Talk:List of emo artists/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Metallica

Should be added. 77.127.142.244 (talk) 10:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No frackin' way. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead?

This article uses the first sentence from an AllMusic book as its citation for this band's inclusion. However, the AllMusic webpage on this artist does not list "emo" as one of their styles. In addition, according to the same page, there are no emo bands listed as major influences on this band. (Albert Mond (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC))

While I agree that the source is weak, what the Allmusic online profile doesn't say does not invalidate what their printed book does say. Keep in mind that the online profile and the book entry were written by 2 different people. Even though they're both working for Allmusic they are 2 separate critics, and the fact that one doesn't mention emo doesn't discount the fact that the other one does mention it. The source cited is this, and the fact that this completely separate source written by a different person doesn't mention emo doesn't invalidate the cited source. Besides, negative proof is a logical fallacy; there are plenty of artists whom the Allmusic website doesn't list as emo or list emo bands as influences for, yet whom other, equally valid sources do describe as emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Upon Googling said bands name and "emo," just now, the first page of results were about their performance at the famous Texas venue (Emo's). The first really relevant article I noticed was this article from MTV, in which both the author and the band members express disputes with the band's being called emo, and the band members express general skepticism towards the way said term is currently often used. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

EDIT: Actually, scratch the "first results" thing. I just noticed eMusic and Rhapsody refer to them as 'emo' in the second and third results. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

30 Seconds to Mars?

30 Seconds to Mars aren't emo. http://rateyourmusic.com/list/DeathOfSeasons/bands_that__arent_emo/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.60.56 (talk) 22:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not even anywhere near close to anything resembling a reliable source. It is some random blog by a 15 year-old jackass ranting about who he thinks is/isn't emo. Stop citing it as a reason to remove the band from the list. If you continue to do so, it will be treated as vandalism and you will be blocked from editing. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty good list myself. But as you said, not Wiki material. (Albert Mond (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

This is to the post; 30 Seconds to Mars ARE emo! Have you LISTENED to their song The Kill!? And just look at the lead singer!!! [1] there's a damn good example of them. It may be stereotype, but it's true >:( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.245.176 (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's entirely your personal opinion, and thus irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Just because you think a certain song sounds emo, or that the singer looks emo, does not mean a given band is emo. If reputable music critics classify an artist as emo, that's all we care about. We are not interested in the opinions of editors who repeatedly shout "x is/isn't emo! Just LISTEN to them!" We listen to reputable sources, not fans. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Avenged Sevenfold

How has nobody added Avenged Sevenfold yet? there the most goddam emo band iv seen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.105.175 (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Then frankly, you haven't seen any emo bands. The closest Avenged Sevenfold has ever come to emo is their early metalcore days, and that's simply by a general association with punk rock and the Warped Tour. They're a hard rock and heavy metal act. Merely having tattoos and makeup doesn't make them emo (most rockers have those too, you know). I would be quite surprised if you could find a reliable source describing their music as emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Remove...

...the bands that don't actually have articles on Wikipedia. Even if they've got good sources saying they're emo, it doesn't make sense having them on the list if they don't have articles on the site. --LordNecronus (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Notability does not limit article content, so no. If the list consisted only of bands with articles, there would be no point to it because it would be redunant to Category:Emo musical groups. This is one of the key differences between list articles and categories. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So, why not just find info on the bands without articles, get the bands articles, remove this page... you get me? Why do we need two lists when we can have one that works perfectly?

Honestly, this is something I've never been able to get on Wikipedia. We have articles listing bands, but then we have categories that list the bands anyway, making the list-of-bands articles completely redundant. Thoughts? --LordNecronus (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A list article has the potential to include much more content than a category can hope to, and thus be of more use to a reader than a category is. If you look at any featured list, you'll find they all contain informative content beyond just being a list of entries. Our hope is to build and expand this list to resemble something like List of Telecaster players or List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees, with much more content than just a list of links to band names. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, then, I'll make it my duty to include that extra content in the list articles. Thanks for giving me the idea! --LordNecronus (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I recommend taking a look at the featured list criteria too. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this, which applies to people but would make sense for musical groups too. It suggests including only artists who have articles and are well-known for making emo music. This seems to me to strengthen the need to require two sources for each artist. Timmeh (review me) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to List of emo bands

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

The result of the move request was no move. Consensus at this time indicates support for a page move, but there is no consensus on the title. Please feel free to request again (or move yourselves) if consensus develops for one title. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

List of emo artists → List of emo bands —  Relisted. GrooveDog FOREVER 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

List of emo artists → List of emo bands or List of emo musicians or List of emo musical groups "Artist" is an English word which can refer to all forms of creative work. However, prototypically, it refers to people who work with an exclusively visual medium, especially painters. There is instead a more precise word which can be used for this article:musician. Or perhaps indeed musical groups or bands. Either of these three would be fine I think but not artists. Artists supposedly would be fine if it was a mix of individual musicians and groups as was stated at Talk:List of glam rock artists but it's not. All of these are collectives, not individual musicians.

For the same reason, I am also requesting the move of List of alternative metal artists and List of dance-punk artists. Munci (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

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

30 Seconds to Mars

From the 30 Seconds to Mats talk page: "This [2] was from an Alex Fletcher in a place called Digitalspy. Searches for Alex Fletcher revealed that the guy is not known for being a music critic. Furthermore, in searching Digitalspy, I found out that the place is a FORUM. That could mean that anyone can use it. That is not reliable resources, and again seems to violate Wikipedia standards." The source has been eliminated.--Matthew Riva (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This source isn't reliable because it is a forum. Delete it. --Loverdrive (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This review says at the last "this is as earnest as an emo record gets", but doesn't clearly say A Beautiful Lie is an emo album. I don't think it is a reliable source. --Loverdrive (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Allmusic most certainly is a reliable source; in fact it's one of the most frequently cited sources in album articles. I don't see how you can claim that it "doesn't clearly say A Beautiful Lie is an emo album" when the review flat-out calls it "an emo record". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The review says metallic post-grunge, metal guitars, alt rock, heavy and says only at the last "this is as earnest as an emo record gets". --Loverdrive (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Which means that the reviewer clearly considers it "an emo record". He wouldn't say "this is as earnest as an emo record gets" if he didn't think the record was emo. The source is reliable, and it describes the album as emo. It may describe it as other things as well, and it may not say "emo" as emphatically as you'd prefer, but it nonetheless is a reliable source describing the album as emo, so your arguments above don't hold up. You can disagre with the reviewer all you want, but it doesn't change the reliability of the source nor the reviewer's own words. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Adam Lambert

