bands are properly sourced, so it will be kept. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would advise anyone who does not agree with me to before deleting the proposed deletion listens to Indian Summer and Moss Icon, then compares any of these two acts with these bands listed. Only bands on this list that do play emo: American Football, Appleseed Cast, Braid, Cap'n Jazz, Embrace, The Get Up Kids (early only), Jimmy Eat World (early only), Mineral, The Promise Ring (early only), Sunny Day Real Estate, Most of these bands play Midwestern style indie emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.87.80 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Even the bands that are unsourced and falsely sourced? --217.210.87.80 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You can remove the ones that are unsourced, anyone can. But falsely sourced? None of them are, they all have reliable sources and don't violate any policy. Only you think they are falsely sourced. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have sources for that the genre "emohot nicemetal" exists. Can I add that to wikipedia? We learn early in school not to trust all sources. Most of these sources state false facts. Ask anyone who knows anything about emo. --217.210.87.80 (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the amount of complaints, maybe it's not ONLY me who thinks they are falsely sourced. They are falsely sourced and those bands sound nothing like emo at all. --EmoArticle (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but they are still veriiable by wikipedias standards. Allmusic, rolling stone and MTV are the top sources for music. It doesn't matter anyway, this is your personal opinion. You can take it to WP:AFD if you wish, but you will not succeed because everything you say is based on your opinion. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DO you think i'm stupid ? ^^You are most obviously a sockpuppet of that user since that account was only created 5 minutes ago. Stop trying to win by making multiple accounts or you will be blocked. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not a sock puppet. I just thought that I should create an account so that I didn't have to have my IP address everywhere. I did even refer to myself AS myself. Take back the sockpuppet accusement. Still, it's not MY OPINION, it's facts. MTV should have as much part in this as me, OR you're saying that I'm less worth than whoever wrote the article on MTV, which is racism. --EmoArticle (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

oof sorry about that, must be having a bad day. And i'm not saying that, MTV is a verifiable reliable source, but your opinion is not. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering why the guy who wrote the article at MTV is more reliable than me. If I start working at MTV, would that make everything I say true? MTV are known to not know anything about music. --EmoArticle (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but its still a good source on wikipedia, so your opinion is disregarded. --Jakisbak (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts are disregarded. Sad but true. I will keep on trying to get this article fixed or deleted. Have a nice day. --EmoArticle (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want, you can take it to Articles for deletion but that has been done two times already, see the top of the page. So i doubt that would pass.... --Jakisbak (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

←You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. I highly recommend reading WP:V and WP:NOR before contributing further. Especially take note of the line The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing personal views nor is it a soapbox for personal 'missions'. Disrupting wikipedia to prove a point will get you blocked. --neon white talk 18:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MSN's reliable?

Um, when was MSN considered a reliable source for music genres? I don't seem to recall them having any sort history pertaing to music genres aside from selling the occasional album or two. Anyone have information about this? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

MSN has a history in news and entertainment. --neon white talk 05:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fugazi

Fugazi need to be deleted from the list, unless you consider a photograph of them on MSN to be a reliable source. --Jaccob (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The photo is part of an article titled 'finding emo', the source is the quote "Where did emo come from? Surprisingly enough, Fugazi gets the credit, whether they want it or not. Their intensely emotional songwriting coupled with their sound -- hardcore punk infused with sounds from reggae, funk and other very nonpunk genres -- grandfathered in a generation where emotional lyrics would take over." It's hardly controversial seen as they, and most of the members, are widely regarded as founders of emo. --neon white talk 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to start an edit war here, but after a recent act of vandalism I reviewed the references behind Weezer and Fugazi. While the Weezer reference is solid, the Fugazi one never calls the band emo, it simply says that they helped "grandfather in" the current generation of emo artists. I'm not especially familiar with the band but after a cursory search I found lots of sites saying that they were an influence on emo artists but none claiming that they were emo themselves. Since this is such a hotly contested term I believe they should be removed for the time being. Of course, if another source is found they can be readded. --Aurum ore (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to this? --Aurum ore (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the above quote ("Where did emo come from? Surprisingly enough, Fugazi gets the credit") is an adequate source, I don't see the misunderstanding here. --neon white talk 08:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my objection would be that the source says that emo came from Fugazi but not that the band was actually emo itself. The same way that some people might say that heavy metal came from Led Zepplin and or punk came from The Kinks but not actually consider them to be heavy metal or punk. Bands can have can influence a genre without actually belonging to it. I have no objections whatsoever to them being included on the list, only to the reference being used. --Aurum ore (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Green Day

What about Green Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.241.215 (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Only if you have a source. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Greenday is not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.104 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This list is a joke

Just that. However I do think that neon white, 13Tawaazun14 and Jakisbak know that most of the bands listed here are not emo at all, but that's the way wikipedia works. Sources and references are everything. --Kmaster (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes i do believe it kinda sucks that they're on here when they're not emo, but unfortunately we don't have a choice. --Jakisbak (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"If the media says Britney Spears plays death metal, she still plays pop." --81.70.35.12 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that Britney plays death metal? If you do, feel free to discuss that at the article about her. This article is a list of artists who have been described as "emo" by reliable sources. --FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd very much question whether CD reviews, which are opinions, qualify as RS under WP:RS. --Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If they are published by a reliable sources then they do. --neon white talk 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, say, an editorial in the NY Times becomes a RS because it is in the NY Times? I question the utility of this list. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about editorials. Art reviews are not editorials and even if they were they would still very likely be an acceptable source for this subject expecially being published in Rolling Stone. --neon white talk 13:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AFI

The current reference for AFI is an article in a college newspaper.[3] and seems to be little more than the opinion of a college student. After a little digging I discovered that issue of whether or not sites sponsored by the college publishing network (such as the one in question) constitute a reliable resource had already been raised at the WP:Verifiability talk page, further more it had been raised in reference to bands. The consensus was that should not be considered a reliable resource unless the author has been established as an authority on the subject. There is nothing in the article in question and as such the reference should be removed. Please note that I am not opposed to AFI being included on this list, I am simply opposed to using college papers as a source to establish genre. --Aurum ore (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's no objection then I'd like to remove AFI from the list, only until a more reliable source can be found. Again, its not their inclusion to the list that I object to, only the reference being used. --Aurum ore (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NME ok? [4] --neon white talk 13:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that works absolutely fine. Thanks for meeting me on this one. --Aurum ore (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Chiodos