He should probably be blacklisted before anyone adds him; he looks emo so anyone who has only seen him and never heard his music might miscategorize him as "emo" even though he's glam rock. Wearing eye makeup does not make his music emo; dressing in S&M gear does not make his music emo; being a hottie who looks emo does not make him emo. 76.1.48.210 (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "blacklisting" here. We'll deal with it if/when it happens, which is doubtful anyway. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Weezer

How are they emo? Weezer's page lists their genres as alt rock power pop and pop punk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.95.103 (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the 3 sourced cited for Weezer. Pinkerton is widely regarded as an important emo album of the '90s. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh Sweet Jesus, No

I should have watched this page. This is the first time I've checked on it in a while. This was to see if the band Native Nod was listed. They aren't. Not only is Native Nod not listed but... Owl City? Alexisonfire? No. Just no. Absolutely not. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC))

Deal with it. This isn't a POV list. Both Owl City and Alexisonfire have accompanying references that explicitly descrive them as emo, and that's all that's required. The Native Nod article, on the other hand, doesn't have a single source of any kind. If you can find a reliable source describing Native Nod as "emo", then add them to the list and cite the source. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I've got this and this. Oh. And I just got this. I also understand that it's not a POV article, but I think that extreme claims should generally require extreme proof. (Albert Mond (talk) 04:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

I'd also like to point out that neither of our two sources for Owl City refer directly to the artist as 'emo,' rather choosing to use vaguer terms like "blend of... and emo" and "emo-synth."(Albert Mond (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

Meh, I'm satisfied enough that whoever added it actually went to the effort of sourcing it at all, which is leaps beyond what most fly-by editors of this article do (hence the semi-protection). If you want to add Native Nod with the sources you've found, go for it. Though the Epitonic source seems to merely be copyvio-ing Gern Blandsten's press sheet, so I'd just cite the original instead. Oh, and I'm fairly certain Rhapsody.com doesn't pass WP:RS (similar to how Last.fm is unreliable). As far as "extreme claims generally requiring extreme proof", claiming a band is this or that genre is hardly "extreme", and the only claim that this article makes is (as noted in the opening sentence) that these acts have been described as emo. As long as there are sources, that claim is being substantiated. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I just use the Gern Blandsten page, then?(Albert Mond (talk) 07:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

The Sputnikmusic source should work fine as well. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

to be fair 50% of this list is garbage artists missing who should be there and artists there who don't belong, whoever made the crock up needs to do more research into emo, literally couldn't breathe when i read weezer were emo :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocparsnip (talk • contribs) 19:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suck it up. With a list like this, chances are it's is never going to completely reflect your point of view. That's why it's not based on your point of view, but on reliable sources. Deal with it and move on. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Where's Christie Front Drive?

Christie Front Drive is, without a doubt, an emo band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.158.229 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Per the verifiability policy, if you can provide a reliable source to that effect then they can be added. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.158.229 (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoremacDaGangsta (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done --IllaZilla (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkin Park

Linkin Park is an emo band ([5][6]). --79.46.183.108 (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those sources describes Linkin Park as emo, and the second one is unreliable: a self-published blog site run by one guy. I highly doubt you'd be able to find a credible source that actually describes Linkin Park as emo. They are almost universally regarded as rap-rock/alternative rock. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This source describes Linkin Park as emo.--79.46.183.108 (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Read it. The word "emo" appears 4 times:

1. "Gym-Class Heroes, a hip-hop group with an emo fan base"
2. "The rise of emo has pulled this tour — and, it seems, this audience — in a different direction."
3. "the event was all rock, including a fistful of (more or less) emo bands. One of them, Taking Back Sunday from Long Island..."
4. "Linkin Park wasn’t nearly as much fun as My Chemical Romance, the New Jersey band that has become a top seller by evolving from emo tantrums to glam-rock epics."

Which of those do you think describes Linkin Park as emo? #1 is talking about Gym Class Heroes, #2 is describing the general direction of the tour itself and the audience members, #3 is about Taking Back Sunday, and #4 is about My Chemical Romance. Nowhere does the article describe Linkin Park as emo. In fact in the first sentence it describes them as a "rap-rock juggernaut". --IllaZilla (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Linkin Park is emo as My Chemical Romance. --79.46.183.108 (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's your opinion and not relevant to an encyclopedia. Unless there is a source specifically describing Linkin Park as "emo", they will not be added to this list. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times describes Linkin Park as emo as My Chemical Romance. Add an other review [7]. --79.31.36.7 (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This describes Linkin Park and their Projekt Revolution tour as emo. --79.31.36.7 (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned that. Doesn't describe Linkin Park as emo. It mentions stuff about emo fanbases, emo bands touring with Linkin Park, and My Chemical Romance. (Albert Mond (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

It describes My Chemical Romance and Linkin Park as emo. Can you read the source? --79.31.36.7 (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"The 2007 Projekt Revolution tour, which came to the Nikon at Jones Beach Theater here on Wednesday night, didn’t bother much with hip-hop; the other headliner was My Chemical Romance, a band as theatrical as Linkin Park is un-. The rise of emo has pulled this tour — and, it seems, this audience — in a different direction."