I think Chiodos should be added. Seriously, check out their Myspace they say their n Emo band... --Kohilaice (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, except that the source you should include when you add them shouldn't be their own MySpace page, but a review or description of them from an independent source that calls them emo. As long as such a source exists and can be included, it's all good. --FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I seen to recall this band coming up before and no-one could find a source. --neon white talk 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tendot

ITT: Butthurt emos pretend to know what music is. (Protip: Only an emo would say these bands are not emo. By democratic rule, you lose, and they are emo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.195.139 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I am the best possible person to help police this page, because I don't have the foggiest idea what 'emo' is, nor do I care. All I can do is read the submitted reliable source and verify whether the source identifies an artist as emo or not. Of course, even the emo fans and foes who help police this page use the same rules that I do. --FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Comeback kids and Rise Against are not properly sourced

"Emo bands tour almost exclusively with other emo bands: Silverstein’s current tour is in support of Rise Against, and also features Winnipeg’s Comeback Kid." This statement is not being clear at all that the bands named are being called emo. Allow me to expand. The source states that "Emo bands tour almost exclusively with other emo bands..." the term almost throws doubt on the claim. It then says that "...Silverstein’s current tour is in support of Rise Against, and also features Winnipeg’s Comeback Kid.", The source does not explicitly state that either Rise Against or Comeback kids are emo and is not being clear. It says emo bands almost always tour with other emo bands and then throws the names of two other bands. In this case the source is not being clear. Let me make this clear, however, this is not about the bands but rather the source. I’m not opposed to these bands being on the list as long as they are properly sourced, this isn’t it though. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the article i think it is. The article discusses the 'emo scene' and how emo bands almost always tour with each other and uses this tour as an example. "Emo bands tour almost exclusively with other emo bands: Silverstein’s current tour is in support of Rise Against, and also features Winnipeg’s Comeback Kid." Note that this is a complete sentence. The colon is used as an implicator. The author could have used 'for example' instead, this is just a different way of writing it. If this was not the case the remark about the tour randomly interjected into the paragraph would be bizzarely out of place. Judge it in the context of what the paragraph is saying.

"With its ecstatic fans and general mood of mutual support, emo is a self-sufficient scene. Emo bands tour almost exclusively with other emo bands: Silverstein’s current tour is in support of Rise Against, and also features Winnipeg’s Comeback Kid."

--neon white talk 23:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

the "Finding Emo" article in rise against is misproperly quoted, it states that they are open to being emotional of promoting their political beliefs and lifestyle, not about whatever shit you guys think. Take this band of the list or I will.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.107.21 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Paramore

Paramore is not emo!They are not have any relation with emo!I don't care sources!THEY ARE NOT EMO!!! --Emo girl 666 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Now would be a good time to remind you that this isn't a list of emo artists, it's a list of artists that have been called emo. Keyword being called. While I agree with you that they arn't emo, they have been called emo by sources. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care!No one can say,paramore is called emo! --Emo girl 666 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NME[5] and the NY Times[6] do. --neonwhite user page talk 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Look if you don't like the source/s then I think the best place to take it up is at WP:RSN, though I doubt you'll actually get anything done. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep i agree Paramore are not emo as they look and sing and act nothing like emoS! They are punk pop or pop rock not emo despite being stereotyped as that because young teens like them and they themselves are very young!! --Seán Travers (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers, 23:36, 10 May 2008

True or not they are sourced as emo and thus, Paramore stays. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Only a poser would call Paramore emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.104 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you listened to their lyrics? They are emo. Their heroes? Sunny Day Real Estate and Jimmy Eat World, possibly the founding fathers of emo (along with Fugazi). Just because they're not scene doesn't make them not emo. Emo is not an insult, it's a genre of emotional, literal music. Damn scene kids... --Grarghsies (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Name Change?

Shouldn't this page be named "List of artists that have had their music reffered to as emo"? Calling it "List of emo artists" will make people believe that those bands actually play emo. --EmoArticle (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Did that before but it always gets changed back for some reasons.....id support the change... --Jakisbak (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Made the name change. Hope it doesn't get reverted. --EmoArticle (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your move. From what I can see, you haven't even bothered to try and create a consensus to change the article's title, which completely goes against all the other names of lists within Category:Lists of musicians by genre. Try and familiarise yourself with WP:CON and other Wikipedia guidelines before doing things like this in the future. — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 19:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as this encyclopida is concerned, they do. They are all reliably sourced. --neon white talk 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The title complies fully with guidelines and the manual of style. "the precise inclusion crietrion of the list should be spelled out in the lead section, not the title. For instance, words like "complete," "famous" and "notable" are normally excluded from list titles, and instead the lead makes clear that that list is complete, or is limited to famous or notable members." All articles on wikipedia are required to be referenced, we don't need to imply they are in the title or the lead. --neon white talk 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

People don't take Wikipedia seriously when it comes to genre categorization anyway. Take the mathcore section. There's like three bands on there that are mathcore. The rest are regular metalcore or deathcore. So, the list of emo artists isn't much different. The guys at MTV are unreliable. Why? Because they don't know what emo is. Their station only plays rap, pop, and pop rock (beside the various metalcore, deathcore, and sometimes death metal bands that play on Headbanger's Ball). Their opinion of this whole situation, is that emo is now pop rock. That's their opinion. However, we know for a fact, that emo is short for emotional hardcore (or emotive, whichever you prefer). Seeing as how many people have gotten on the internet, and argued with you people, you should figure that this isn't just one person's opinion by now, but something that many people believe to be true. Why? Because it is true. Emo is chaotic music. Emo is a form of hardcore punk. Emo is closely related to screamo. Pop rock is not. Who started this whole emo thing? Rites of Spring. Neon White, go listen to Rites of Spring. Tell me the difference between them and Panic! At the Disco. They just don't sound anything alike. I like all music, and pop rock, but I have enough sense to know that their is a huge line between emo, and mainstream music. Therefore, Wikipedia itself, is unreliable. I doubt Wikipedia will ever do anything about their unreliability when it comes to genre placement, considering everything from a person that actually listens to that genre, is just an opinion, and apparently can't be sourced, even though there are hundreds of sites that say that these bands are not emo. I'm not mad, considering everything with long hair got mislabeled emo by these horrible people at MTV for a good while there. But seriously, this is ridiculous. Pop rock, alternative, and metalcore just aren't emo. That's that. --HunterMann (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cute Is What We Aim For/Panic At The Disco

Neither of these artists are emo. Anyone heard Pretty. Odd. by Panic At The Disco? As far from 'emo' as you could get! --59.167.96.126 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is of 'notable music artists who have been referred to as, or had their music described as emo', it's not a matter of personal opinions, it's sourced info. --neon white talk 12:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the IP never heard Fever You Can't Sweat Out. PXK ^T /_C 12:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

but even AFYCSO isn't THAT emo. at all. really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.245.139 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fall out boy is emo?