This isn't associating Linkin Park with the "rise of emo," but contrasting "Projekt Revolution" circa 2002 with the more recent "Projekt Revolution" that the author is writing about. (Albert Mond (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Pulled Linkin Park, too: the band’s recent album, “Minutes to Midnight” (Warner Brothers), plays down Mike Shinoda’s rapping to emphasize Chester Bennington’s melancholy confessions and Brad Delson’s de-metalified guitar. On Wednesday night Mr. Shinoda spent much of the time holding a guitar or sitting behind a keyboard, and Joe Hahn, the D.J., was pleasantly unobtrusive. With the exception of Styles of Beyond, rappers relegated to the front of the lineup, the event was all rock, including a fistful of (more or less) emo bands. Linkin Park is an emo band.--79.31.36.7 (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

←79.31.36.7, either you are misinterpreting the source, or you are attempting to twist it so that it says what you would like it to say. The article merely says that in 2007 the Projekt Revolution tour had several emo bands on it, whereas when it started in 2002 it had more hip-hop in it. The fact that Linkin Park headlines the tour, and that there were emo bands on the bill, does not somehow transform Linkin Park in to an emo band. A parallel example would be the Warped Tour, which traditionally is primarily a punk rock tour. Punk rock bands like Bad Religion, NOFX, and Pennywise play the Warped Tour almost every year. Now, in the last 8 years, as emo has been popular, the tour has also featured a number of emo acts such as My Chemical Romance, Taking Back Sunday, Saves the Day, etc. So you could say that the tour took a more emo direction, just as Projekt Revolution did. But this does not mean that Bad Religion or NOFX are emo bands, just because they were on the tour as well; just as being on a bill with emo bands does not make Linkin Park an emo band. Nowhere in the NYT article does it use the word "emo" in reference to Linkin Park; only to other artists on the bill. However much you want it to call Linkin Park emo, it doesn't, and continuing to argue the point is not going to change that. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This review describes Linkin Park as emo. This is a reliable source because is written by a musical critic majored in Critical Social Thought. --79.31.36.7 (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, it is a self-published blog site run by a single individual. It does not satisfy the criteria of being a "reliable, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Its "About" page does not indicate that the author is a professional music critic or journalist, or that he or his website have any reputation in the field. It says "Motiveless Crime was created as a way of showing my content/writing muscle as well as a place for people to meet and discuss everything from current events to tabloid gossip." Majoring in "Critical Social Thought" does not make him a professional music critic. This is no different from the website my friends and I used to run, where I published numerous album reviews. I am not a professional critic, and all of our material was self-published, so I would not be able to cite my own reviews as sources for Wikipedia content. This site is no different. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A review from Spin magazine describes Linkin Park as emo. Also this.--79.47.179.252 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The Chester Bennington interview merely remarks that Minutes to Midnight is "at times emo-leaning". The album review merely mentions "arena-emo hooks". Neither one describes Linkin Park as an emo band. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

What? This review describes Minutes to Midnight as emo. Can you read it?--79.47.179.252 (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, which is how I was able to quote it. Its only mention of emo is "The arena-emo hooks are still there, of course, as lead single 'What I've Done' proves. But this time they feel more like a means to an end." It does not make the claim that Minutes to Midnight is an emo album, nor that Linkin Park is an emo band. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? There is a reliable source that describes Minutes to Midnight as emo. Don't describe your points of view.--79.52.179.43 (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not my point of view. These are direct quotes. The article does not describe Minutes to Midnight as being classified under the genre of emo, nor does it describe Linkin Park as being an emo band. If you want to add Linkin Park to a list of emo artists, you need a reliable source that makes the case for them being an emo band. You do not have such a source. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have 2 reliable sources from Spin [8] [9].--79.52.179.43 (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are the same 2 links you have already provided, and I have already explained that neither one classfies Minutes to Midnight or Linkin Park as emo. I am not going to repeat myself. Simply because they use the word "emo" somewhere in the text does not mean that they are classifying the album, or the band, as emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

←No. --79.52.179.43 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"No" to what? Now you're just being childish. You may enjoy beating this particular horse carcass, but I'm done with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

At the Drive-In?

Really? Any explanation for this? Apart from the apparent source... --190.157.238.69 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is all the explanation that's required: "At the Drive-In's success at fusing styles ranging from balls-out punk rock to soul-quaking emo – encompassing all points in between – was the result of an uncompromising spirit and a truly astonishing work ethic." --IllaZilla (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If such, then why isn't punk rock considered a genre for them too? Because, if I'm honest, if we were to classify all the artists by the supposed blend of genres they represent, ATDI could perfectly fit into not only this, post-hardcore, and punk rock lists, but also at progressive rock, psychedelic rock, alternative rock, and so on...

Besides, apart from a some source that put ATDI into some "punk/emo" category for some award they won, and the emo category right on the bottom of the list, there's no evidence that they actually belong here, even more considering that one of the seemingly characteristics of emo music are "deeply personal, impassioned lyrics" and themes "including nostalgia, romantic bitterness, and poetic desperation" (from the emo article), sharply contrasting with "Singer Cedric Bixler-Zavala's lyrics are renowned for their surreal, cryptic quality and usage of a wide vocabulary"... --186.87.21.35 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "emo" has a nebulous definition and its characteristics have shifted dramatically over the years (and that's not just my opinion, but from the sources I used in rewriting the emo article), this list is deliberately meant to be inclusive. Any act that has been described as "emo" by reliable sources in the field of music can be included, so long as those sources are cited. ATDI have been described as emo by several critics, and just because they have been described as other things as well should not rule them out of this list. If you require, additional sources describing their music as emo can be found at the following links: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] --IllaZilla (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AFI

Hey, are you sure that source referring to AFI as an emo band reliable ? AFI's page lists their genres as alt rock punk rock, horror punk, hardcore punk and post hardcore. Not emo. LPfreak101 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a page of what the bands describe themselves as, it's a page that lists "notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo."--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So if a political analyst on TV (far more notoriety than the not-so-bright person that wrote this AFI article) says Obama is the devil, can we add that to Obama's page because someone described him as that? I mean hey, one person said an opinion so it must really mean something right? AFI has never played emo, and will never play emo. Smk42 (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Eighteen Visions

[15] calls Eighteen Visions emo metal. NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars

In reference to "What is the point of this page", take the first band on this list, 30STM, as an example. Despite clearly not having anything to do with emo, they are listed thanks to one sentence poorly thrown it at the end of one of their album reviews on allmusic.com, a site notorious for making wild genre classifications that make you wonder if they weren't typos. In spite of the fact the album is listed under Pop/Rock with styles like Neo-Prog, Prog-Rock and Post-Grunge by allmusic.com themselves, it appears here because the reviewer ends with "this is as earnest as an emo record gets." Wow, really defining there. Now keep in mind throughout the rest of the article no such reference to emo or anything even close to it is mentioned to describe the album. But by adding that last sentence, here it is. And that last sentence could easily be a confusion over the so-called emo "lifestyle" or culture, which would have definitely been trendy to talk about in 2005, at the time of the review. One silly sentence at the end of an album review does not define a band's genre. Especially a band that clearly has nothing to do with said genre. They need removed from the list and that reference needs to disappear. Smk42 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you about the quality of the source in establishing 30 Seconds to Mars as an emo act, though my stance is less militant than yours. I agree with the opinion that 1 sentence in a single review is not enough to back up the claim that they are an emo band (which is the de facto claim being made by their inclusion on this list). I would very much like to see some additional sources provided that give some descriptive detail about the band's connection to emo, or how their music fits being described as "emo". So far no one has been able to provide a sufficient source to that effect. Given that, I would support the removal of 30 Seconds to Mars from this list on the basis of the source being weak (note that I am not saying it is unreliable, only that it is insufficient, on its own, for making the case that 30 Seconds to Mars is an emo act). However, I would like other editors to voice their opinions, so that a consensus can be reached, before any such action is taken. Smk42, I would ask you to wait for consensus to form before conducting any further removals as well. It has taken us a long time, and a lot of discussion and editing, just to get to the point where each entry on the list is referenced. It even took semi-protecting the article for over a year to discourage the POV-pusing IPs. Removing artists en masse simply because you disagree with the sources is only going to provoke other editors against you. Please allow discussions to take place before removing sourced artists. --IllaZilla (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm waiting and I say good luck to anyone on finding another source to make this claim for this band. I heard them when they first started and no one was even thinking of lumping them into emo (or anything even closely related to that) at that time. And it's not like they've made a drastic change in sound since then to warrant any change in classification. And I can assure you this is hardly the only band that has an insufficient source attached to it. It's just the first band on the list, which just so happens to present the first issue. Smk42 (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I totaly agree with Smk42. The Allmusic review doesn't say that A Beautiful Lie is an emo album. --Dear87 (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. It says plain as day "This is as earnest as an emo album gets." Note "an emo album". Granted, it doesn't say that 30 Seconds to Mars is an emo band, but it most certainly calls A Beautiful Lie an emo album. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars isn't an emo band. The band has nothing to do with the genre. --Dear87 (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you completely, but it is sourced. As I said above, I think the source is incredibly weak in supporting the claim that 30StM is an emo band. If we can agree on that, and if additional supporting sources can't be found, then I think we can establish consensus to remove them from the list. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's your main problem with clinging to allmusic.com. You say they are a credible source, and because they throw in at the end of an album review that it's emo, you use that source for 30STM. Yet why doesn't it say emo on the left side under genre/styles? 4 things there, none of them emo. So allmusic.com contradicts itself once again. Then if you do think allmusic.com is so credible, what happens when another band on this list that you say is emo (like AFI, which you're still using a community college student's article as a source for) is not listed as emo on the "credible" allmusic.com? Is allmusic.com credible or are they only selectively credible, like only when you need them to be? Smk42 (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel I need to clear something up for you: I did not put 30 Seconds to Mars on this list, nor did I add Allmusic as a source. I also did not put AFI on this list, nor did I add the citation to the college article. Other editors did these things. For the record, I do not consider either of these bands (or several others on this list ie. Lostprophets) to be emo in the slightest. You keep blaming me for these things, but remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that can be edited by anyone, and this list existed long before I came around and many editors have had their hands in building it. The work I've put into this list can be summarized in 3 main points:

1. I've cleaned up citations, putting them into citation templates rather than leaving them as bare links.
2. I've removed artists that were unsourced or poorly sourced.
3. I've added artists, with appropriate citations.

I would appreciate it if you'd stop holding me personally accountable for all of the artists and sources on this list. Now you may wonder: If I don't think these artists are emo, why don't I remove them from the list? The answer is: Because they're sourced. I may not agree with the sources, and I may think some of them are weak, but Wikipedia protocol says that removing sourced information simply because I don't agree with it is unacceptable.

As I'm sure you're aware, deciding which bands are and aren't emo is a contentious topic on which there are many conflicting points of view, and all too often has resulted in edit wars, name calling, blocks, bans, and page protection. It took a lot of discussion and consensus-building just to get us to the point where we have one centralized list in which all of the artists have accompanying references. I would happily go through the list with a weed-whacker if I weren't certain that it would just result in more edit wars and POV conflicts. That's why I don't remove sourced artists unless a clear consensus to do so is established here on the talk page first, and I revert other editors who remove artists without discussion. Consensus is the model by which Wikipedia works, and we have to respect it.

As I've said before, if we can come to a consensus here that a particular source is poor, unreliable, or insufficient to establish a given artist as "emo", then we can remove that artist from the list knowing that we've got sound reasoning and a communal agreement for doing so. I think we're in pretty clear agreement that the source used for 30 Seconds to Mars in insufficient to classify them as an emo act, but I'd like to hear from Albert Mond (who also frequents this talk page) to hear his opinion before we move forward with removing them. We can then move on to discussing some of the other sources in the article.

As for Allmusic, regardless of your opinion they are widely recognized as a "reliable, published, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", with many published volumes on music history and recordings in addition to the information available on their website. Both the Musicians and Albums projects regard Allmusic as a reliable source. For the record, however, we hardly ever go by the bulleted genre classifications on the left side of their pages; we place much more weight on the comments made by the actual reviewer. If a review or biography on Allmusic describes an album or artist as emo, that's what we're looking for. The genre classifications and the bios/reviews are not written by the same people, and the latter carry a lot more weight than the former. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been following this (or the band in question), but after a look at the source I'll agree that it's probably not sufficient given the wording if there's this much debate over the band. "Emo" is also relatively disparate from most of the other genres listed on their page (hard rock, post-grunge, alternative metal, progressive metal and neo-prog all link together relatively easily given the presence of all of them), but that just seems like it might be a reason to raise an eyebrow. I don't think that sort of perception has much actual standing here.(Albert Mond (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Albert. Seems like we've got a consensus, at least among the 4 of us who've taken part in the discussion. I'm gonna go ahead & remove 30StM, & note this discussion in my edit summary. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The genre should be removed on the band's article? --Dear87 (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do it then. --IllaZilla (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok :) --Dear87 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, User:Dear87 is a sockpuppet of User:ItHysteria, and has been focused on removing any mention of the word emo from any 30STM-related article. Secondly, the intro to the article states that it is a list of "notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo." The band may not be emo, but they have made "emo" music. This is reliably sourced and thus should remain on the list. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

They're only emo if you're retarded. Look at the comments in that one terrible review where everyone tears that guy apart for calling them emo. What does he know? They have nothing to do with emo, never have, and they don't belong here.