By what you guys are saying, thy might be but there are some things to consider:

1. The source you claim that shows FOB is emo does not actually show something. To me it shows some whatever concerts.
2. The main article about this band [7] classifies them as Pop punk, not as emo. Of course, in the genre section the emo is mentioned too (even though those 2 sources don't work too) but the band is classified as pop punk. So this article pretty much goes up against the other article, which means one must be changed.
3. Does any of the sources which claim that this band and others are emo are actually explaining what emo means for them? Maybe for them emo is Britney Spears too. More exactly, the article itself should not be gave as a source for the article since it does not exactly follow the other sources regarding this genre.

Just stating some of the arguments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.27.46 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The band is sourced as emo by a lot of major sources including bbc, msn, rolling stone, ew etc. There is a comprehensive list somewhere of all the sources. --neon white talk 12:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Atreyu

Atreyu are HEAVY METAL. Lately there have been several added groups that have been called pop punk down as emo. That is understandable because emo is a sub-genre of pop punk. But Atreyu is Heavy Metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.34.236 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Emo is a Sub-Genre of Hardcore Punk not pop punk, although these two are often confused, as modern emo and pop punk sound similar. But I digress, if Atreyu can be sourced as emo, they should stay. If they can't, however, then they sould not be on the list. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[8] OCWeekly is a decently reliable publication, however it reads like an editorial and however correct this guy's insight might be, i dunno how reliable it is. --neonwhite user page talk 03:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Atreyu is metalcore and heavy metal not emo --Seth4000 (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? is this a joke! right?

Well, i can hope Fall Out Boy, My Chemical Romance, o others non-emo bands in this list, but...Simple Plan??? Jonas Brothers??? WTF!!! the majority of this bands are not emo, if MTV, Rolling Stones or other magazine say "Fall Out Boy is emo" Fall Out Boy is emo? NO! only for idiots is emo, What have do to do Panic! At The Disco whit Ristes of Springs??? I dont know if Gerard Way (My Chemical Romance's Singer) said "emo is a bullshit, we are not emo" why My Chemical Romance is in this list??? i got to admite: this list if funny! --190.30.87.87 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

some1 is putting red hot chili peppers, bfmv, and metro station and there not emo --Seth4000 (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bullet for my Valentine

I think Bullet for my Valentine should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.91.240.134 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you source it? --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think too. Bullet for my valentine should be added!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.8.11 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Still we need a source. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullet For My Valentine is emo.Come on...Everyone know that! --Emo girl 666 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, but it still needs to be sourced. That's how wikipedia works. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree but the problem with relatively unknown bands is that they no-one is writing about them so we have no sources. --neonwhite user page talk 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bullet for My Valentine is METAL. This information was taken from their MySpace. If the artist themselfs label themselves as metal and not emo, they're not emo. Seriously, do you people even read up on your arguments or just need a way to pass time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.252.56.67 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe a bands myspace is considered a reliable source. You don't know what your on about. Also if a reliable source calls them emo, then they are on wikipedia... so far though, no one has. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

U Guys/Girls Do Know That Wikipedia Was Voted Like One Of The Most Inaccurate Sources right??! It Is Made Up By Users Like U Guys/Girls They Put Theyre "Facts" Into The Website, Yes Alot Of It Is Fact But That Doesnt Mean Everysingle Band Listed On An Emo List Is "Emo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.46 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't a MySpace page be considered a reliable source?? I mean, if Bullet For My Valentine has their own MySpace page, they can do pretty much whatever they want to it, including calling their music "metal" and not "emo". I haven't seen their page. I don't even know if they have one. But Bullet For My Valentine is one of my favorite bands and they are not emo. It's metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.14.73 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

←It's Metalcore. No Myspace is not reliable. It's their own opinion of themselves. Not the opinion of a paid proffesional who deals with music genres. --13Tawaazun14 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

y would bullet for my valentine be emo there metalcore for godsakes --Seth4000 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullet for my valentine should be removed,they are heavy/trash metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.121.82 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain

how the hell is slipknot and red hot chili peppers considered emo? --Seth4000 (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Underoath

Attention. I think i should just bring this to everybody's attention, i have seen Underoath on this page too many times. They like sing about things related to struggles, hardships, and other matters realted to christianity. So not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylgr (talk • contribs) 04:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

MCR is not emo

Ohh who said that?MCR is not emo...!I'm an emo girl and Mcr said:"Emo is a garbage dump".If you listen Mcr with another emo groups,you can understand that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.8.11 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, we've gone over this a thousand times now!!! MCR has been called emo by reliable and verifiable sources. This isn't a list of emo artists it's a list of artists that have been called emo. Believe me, I agree with you but that's not how wikipedia works. And sign your posts. (13Tawaazun14 not signed in) --71.179.8.102 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

who said that? - The Village Voice, MTV, NME, MSNBC Music, Rolling Stone all good sources unlike your opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially it is a list of emo artists, at least as far as wikipedia is concerned it is. --neonwhite user page talk 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ohh come on!Mcr said "emo is a garbage dump".Everyone think wrong things about mcr!And Rolling Stone wrote "Mcr said emo is a garbage dump!. --Emo girl 666 (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there arn't absolutes as far as wikipedia is concerened. The criteria for inclusion is varifiability not truth says it right there. As a result as long as the information comes from reliable and varifiable sources it doesn't matter wheather true or false, it get's included. And I don't remember them saying "emo is a garbage dump" but I recall them saying "Emo is shit" or was that Fall Out Boy? --71.179.8.102 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No,Mcr said"emo is a garbage dump".I read it in Rolling Stone.Fall Out Boy never said"emo is shit".I think Mcr said it too. --Emo girl 666 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with absolutes, if something can be verified then it is considered to be a fact. Therefore, as far as wikipedia is concerned, all the bands that has verified sources can be said to be emo. It's up to the reader to be familiar with how wikipedia gathers info. If this wasn't the case it would be impossible to assert anything. --neonwhite user page talk 04:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point but I'll let it go, this isn't the place to argue this. --71.179.8.102 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