To IllaZilla, in the past I have removed bands because of absurd references, but you put them back, so that tells me you agree with the inconsistent allmusic.com and some community college paper article. You may not have placed the references yourself, but you stand behind them. Are the reviews any more credible than the hokey genre classifications on allmusic.com? I don't think so. That site's just one huge mess. Too much information I guess and they can't tighten it up. Your consensus crap takes too long. If you know for a fact something is wrong, why bother waiting forever to do something about it? How many people are you going to wait for to respond before acting? Smk42 (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the past you have removed bands without discussion, based solely on your own point of view. You've also added numerous bands without any sources, again based solely on your own point of view. If you're looking for me to apologize for reverting those edits, you're barking up the wrong tree. I have no problem with Allmusic, and I don't particularly care if you consider them "inconsistent" or "hokey"; Wikipedia considers them credible and reliable. In my experience you'll complain or cry foul about any source that doesn't completely agree with your own point of view, so your opinion on Allmusic is inconsequential to me. As I said above, I choose to only use Allmusic to cite a band as emo if the review or biography actually describes them as emo; I will not cite it based solely on the bullet-pointed genres on the left hand side. I prefer there to be some context, via the actual text, as to why they fit that description. I guess my standards for sources are a little higher than some other editors'. Even so, I respect Wikipedia's policy of consensus, and given the contentious nature and history of a list such as this I will wait for discussion to pan out before acting rashly. If it takes a while, who cares? Wikipedia has no deadline, and it's not like the fate of the world hinges on a list of emo bands on the internet. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, I've added discussion. I added this 30STM section even, as well as the part below that you won't touch. And I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but references for a list are f'ing retarded. I showed you many lists on wikipedia that don't use any references, and that's fine. The whole point of including something on a list is because you know it belongs there. And how do you know it belongs? Because when you click on that entry and go to that article, the information provided there verifies that entry belonging to that type of list. Common sense. If the article is done well enough, then that alone justifies it being included on a list. No need to add another irrelevant source to it. But no, you go with the most illogical methods possible in the way that you let bands onto this list. And I've given you numerous examples of how allmusic is so inconsistent and wrong, and you just ignore it. How credible is information when it's factually wrong? It's not. In fact it makes sense why you stand behind allmusic.com. You try and run this site in the same inconsistent manner. That AFI reference is trash. They should be removed, but you still keep them. Guess what happens when you click on AFI's article on wiki? Not one mention of the word emo. Wouldn't that confuse someone clicking on a band from a "list of emo bands" and not finding them as being said to play emo in their own article? That's creating inconsistent information, just like how allmusic.com does. I want to clear things like that up. Apparently you'd rather be wrong. Smk42 (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles, including lists, require sources per our verifiability policy. The point of having a list article is not just to list names, but to provide additional information such as descriptions and sources. If the article were just a list of blue-linked names and nothing else, it would be completely redundant to a category and would be worthless. The fact that there are other lists out there lacking sources means that those lists need to be improved; it is not an excuse for this list to go without sources (in other words, "other crap" is a non-argument). Sources are part of the Featured list criteria, and any of our Featured lists are going to have them. You may notice that there are no "List of <genre> artists" articles to be found amongst our Featured lists, largely because most of them lack sources...

As I have told you before, "it's common sense" and "I just know" are not valid arguments; the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you cannot accept that policy and work within it, then Wikipedia probably isn't the place for you.

Allmusic, like Wikipedia, is a compendium: it consists of the contributions of many individuals. Inevitably the opinions of some reviewers/biographers are going to be different from the opinions of others. This does not make the source "inconsistent and wrong", it merely reflects the reality that not every writer shares the same opinions. Opinions cannot be "factually wrong", because they are not facts, they are opinions. Nouse4aname is correct to point out that the introduction to this list states that these are artists "who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". Whether an Allmusic profile includes "emo" in its list of bullet-pointed genres and styles is secondary to whether the writer actually describes the artist/album as "emo" in the text of their bio/review. The fact "emo" listed among the bulleted styles doesn't matter if the text actually describes or discusses the subject as emo.

If an artist on this list has references to support their description as an emo act, but those descriptions are missing from the artist's article, then the sources should be used to add content to the artist's article in order to ensure consistency. Again, the fact that other articles are lacking does mean that this article should suffer. Each article stands alone and is built by an entirely different set of contributors.

As I mentioned earlier, I am happy to discuss artists and sources individually and to build consensus for additions and removals. With regard to the "section below that I won't touch", it is not a discussion but rather an opinionated rant, and I see no value in pursuing it. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the most worthless list of them all. It's built on absurd logic, has largely the wrong bands listed, and creates inconsistent data among the other articles on here. It's terrible. Why don't you go attack other lists without references? Not like you're showing any musical knowledge on this one, so you can't use that as an excuse. No, you just want to be the Wikiemo-nazi and put bad info out there.

Do you think I give a rat's arse about featured articles? Spare me any words about that. Normal people don't care if List of post-rock bands lacks sources or isn't a FA. As long as the bands there belong and offer people a chance to learn about some more good music, then it serves its purpose. What purpose does this crap article serve other than to promote wrong information?

So instead of removing AFI, you want people to take some garbage reference and add it to the AFI page to mess that one up too? Two wrongs don't make a right. Going for "consistently wrong" isn't a viable goal here.

You ignore discussion because you lack the knowledge of these bands, and you also can't admit your methods are garbage. That is not merely some opinionated rant. I once again exposed the inconsistencies that you allow to happen here, and you dismiss it because you're not man enough to admit you have no clue what you're talking about here and don't try to fix anything. Smk42 (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Again you resort to insults and name-calling and declare that you don't give a crap about sources. I'm quite done responding to this garbage. The irony here is that we actually share the same opinion with regard to a number of bands on this list (AFI, 30StM, Lostprophets, etc.). The difference is that I respect Wikipedia's core policies like verifiability and consensus, and recognize that that this is a community project and that we have to work with other editors, not unilaterally against them. If you truly feel that strongly that sources are unnecessary, I invite you to open an RfC. I assure you that the Wikipedia community will agree that they are quite necessary. Not that I expect you'll care. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And again you refuse to man up to your errors and just let them linger. Then if someone fixes them, you go back and revert that. How can anyone ever get anywhere with someone acting like that? For a list, if an article is written well, then what's the point in having a source for it? The article's contents speak for themselves. You really think it's some revolutionary concept to have a "List of [genre] bands", then when you click on a band, their article starts by saying "[BAND NAME] were a [GENRE] band that..."? That's logical. That's fine. But no, let's just look for one retard to use some buzzword even when it doesn't apply (by consensus even), and then we'll throw them on this list, and who cares if it's even connected or sourced in their main page. That's what you do. That's why this is the worst list I've ever seen on any topic here. Smk42 (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to continue removing 30 Seconds to Mars from this list. Two reliable sources verify that the band has produced emo music in the past. Allmusic describe A Beautiful Lie as "as earnest as an emo record gets".[16] Whereas DigitalSpy refer to 30STM as the "latest emo, screamo, rock outfit" and describes song "The Kill" as a "three-minute emo classic". [17] Both sources satisfy WP:RS. Both sources describe either the band or the music as emo. This is a list for "notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". Both 30STM and their music has been described as such in the sources provided. It does not matter if they no longer make emo music. It does not matter if you personally disagree with describing the band/music as emo. All that matters is that wikipedia policy is satisfied, and thus the band belongs on the list. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to add them based on those lousy sources. Even the most diverse of groups still fall under a few genre titles, and for a list like this, emo should be the primary or no worse than secondary genre a band is part of if they're going to be included. For one, take a look at the genres they're already listed under. How does emo fit in with that? Open your ears, 30STM aren't the most diverse of bands either. As was established above, some inconsistent allmusic.com review that throws a buzzword like emo to the very end does not make them an emo band. As for your other "source", what a joke that is. First of all that's a review for a single. Not a full album, but one song. You can't define a band's genre on one song because a band could choose to do something completely different on one song. Second, the hack that reviewed it is a "Reality TV Editor". That doesn't mean he is a qualified music critic. In fact it makes him close to sub-human waste, because that's what reality TV is. Notice how he has to reference shows like Lost and 24 in the review, because he is there for the TV crowd. And if you want a discussion on this, look no further than the comments left on his review. No less than 11 people tear him apart for calling them emo, and not one person defends him.

If you're going to take a band that clearly isn't emo and try putting them into the emo list (a moronic goal if you ask me; and sounds like something attempted by some Hot Topic girl that has to make sure every band she likes is listed as emo or she'll kill herself), then you better make sure you bring some much better ammo than the two lousy links you tried pulling on us here. Smk42 (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See, now there's your problem. You are introducing your own personal criteria for inclusion which simply do not apply to this list. The sources pass WP:RS. They verify that 30STM have been referred to as an emo band, as has their music. I'm not going to get in to name calling and personal attacks, but what I do suggest is that you take your own personal opinions and put them to one side. Try focusing on the policy of WP:Verifiability, and understanding WP:RS and maybe you'll be able to grasp what is being explained to you. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

At least I know how to read. You're using the weakest proof possible to put a band that doesn't belong on this list on it. Do you not realize it's controversial to try adding a band like 30STM on this list and that you need much better sources than that? Your allmusic source has already been dismissed above. Your other source is pure junk. A reality TV editor reviewing a SINGLE? Give me a break. What if a band like Metallica went crazy and released a hip-hop single? Are we going to suddenly add them to a list of hip-hop artists based on that single? Do you even understand the concept of a band having a primary genre? Take them the hell off and leave it alone already. Who is agreeing with you here? I even have someone I can't stand when it comes to this topic agreeing 30STM doesn't belong. If we can agree, you know it's right. Smk42 (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't that difficult to understand. The list is for "notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". The sources provided establish this fact. The sources pass WP:RS. There is nothing more to discuss. How can you get any more specific than stating "this is as earnest as an emo record gets". Emo may not be the primary genre of 30STM - I am not even suggesting this, but it is certainly a genre that has been used to describe the band and/or their music. For this reason, they belong on the list. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You must be the Hot Topic girl I mentioned above because there's no other reason someone would bother this much to try adding a band like this to a list they don't belong on. Hiding behind the loophole in the poorly worded lead here? The same loophole I tried to fix so that it would resemble other band lists on this site (something logical), but you went ahead and changed that too to allow for stupidity like this to continue.

Between the discussion above and the discussion provided at the bottom of your terrible second source, that makes the count 15 to 1 in favor of 30STM not being an emo band. You're the only person that supports them being on here, and you've used invalid sources to do it. What can't you understand here? Quit hiding behind loopholes and supposed policies you can't even follow. That second source, that'd be like someone using an ESPN article written by a sports journalist that includes his opinion on what Alfred Hitchcock's finest movie was, and using that on Hitchcock's page. A reality TV editor reviewing a single? Get the f out of here with that already.