@Emo girl 666: Well done, what's your point? --neonwhite user page talk 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

@71.179.8.102: Ultimately there is no such thing as true or false, the truth has always been subjective and always will be but as far as we are concerned we write what the sources say and it's up to the reader to decide what they believe. --neonwhite user page talk 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said but you've misread my post or I wasn't clear. I no longer care because I've lost interest in this pointless and useless arguement. --71.179.8.102 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, MCR actually has harsher views on emo. But the majority of the users that edit this page think they are emo. I would consider them a harder alternative band myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylgr (talk • contribs) 04:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-hardcore

Some of these bands are Post-Hardcore! I suggest either deletion or clean up the list, because if they are on the "list of screamo (Post-Hardcore) bands" article then I believe they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.240.88 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me

Why 10% percent of these bands are actually emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.138.62 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Coheed & Cambria?

If Im correct, Coheed & Cambria are Alternative/Hard Rock, not Emo. --Maggotface (User talk:Maggotface|talk]]) 23:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a reference on the main page listing them as emo. In fact, all the entries on this list are here because someone at a WP:RS has described their sound as emo. --tedder (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But we don't even consider them emo. I mean, God! Our page on them has their primary genre as Prog! Unless this is a mistake on our part, they shouldn't be on this list any more than Green Day or Linkin Park. --Albert Mond (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions

I looked at the source for the statement that Forever the Sickest Kids are emo, and found an... interesting New York Times article. Here's the specific line from it: "the promising young emo band Forever the Sickest Kids". It also states that Say Anything are 'Emo Veterans'. I looked back at this article, and saw that they were on here. Say Anything formed in 2000. Not only are they NOT veterans of a genre which began in the '80s, but I seriously doubt that they, or FtSK, are emo at all. I'm sure that New York Times fits Wiki's criteria for 'accurate', but seriously. Seriously. --Albert Mond (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Aiden

Why is Aiden not on this list? --74.69.195.36 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a WP:RS that states they are emo? --tedder (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Aiden's not emo. Simple as that. --Albert Mond (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Click this Aiden --DABANANAMUFFIN (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources attached on that page that state it is emo. --tedder (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Tedder. It seems the reason 'emo' is attached is merely because they're closer to that than they are to screamo. Observe: [9] --Albert Mond (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This Makes No Sense

Yeah, so you say if a "reliable source" claims a band is emo, that makes them emo. That's bulls**t. Since when were things like MTV a reliable source? You forget that it was because of these lazy journalists that "emo" is now just a label mtv attaches to any band they want to for the sake of marketing. If you listen to anything Rites of Spring, Indian Summer or Moss Icon, they sound NOTHING like MCR or Chiodos, so to lump them all into one genre is utterly ridiculous. if anything, we should either make more than one list for "first wave emo bands" Second wave emo band" and "third wave emo bands" OR change the title to "list of bands described as emo" --Yaryck (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The list itself states that they're bands described as emo. The problem, as you seem to have noticed, is we aren't using credible enough descriptions. As I stated in one of my previous posts on this page, we seem to be using references to generally credible groups, but in instances in which they were heavily lacking credibility. Nobody is fully accurate 100% of the time, so Wiki should have expected that some of their 'reliable sources' would at some point say completely outlandish things. Most of the users in this talk page seem to realize how ridiculous this list is, but at current we don't seem to have a solution. --Albert Mond (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the editors on this page are familiar with the policy of wikipedia and know the list to be a good well referenced article. Not suprisingly we don't base policy on on an editor's personal opinions. All the sources are from reliable publications. --neon white talk 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"if a "reliable source" claims a band is emo, that makes them emo". No, if we have a reliable source exists they go on the list. Simple. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Media publications have historically created and defined genres. --neon white talk 06:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand. I have lost trust in wikipedia. --Yaryck (talk) 07:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to start your own encyclopedia based on your own personal opinions of subjects but this is not and never will be that encyclopedia. --neon white talk 12:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just the system, we all (apart from neonwhite, who has said before he knows nothing about emo) know these bands arent emo, but we have sources stating they are so thats what we go by. We all know George Bush is a retard, but we don't have a source for it. It's just the way this encyclopedia works, learn to live with it or dont. Your choice. PXK ^T /_C 12:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Come on, now. There's obviously a reliable source somewhere who knows enough about real emo to contradict the claims that these bands are emo. Including them as 'emo' is like including a statement that God is unquestionably real because we have a 'reliable' source saying it and we can't prove otherwise. The problem here is that we have a few bad apples from generally reliable groups writing about things they know nothing about. Unfortunately, it'd be rude for someone from the same place to point out their huge misconceptions, so we're stuck with having to tell lies even though almost everybody knows the truth. It's altering history. If any of you can, please find a reliable source which refutes such outrageous claims. --Albert Mond (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Music journalists and the music media know alot more about music than any of us, it's their profession. That's why they are considered reliable and that's why such policy was decided. It wasn't a random choice. As has been pointed out "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). Also read Wikipedia:The Truth. --neon white talk 08:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

"Music journalists and the music media know alot more about music than any of us, it's their profession." I'd like to point out that any contributor to this article could potentially have an occupation within the music media. However, if they were to let loose their observations on this talk page ,as opposed to through an official article, they would no longer be considered a reliable source. So, really, we're crediting the people who pay the journalists to write for the journalists' potential expertise. I ask you, now: was Hilary Duff on The Flower Kings' Unfold the Future album? Rolling Stone says yes. [10] --Albert Mond (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor's professions outide of wikipedia has no real relevance at all to the way they edit. In fact it would likely be a conflict of interest if they were to start citing their own work. However it could still be used if agreed by others if it has been published by a reliable source. Rolling Stone says nothing of the sort. --neon white talk 20:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Read the link I sent. --Albert Mond (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And here's another link where they say it: [11] --Albert Mond (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rise Against does not belong on this list

For the following reasons;