You know genres do exist for a reason and there are even fact-based reasons (not opinions) why a band would or would not belong in a certain genre, such as the way they play their music. Why would you bother putting a band that's not primarily emo on a list like this? I guess you do bring up my point above, as in "What's the point of this page?" Because it is garbage, but just because it's already garbage doesn't mean you have to keep making things worse. Smk42 (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is boring. You seem to think that your personal opinion counts for more than policy. The band is sourced. You are clearly getting worked up over this, so I suggest you take a break and read the relevant guidelines. The messages at the end of the DigitalSpy review are meaningless. Again, they are personal opinion, not published reviews, and so should be completely disregarded. Face facts, the genre is sourced. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even giving opinions. You're using crap sources that don't verify what genre this band falls under, and NO ONE agrees with you. Do you even know what consensus means? You're the only person here trying to call them an emo band. I looked at their Wiki page, and once again no one on there wants to see that word appear on that page via the talk page. But it does, and it's only "source" is that inconsistent review that just doesn't hold up for verification. Some loser at AMG gave their opinion on 30STM being "emo", and that's basically where it ends. That doesn't prove anything. That's not the consensus view on 30STM's genre. Not one bit. And again it goes back to creating inconsistent data just like allmusic.com does. When you click on their page here, you can hardly tell they'd be an emo band and the only common thread is that one lousy review. They don't belong here, and the word emo doesn't belong on their page. Smk42 (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All you are giving is opinions. Your opinion. Which doesn't count for anything. Just as my opinion counts for nothing. What matters is policy and guideline. This states that reliably sourced info is entirely worthy of inclusion. Consensus is not a vote. It doesn't matter how many people don't want to see 30STM labeled as emo - as their only argument is their opinion. All that matters is that the genre is reliably sourced. Which it is. I see I am going around in circles here, and you are refusing to accept the facts, so I see no point continuing to respond if you refuse to listen. Just be aware that removal of sourced content is not justified if your only argument is that you disagree. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one final point of clarification. Inclusion on this list does not mean that the band is definitively emo, or that this is their only genre, or that they even continue to be an emo band. Inclusion on this list simply means that at some point the band and/or their music has been described as emo. This is indisputable fact. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well when you don't let anyone edit things to make sense, then I guess that loophole will continue to exist. There's no logic behind having a list with that kind of description. You either are or you aren't a type of genre. You just reverted someone's edit that took off several bands, and every single one of them he removed was correct to remove. And so I guess that means yet another person doesn't agree with you on 30STM. You don't find it the least bit odd no one agrees with you here? That you're very outnumbered on the current sample of comments? Give it up already with this reliable source crap and look at what you're actually doing here. Smk42 (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The first source doesn't describe 30 Seconds to Mars as an emo band. The second source was from an Alex Fletcher in a place called Digitalspy. Searches for Alex Fletcher revealed that the guy is not known for being a music critic, in fact he is a reality tv editor, so this doesn't mean he is a qualified music critic. And the source doesn't describe 30 Seconds to Mars as an emo band. Furthermore, in searching Digitalspy, I found out that the place is a forum. That could mean that anyone can use it. That is not reliable resources, and seems to violate Wikipedia standards. Maybe the user that added these sources can't read; the third source doesn't describe the band's music as post-grunge or nu metal or emo but it says that the band shifted their music (When they were mining a post-grunge or nu metal or emo vein, this was a liability, but now that they’ve shifted their music with the shifting times) adopting new wave and prog (adopting a hybrid of the Killers’ retro new wave and My Chemical Romance’s gothic prog). No one of these sources describe 30 Seconds to Mars as an emo band. The band and these sources should be deleted from this list.--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No discussion here?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

←You're right. Just remove the band period.Smk42 (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I read "source is insufficient to establish band as an emo act, & there don't seem to be other sources to corroborate that opinion" and why the band is still on this list?--Strawberry Slugs (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I removed them but we have some absurd "ongoing talk" nonsense reverting it. Ongoing talk my ass. I hear crickets on this. One person thinks they belong, and he's been proven wrong. Why are they still on the list?Smk42 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Enough, these bands need to go Vol. 1

Since someone can't just listen and understand the music, I guess it has to be done the hard way. There are plenty more that can go, but I'll start with one set.

Funeral For a Friend - the band themselves even know they aren't emo (says so in the reference), and anyone that listens to them knows they don't play emo. They don't have emo influences (Deftones, Iron Maiden, Get Up Kids) and they never played/toured with bands in the emo scene. They're nothing more than one of those melodic/post hardcore bands with the 00's decade sound.

Hawthorne Heights - see above. Same thing, no matter if it's as HH or when they were called A Day In the Life.

Ida - first of all, that reference does not even mention Ida as being an emo band. It says folk. And if you actually listen to Ida, it is nothing more than indie/folk music. Just because the guy was in The Hated doesn't mean it's emo. They never belonged here, and nowhere on their wiki page does it mention emo.

Joan of Arc - similar thing to Ida. Yes they had members of Cap'n Jazz, but they took a different direction from their old band and were playing indie rock.

The Juliana Theory - stunned that they would even be mentioned (or maybe not, given some others). Not only could you not find an influence of emo in their sound, but they're really a lot closer to the alternative scene you'd hear on any radio station than even being mentioned in the indie or pop-punk groups. Solid band, but nothing to do with emo.

Lostprophets - already mentioned somewhere around here. One little blurb by some guy that doesn't know what he's talking about doesn't count. This band never had anything to do with emo. Not saying they're a horrible band (because that's not the point). They just don't belong on a list of emo bands.

And 30 Seconds To Mars, as listed above, need to get out of here as well. Smk42 (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And? Waiting...Smk42 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of this page?

The lead says "This is a list of notable musical artists who have been referred to or have had their music described as emo". What purpose does that serve? It'd be one thing if you were going to list bands based on a genre because that's what they are. But listing them because someone (that may not know what they're talking about or are just stating an opinion) describes them as something? If I describe a female celebrity as being "ugly", does that mean she belongs on a list of "ugly female celebrities"? Someone else may think she's beautiful, and someone else may say she's just okay. I thought an encyclopedia was for referencing verifiable facts, not a list of opinionated poppycock.

I guess I wouldn't mind if the list wasn't done so poorly with bands that don't belong and many other bands, who are properly defined as being emo bands on this very site by the way, are missing.

It needs work, if it even belongs at all. Fixing the lead may be a start. Smk42 (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are editing heavily based on your own point of view, and I must insist that you stop. Your recent edits removed a number of referenced artists, and added a bunch without citing any sources. If you continue to edit in this fashion I will have to issue you warnings for knowingly violating our core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Inclusion on this list is based on an artist or their music being described as emo by reliable sources in the field of music, including journalists, historians, and critics. That is not "opinionated poppycock". --IllaZilla (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, Hitler (and I'll keep calling you that until you stop deleting without first debating), it's not my point of view. You either are or you're not. And sometimes it's more gray than that, but at least it's close enough to where you still belong in the conversation. This crap like Lostprophets, it's not even in the conversation. You find one little blurb about it some guy throwns in an article that four people read and you think that proves something? I wrote stuff on sports before, and have it published on a website, which is sourced on this website. It's not that hard to do. Of course with sports, you can present empirical evidence that is not up for debate. Music, it's different. It's tougher to classify things. But you have to at least be in the ballpark with something, and some of these choices were downright laughable to have on here. The fact that there's a lengthy Linkin Park discussion is a joke. Anyone that took part in that should be ashamed of themselves.