1. Check Wikipedia's article on Rise Against. It describes them as belonging to the genres punk rock, hardcore punk and melodic hardcore. Not emo.
2. Check their official website or myspace page. They describe themselves as punk/hardcore/rock. Not emo.
3. AOL music describes them as rock/alternative, billboard.com hints that they are punk rock, squidoo.com calls them punk/melodic hardcore, I could go on with countless other sources that do NOT call them "emo" if you'd like. Hell, check the Rolling Stone website. They call Rise Against punk rock.
4. They are influenced/fans of bands such as Bad Religion, Black Flag, Descendants, Minor Threat, Pennywise, ALL and Nirvana. Every single one of those bands (minus Nirvana, who is labeled as grunge) are listed as being either pop punk, melodic hardcore, skate punk or just punk rock in general. No "emo" influences here.
5. Listen to their music, their lyrics. Sure they have a few songs with darker lyrics but are you suddenly considered emo because you show some emotion in your music? They are better described as melodic hardcore or simply punk rock.
6. The sources the article uses are incorrect. 54 leads to an MSN music page that is completely unrelated to the topic. The second, 55 takes you to a "NJ.com", hardly a credible source in my opinion. The article there is also biased, saying "It's more listenable, though, than awful covers here by emo-rock bands All-American Rejects and Rise Against. " They also call AAR "emo" when they are widely considered pop rock or power pop. So far we've got one biased source against many credible, well known, neutral ones. Lastly there is 56, which leads to download.com which says that Rise Against falls under the alternative/punk, punk and hardcore punk categories.

Whoever put them on this list obviously just cited some random sources (only 1 of the 3 even describes them as emo) and does not have a good grasp of what emo is and more likely than not knows nothing about Rise Against. Either fix this or lift the protection from this page so I can. --TM41 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

1. wikipedia is not a reliable source.
2. myspace is not a reliable source.
3. AOL, billboard.com are not a definitive sources, what a site doesnt say is irrelevant
4. There influences aren't sourced and do not dictated the genre they are known as, reliable sources do.
5. Original research is not permitted to be included in wikipedia
6. The sources are correct. One is an MSN music article about emo, the content on nj.com originates from the The Star-Ledger, new jersey's largest newspaper and was written by well known music journalist, Bradley Bambarger (former exec. editor of billboard magazine), download.com is a major music site with a distinct history. Your personal opinion about the sources' content is not relelvant.

Finally there are no sources provided that contradict this. --neon white talk 12:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, so if a band describes themselves as punk rock then they aren't because ONE journalist wants to call them emo. That makes perfect sense. What about the Rolling Stone website? They classify RA as punk rock.. They're only about a hundred times more known and credible then some little snot who calls them "emo-rockers" because he hasn't done his homework and actually listened to a full album of theirs. Another thing, the sources are wrong. Let's see, there's; [12] Click on that right now. Enlighten me as to where it says anything about Rise Against. That's right, it's nowhere to be seen. If you punch in "Rise Against" in the website's search engine, it will bring you to a MSN page about them. [13] Guess what it says? "Genre: Alternative Styles: Punk Rock, Pop, Rock, Soundtracks, Hardcore, Post-Punk" [14] There's that one, some executive's opinion about a band he knows nothing about. [15] Then there's this. Oh, look! What does it say at the top? "Music » Alternative/Punk » Punk » Hardcore Punk" I don't see emo.. --TM41 (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda stupid to call them emo, all of their songs are politically driven, whether quite literally or metaphorically/sarcastically, who ever made those claims on those sites clearly did not listen to the point/purpose of the songs and shouldn't even be a journalist(okay thats a bit harsh, but he shouldn't tackle those unrelated claims and subjects). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.2.106.215 (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your bizarre assumption of 'some executive' is actually noted music journalist, Bradley Bambarger, who has a distinct history writing for Gramophone, Rolling Stone and is former executive editor of Billboard magazine. --neon white talk 19:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If Rise Against is really an emo band, there should be a better source than an article snidely calling them "emo-rockers". The article isn't even about them, and it is quite obvious that calling them emo was meant as an insult. --FernoKlump (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of the source is not relevant. It's reliable that's what matters. --neon white talk 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my personal opinion. "It's more listenable, though, than awful covers here by emo-rock bands All-American Rejects and Rise Against." The author plainly does not like the band. Emo has a bad reputation. The author uses emo as an insult. Your source is an opinion piece and all other sources I've seen (especially above) say the band is punk. --FernoKlump (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Like i said, this is about your subjective opinion of the source. It's your personal interpretation and nothing else. There is absolutely nothing in the piece that suggests that 'emo' is being used as anything other than a description of the band. He also writes 'pop-rock band Plain White T's plane it down generically', is 'pop-rock' an insult? is 'band' a slur? It simply doesnt matter that the piece is critical. All pieces by music reviewers and critics are opinion, what matters is that it's published by a verifiable source. The mistake you are making is probably the most common one on wikipedia; Wikipedia does not claim to be 'truth', it's simply info gathered from sources. --neon white talk 02:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but how does there not being any proof outright saying loudly "RISE AGAINST AREN'T EMO!" by a reliable source, which in your opinion is only MSN, mean they are emo? You contradict yourself also by saying it's your job to publish the opinions of music critics but you ignore several big one's opinions. How are they're opinions not as reliable as MSN's? Could it be maybe you use MSN more often then AOL? And about us pointing out the honest fact that what was in the article is blantly a insult, saying that that's our original research, is dumb. What if I asked the band and they said they weren't emo? Would you not count that because it's me doing research? Tell ya what. If this is gonna be your logic I'm gonna just have to make a website and make a huge article about this. Also I'll be sure to include that MSN is an unreliable source. I hate to sound juvenile but your just being plain ignorant. --67.34.181.210 (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is rubbish. We don't have adequate sources saying they're emo. Neon's saying "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" has to be one of the most... Jesus H. Christ. It's bloody obvious what OP was getting at by citing Wiki. He was saying that if WE don't consider them emo, WE shouldn't put them on this (profanity) list! Dear YHWH.

Neon's entire argument is effectively "We don't have anyone saying they're not emo, so they must be emo!" It's like saying that because the Pope says "God is real," that God must be real. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

Also, just so you folks know your options: [16] (Albert Mond (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC))

←Thanks for the support guys. Even though the first source is biased in calling Rise Against's cover songs "awful" and the second one was written by a non-credible source -- Neon seems to think that both are good enough for Wikipedia. If he's not going to budge, I'd rather not start another edit war. --TM41 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok why is the opinion of ONE editor with ONE source talking about ONE rise against COVER song enough to have Rise Against on this list? ever heard of undue weight? What about the fact that has been repeated above that every other source calls them, in some way or another, Punk or Hardcore?? Its clearly missleading. If your going to go by the word of one journalist wrighting on one song (which, I repeat, is a cover) then Slipknot are acoustic rock, Papa Roach are Post Hardcore, Linkin Park are electronica and Anthrax are Rap Metal. For arguements sake lets say Rise Against's contribution to this soundtrack is emo, (which in case you you didn't relise each of the bands I've listed has one song that falls under the genres I've said but the band themselves doesn't play the genre), there is nothing else calling any of their other music emo. Quite simple there is not enough saying that they are emo and too much saying they are punk/hardcore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.111.187 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If you ask me Neon White seems to be showing his opinion by saying that the source is right and better than all the others. --67.34.181.210 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You Guys, neon white is the one who is right here, all of you are just pissed off that a professional critic who really knows what he is talking about called them emo, but he meant that. then their is you all and me, just some wikipedia users who claim that they aren't to defend this band, i don't like rise against, but what has been said has been said.-- dylgr —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC).

If you look at the various threads on this page, there are reasoned arguments on both sides. The 1 source that we do have only mentions "awful covers here by emo-rock bands All-American Rejects and Rise Against". The mentions of both emo and Rise Against are very brief and in passing, so it's questionable how helpful it is in classifying Rise Against as "emo". As for your claim that the source is from "a professional critic who really knows what he is talking about", that's really a subjective point of view; we don't know anything at all about the reviewer or whether he's considered authoritative in the world of published criticism. It's just a random online review. Probably most troubling, though, is that this is the only source that anyone's yet presented linking Rise Against to emo. Therefore it seems as though a vast majority of critics classify them as something else, and that we're giving undue weight to what amounts to a very weak and trivial source. I haven't been able to find any other reliable sources classifying Rise Against as emo nor explaining their connection to the style, so I support Timmeh's removal of them from the list. We really ought to have 2 authoritative source for each artist. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions and possible bad sourcing

A lot of these are in contradiction to the main articles on these bands. As such, I suspect it has been established on those pages that said bands are not emo, and I think it is misleading to have links here directing to pages that Wiki doesn't itself seem to consider emo. Also, I suspect some of these sources could be misinterpreted. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

Alright. Read the article used for citing Coheed and Cambria. The lines we seem to be using are these:

NEW YORK— Most bands that fit the "emo" or "hardcore" descriptions follow the same scream-sing/ scream-sing formula, but Coheed and Cambria are bringing something different to the scene.

That something is an unusual blend of prog-rock, emo and sci-fi fantasy. Consequently, the band has often been described as an "emo Rush" due to its elaborate concept albums, 2002's The Second Stage Turbine Blade and 2003's In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth: 3, which chronicle the continuing saga of two intergalactic characters named Coheed and Cambria. Also, singer/guitarist Claudio Sanchez's high-pitched vocals inescapably recall those of Rush singer Geddy Lee. Nevertheless, the group's potent combination of melodic sensibility and heavy-hitting rock far outweighs any comparisons with other bands.

According to this, Coheed and Cambria is also hardcore. The author doesn't once state in what way Coheed is supposed to be "emo" -probably because they can't. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC))

It states they are "an unusual blend of .. emo". Doesn't that mean NYT considers them, in part, to be emo? tedder (talk) 06:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant part is "an unusual blend of prog-rock, emo and sci-fi fantasy". This statement supports the idea that C&C are a blend of prog and emo, and thus fit both styles. As for the Coheed and Cambria article itself, I have no doubt that the regulars of that article came to some kind of consensus to the effect of "C&C aren't emo, let's remove mention of that from the infobox cuz it's not one of their main genres". However, if you read the "genre" section of that article, there are no fewer than 5 references to sources describing them as emo. You should try looking past the infobox. And while I personally don't feel that C&C are emo (although the instrumentation on their first 2 albums does have some commonalities with some of the instrumentation common to emo), consensus can never trump sources. I would support listing emo in the C&C infobox, as there are so many sources already in the article connecting them to the style. And of course there's more than enough to justify their inclusion on this list. If you don't care for the current source, check any of the others in the C&C article and choose the 2 that you feel are the most thorough & reliable, and use those in this list. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant part is "an unusual blend of prog-rock, emo and sci-fi fantasy". This statement supports the idea that C&C are a blend of prog and emo, and thus fit both styles.

While I can see your point, wasn't Grunge essentially a blend of punk and metal?

And while I personally don't feel that C&C are emo (although the instrumentation on their first 2 albums does have some commonalities with some of the instrumentation common to emo),

But then, couldn't it be Prog with elements of emo?

I suppose really there's no point in my arguing at this point, but I'm still a bit curious, particularly on whether said source can truly be used as a claim that said band is emo. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC))

Infoboxes were never very popular as a decent summary of such subjective and differing views as genres are. They should be a summary of the article but i don't have time to make sure every article is doing so. --neon white talk 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion was deliberetley made inclusive to avoid endless discussions of 'who is emo enough?' something which is subjective and impossible. It's a major reason why this article was created in the first place. Some of the artists on the list will be commonly and exclusively known as emo bands and intrinsically linked to the genre others might only have a brief or passing link. --neon white talk 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the nature of the list being inclusive, in that as long as there are a couple of reliable sources describing a certain act as emo, then they can be included. This simple criteria avoids the "xxxx is/isn't emo" junk arguments that these emo-related articles always get bogged down in. Simple inclusion criteria helps avoid POV arguments and also (for the most part) helps ensure that we stay true to the sources.

That said, in reformatting the ref's I've come across a few that are quite weak and I think ought to be replaced by better ones, or if that can't be done, the act might not merit inclusion. The Coheed & Cambria ref is fine, as it gives a description of how the band incorporates the emo style and also attests to the fact that they have often been referred to as emo. I'm thinking specifically of refs like this one for The Academy Is... It works fine in labeling Panic at the Disco as emo, but all it mentions connecting emo with The Academy Is... is that they have "nice songs with nice hooks. It's emo by numbers, but it does the job." This one is rather weak for AFI, as all it mentions is "Emo-punk band AFI set 'a fire outside' of the Utah State Fairgrounds Thursday night." It doesn't give any description of how AFI is or sounds emo. Probably the worst is this one for Cute Is What We Aim For, which only mentions emo in the title, but nowhere in the article itself.

I'm not saying "cut these bands from the list now", but I am saying that these refs ought to be replaced with better ones that actually describe the act's relation to emo, rather than merely mentioning emo in passing. Merely finding sources that label an act emo isn't nearly as good as finding ones that describe how they are related to emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the AFI one to be pretty unambiguous and clear. I don't think it's required that we have lengthy descriptive references and there's nothing in WP:V that suggests short references are any less reliable. The fact that a professional journalist considered and wrote that is what really matters whether he or she goes into detail is less important for the basis of a list article. --neon white talk 10:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether a writer for a community college newspaper can be considered a "professional journalist", but I digress...I'm not saying remove the band, nor saying remove the ref, I'm just saying it would be preferrable to replace it with a more descriptive ref that does go into some level of detail. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Coheed & Cambria ref is fine, as it gives a description of how the band incorporates the emo style and also attests to the fact that they have often been referred to as emo.

I'm not certain that I agree. For example, upon Googling "Emo Rush", the first thing that comes up is the MTV article. Next, (if we're only counting results on topic) is the Wikipedia article on Coheed and Cambria, and after that a Yahoo! Answers query from a mere year ago. Granted there are a few more results on the topic that I found, but all of those came after said MTV article, suggesting that the MTV article popularized -or even created- the term. However, I'm grateful that you've taken the time to consider my questions, and I can respect your conclusion. (Albert Mond (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

There are, of course off-line sources that the MTV article could be referring to. For example, I seem to recall some issues of Alternative Press from around the time of In Keeping Secrets of Silent Earth: 3 that discussed C&C in the context of emo but also made comparisons to a number of prog rock bands, Rush included (though whether any specifically called them an "emo Rush" I don't recall). I definitely remember a specific source I read (not long ago) that talked about how "Three Evils (Embodied in Love and Shadow)" and/or "A Favor House Atlantic" were musically (though not lyrically) very similar to the structures of many emo songs. When I'm done cleaning up the existing ref's I'll take a look through my old AP issues and do some more searching for more descriptive sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

College newsletters are usually unreliable unless they have a distinct history and reputation. This may have been mistaken for several reliable newspapers which share the name. I would remove that ref. --neon white talk 12:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all pretty irrelevant. It doesn't matter if MTV were the first and only publisher to use the term, they are a very reliable source for this subject. In fact there are multiple reliable sources to be found by searching including Daily Cardinal,Decider,Michigam Daily,Spin,billboard.com, Rolling Stone, LA Times --neon white talk 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

←I agree, I think MTV are a perfectly authoritative source for making that claim. And those additional ref's are excellent. As for the AFI bit, I might remove them if I can't find any sources more reliable than that community college paper. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[17] not sure how serious that is. [18] is better but still not great. --neon white talk 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

semi-protect this page?

This page seems like a good one for ongoing semi-protection- perhaps 3 months as a trial? Does anyone support or disagree with this? My rationale is that there are a lot of driveby additions of bands without sources, removals of bands by angry fans, and these are all being done from first-time IPs. tedder (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It hadn't been a problem for a while, but seems to have spiked in the last few days. Go ahead & request, it never hurts to try. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Rise Against

There is only one source for listing the band as emo. It even describes the band in the same genre as the All-American Rejects. It seems its reliability is debatable. Anyway, I don't believe Rise Against should be listed here anymore, unless more sources are found labeling the band emo. We don't want to give undue weight to what is obviously a small minority opinion. Does anybody else have thoughts on this? Timmeh 04:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The writer of the article is biased towards Rise Against (calling them "awufl") and seems to use the word "emo" in a derogative way rather than a descriptive one. Really now, the All American Rejects are emo? I don't think he is a reliable source at all. --TM41 (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Using the term in a derogatory fashion doesn't have any bearing on the source's reliability. It passes WP:RS, though I certainly would be more satisfied with a source that was more descriptive of how Rise Against fits the "emo" label. Whether the author has a positive or negative opinion of the band really has no bearing on the issue. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

one source talking about a soundtrack with one rise against song with no actual description about what makers them 'emo-rock'. If ever anything has been given undue weight... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.111.187 (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

'undue weight' has nothing to do with sources, its about what prominence different aspects of a subject are given in an article. As this is simply a navigational list, there can be no 'weight' at all (there is no implication that any bands are more or less a part of the genre) so that particular guideline is irrelevant. --neon white talk 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there can be weight. Undue weight is about how much weight a particular view should be given. Wikipedia is not meant to even mention fringe minority views, which this is. Furthermore, this list claims these bands to be, matter-of-factly, emo. Going as far as claiming a band being emo as fact requires evidence of consensus among reliable sources that the band is emo. Timmeh (review me) 00:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There can be no weight at all in a list. It's just a list. No article is wikipedia claims to be the truth. Verfiability is the threshold for inclusion, if it's verifiable, i.e. we can attribute it to a reliable source, it goes in. --neon white talk 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality policy still applies here. The idea that Rise Against is an emo band is absolutely not a significant view or anything close to it. Even the title of this article is misleading. It claims all these bands listed are, in fact, emo, when some of them, such as Rise Against, have only one article trivially mentioning them as an "emo-rock" band. Timmeh (review me) 22:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There really should be at least two reliable sources shown for each artist listed here. We can't accept some of these bands being emo as fact unless multiple reliable sources say so and explain why the band in question is emo. Undue weight is being given to some of these sources (generally, not only for Rise Against). I'll attempt to find some additional sources for acts listed with only one, but some (including Rise Against) seem like they don't belong on this list. Timmeh 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a single source is needed for any citation, no policy requires that a source is explanatory to any particular degree. It's up to readers to make such judgments not editors. --neon white talk 19:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think that the source cited for Rise Against is a very poor one as far as supporting the claim that "Rise Against is an emo act". It's not even very good at supporting the claim that "critics have labeled Rise Against as emo", because it's the only source that we've been able to find mentioning Rise Against & emo together, & it does so extremely briefly & only in passing. It's a very weak source, and all the more so when one considers that it's the only source we've been able to find connecting Rise Against to emo. To me it speaks volumes that the vast majority of sources discussing Rise Against don't label them emo, but rather something else (most I've seen use some variation of punk or hardcore). When we can only turn up 1 source to support the claim, and that source is so weak, then I think we're probably giving undue weight if we base the band's inclusion solely on that source. That's why I supported Timmeh's edit which removed them from the list. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The source is a major newspaper group, the star-ledger is the top newspaper in NJ and the 16th in sales across the US, not to mention the article was written by a very notable music journalist. The quality of the source is based on the reputation of the publisher not your personal opinions and objections to what is written. --neon white talk 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My objection isn't to the notability of the publisher nor the writer, it's to the trivial nature of the mention of "emo" and the fact that, given the complete lack of other noteworthy sources labeling Rise Against as emo, it seems to be a fringe opinion. The vast majority of other highly notable sources call them something other than emo:

• Allmusic – "punk revival / post-hardcore", "rooted in the sound and social vision of traditionalist hardcore"
• Rolling Stone – calls them "punk rock" a number of times, mentions "political rock" and "raucous hardcore anthems", couldn't find any mention of emo in any RS article about them.
• NME: "hardcore band", "uncompromising slice of traditional hardcore", "a band at the forefront of the mainstream revival of traditional hardcore". No mention of emo at all.
• The New York Times: "In the punk and hardcore heritage that Rise Against has proudly continued", "grungy hard-rock chords". Again, no mention of emo at all.

By comparison, the author of the Star-Ledger review mentions them only in passing, in the context of a compilation release, and his only mention is "awful covers here by emo-rock bands All-American Rejects and Rise Against." He gives no explanation or context of how Rise Against is emo, so it's a very weak source for making that claim. Compare it to most of the descriptive sources in the article (particularly Greenwald), which actually explain how a given act fits the "emo" label. IMHO it's probably the weakest source currently in the article, as far as labeling a specific act as emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Your objection is a personal one and is irrelevant. 'Negative proof' and 'proof by omission' arguments are fallacies (an omission of confirmation is not a challenge to the cited fact, this is synthesis and wikipedia has no time for it). The burden of proof is verifing the facts which is done. Those two acts were chosen by the journalist as examples of emo acts. --neon white talk 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Considered emo?

Shouldn't the title be changed to a list of bands Considered emo, as a lot of these bands are only considered emo by a select few. Your views? 92.251.255.13 (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No. As the lead text (and hidden text) explain, it is a list of artists who have been described as emo by journalists and music critics. Genre applications are for the most part inherently subjective, but if reliable sources in the field of music analysis & criticism call an artist emo, then they are emo for all intents and purposes. What the "select few" (ie. Wikipedia editors) think doesn't matter in the slightest. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - WP:V --neon white talk 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Bring Me the Horizon?

I know this is based on the views of certain journalists and that, but including BMTH as emo is utterly absurd. Honestly, they aren't even considered emo within most of popular culture, as far as I know. People are going to see this article, and they will either laugh at it, or it will cause them to actually believe that BMTH is an emo band.

What's more, Wiki's article on BMTH doesn't (last I checked) list this band as emo. I haven't checked the source yet, but I'm about to. If it's vague or a bad source, I'll delete the band from this list. If it's anything regarded as reliable, I will gladly continue this argument. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Update: the addition seems to have been a joke. And actually a rather nice one, at that. Here's the source: Loftus, Johnny. "Bring me the horizon: Biography". Allmusic. [19]. Retrieved on 2009-04-20. "Ontario-based pop-punk/emo/lotsa yelling combo Bring me the horizon included..." Removed. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

What's more, the ref isn't even about Bring Me the Horizon. It's the Allmusic bio of Boys Night Out (it actually says "Ontario-based pop-punk/emo/lotsa yelling combo Boys Night Out"). It doesn't refer to BMTH at all. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Most of the artists listed on this page have only one source. I propose that, to make the list more neutral, we require at least two sources for each artist. This way, we can avoid giving insignificant viewpoints undue weight. The whole NPOV policy does still apply to lists. It clearly states that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". If a significant minority or majority of reliable sources believe an artist is emo, we should have no problem finding at least two sources and citing them here. If we can't find more than one reliable source calling an artist emo, we must view the opinion as that of a tiny minority which has no place on Wikipedia. This proposal is just to ensure that readers are not being misled when seeing this list and that it is completely neutral, and it couldn't hurt anything. So, why not? Timmeh (review me) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this list is a little misleading. I'd consider one source who barely mentions them to be a "tiny minority". --TM41 (talk) 05:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me so far. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

I think the flaw in that logic is that in some cases, even though there may only be 1 source, that source might be very comprehensive and authoritative. Some of the current entries, for example, cite only Andy Greenwald or Steven Blush, but those sources devote significant coverage to those acts and give excellent descriptions of how they fit into the emo style. On the other hand, there are some entries that cite only 1 source that gives only trivial coverage of the act and barely mentions emo at all (obviously I'm thinking of Rise Against here). I those cases I think that if additional sources can't be found then the acts ought to be removed. It really comes down to the quality of the sources as opposed to quantity. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If the idea that a band is emo has enough support to get such a detailed description, it shouldn't be hard to find other sources that have the same viewpoint. I think it'd be a very rare occasion that we wouldn't be able to find a second source if we have already found one such as you describe. Even if that happens, a fringe minority viewpoint explained in great detail is still a fringe minority viewpoint. Timmeh (review me) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly consider the opinion of a senior contributing writer for Spin, whose writing has also appeared in The Washington Post, Blender, Entertainment Weekly, The Village Voice, MTV Magazine, Complex, and Magnet, and who literally wrote the book on emo, to be a "fringe minority viewpoint". His book includes coverage of bands that I have never seen covered elsewhere (ie. The Shyness Clinic). Likewise with Blush; his book (and the accompanying film documentary) devotes detailed coverage to many small underground hardcore bands that I've never seen covered in another source, including some that don't even have Wikipedia articles (Kingface, Lunchmeat). I'll take a single citation to either of those sources over a half dozen of these any day. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What would you propose, then, that we do to get the bands removed that are only called emo trivially and by one source? Timmeh (review me) 16:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Go through the sources. If they only mention emo trivially and are the only source cited, then we can form consensus to remove them. Information in articles must be sourced, but that doesn't mean that all sourced info must stay in articles. A crap source is a crap source. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we already do have consensus to remove Rise Against. Would you agree? Timmeh (review me) 17:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The only one who seems to object is Neon White. The source supplied is incredibly weak and mentions both Rise Against and emo only in passing, and I haven't found a single other source calling Rise Against emo despite a number of searches. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed them. Now we need to find the other listed artists whose only source mentions them and emo trivially. Timmeh (review me) 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)