And no, you really don't need to add references to a list. The whole point of something being on a list is that it belongs there in the first place. When you click on that entry, you'll immediately see why it is there on the list. You can't say that's not the case for anything I add and didn't feel like adding a reference for now. Anyone that really knows emo would know why that band is there. Which brings me back to the point, what purpose is this even serving when you're throwing out wrong, opinionated info and leaving out the bands that really belong here? This article serves no use and I think it should be up for deletion unless it's cleaned up. Smk42 (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_rock_musicians_by_subgenre - if you click on some lists of a similar nature there, you'll see many do not include a citation for each and every band. Many have not one citation listed. If you feel so insecure about a band being on a list that you have to dig up a reference for them to appear, then maybe it's not worth doing in the first place. Smk42 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Essentially this list makes no sense. Instead of scouring the net for that one silly article that will drop the emo buzzword in reference to a band that has nothing to do with it (that's what is going on in some cases), shouldn't this be relying on more of a consensus for whether or not a band is emo? You may find one article to call AFI emo, but for every one of those, you can find hundreds that wouldn't dare throw them into that. That doesn't mean the consensus is right 100% of the time, but there's something wrong with the idea of trying to find one person dumb enough to call a band emo so they can be included on some list. Smk42 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A month later and still no mention of AFI's absurd listing. Smk42 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The listing of AFI in this list was indeed absurd, considering it is not well sourced, and the fact that I am a huge AFI fan and NOT an emo fan doesn't help at all. But I think a lot of people consider them emo, after DU. -.- 97.137.139.33 (talk) 01:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont know who wrote this page, but you should stop writing wikipedia articles about stuff you know nothing about. less than half of these bands could even remotely be thought of as emo. Jimmy eat world? really? come on!! i would like to bet that you have listened to few if any of these artists yourself. Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.191.71 (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Whine, whine, whine... There are plenty of highly-reliable sources describing Jimmy Eat World as emo. Their Clarity album is widely cited by critics as one of the most significant emo albums of the '90s, and their Bleed American album (particularly the hit "The Middle") is often credited with helping bring emo into the mainstream in the early '00s. Clearly you didn't even read the references. Every artist on this list is referenced to sources describing them or their music as emo. That is the inclusion criteria. "Emo" has a nebulous and ever-changing definition: What it meant to someone in the mid-late '80s (Rites of Spring, Embrace, et al) is completely different to what it meant to a lot of people in the mid-90s (Jawbreaker, Sunny Day Real Estate, etc.), which again is different from what it became in the late-'90s/early '00s (Jimmy Eat World, The Get Up Kids, etc.) and even that is quite different from the meaning it has taken in the last 5 years (My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, yadda yadda yadda). The list is not based on what you personally define as emo or not, it is based on how reliable sources have chosen to describe these artists. Some of the sources are weaker than others, yes, and there is some weeding out we could do with a critical eye to the quality of the sources, but Jimmy Eat World would uncontestably stay on there, I guarantee you, because there are multiple highly reliable sources describing their importance to emo. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.38.115.218, 20 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

take out Simple Plan off the list of emo bands cause Simple Plan are not emo 72.38.115.218 (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Simple Plan are not emo" is entirely your own opinion and not a valid reason for removal. Inclusion on this list is based on references to reliable sources describing an artist as emo. The Simple Plan entry is referenced to Rolling Stone. The problem is that RS's recent horrendous redesign of their website has rendered the reference a dead link. I can no longer find a profile for Simple Plan on the (awful) new RS site. Since whoever added the source did not give an accessdate, I do not know where to look in an internet archive to try to repair the dead link. Unless someone can supply an alternate source for Simple Plan, I would support their removal from the list (on the basis of sourcing, not on the basis of opinion). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The existing Rolling Stone reference is a dead link, but I found this from their Indian website. Based on that, I'm not inclined to change the list unless a reliable source establishes otherwise. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

what about all time low

if you just listen to their music they sound "emo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenhamlin (talk • contribs) 05:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What about no original research. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

[18] list them as emo. NoremacDaGangsta (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Merely having "emo-pop" on the bullet-point list of genres is insufficient. The biography does not mention emo at all and does not describe how the band's music might fit that description. The biography itself firmly describes them as a pop-punk act (and is in fact the only genre mentioned in the text). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All Time Low isn't emo, they're pop rock, and most artists listed in the List Of Emo artists page is actually just al ist of pop rock, metalcore, deathcore, and electropop. A few things about the artists listed there, a vast majority of the artists there are actually part of other genres, and not actually emo. -Jerard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinoyjer13 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Each artist on the list is accompanied by sources specifically referring to them or their music as emo. That they are "not actually emo" is your own opinion, and trumped by the existence of sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, every article about them on allmusic refers to them as emo pop at least once. I only haven't added them yet because I wasn't sure which of the five sources was most specific (although three of them are by the same author, so that should narrow it down a bit). Unless anyone objects, I think that's more than enough sources to add them.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Another artist

I think Jena Lee, should be added to the list, she has herself declared her music as Emo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrkFrdric (talk • contribs) 05:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

, and we rely on secondary sources as opposed to the artists themselves. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Killswitch Engage

Why the hell are they on this list. They are pretty far from being emo. The source that is listed only mentions emo passively and calls them "emo metal", whatever that is. The infobox on the site has them listed as grindcore, so I wouldn't trust anything on that site. I removed them from the list --BrainPower3 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

the chicken or the EGG

The egg came first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.21.167 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Organize by period?

Since the emo genre has had several different phases to it, I was thinking we could restructure the list by putting the bands in subsections according to what subset of emo they were/are part of, similar to the Christian punk and hardcore lists, or the list in the sludge metal article. Like, one section for the original '80s emo-core (Rites of Spring, Embrace, Moss Icon, etc.), one for whatever you call emo in the '90s (Sunny Day Real Estate, Jawbreaker, etc.), and one for the current emo-pop bands (All-American Rejects, All Time Low and so forth). This might also cut down on people complaining about "true" emo bands being lumped together with "pussy pop bands that have nothing to do with emo", as the different subsets would be clearly labeled. My familiarity with all the different bands is not that great, so I probably would only be able to make a tentative start on this before needing outside help, but would this be a good idea?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I could see that getting problematic. It's easy enough to say "these were the '80s DC acts", but once you get past that things get very nebulous. How would you classify an act that had its heyday in past decades but is still around today (Jimmy Eat World, for example)? And when you get into the '00s may disparate acts were classified as emo, and it would seem strange trying to group them together (Coheed and Cambria alongside Fall Out Boy and Death Cab for Cutie...3 very different acts, yet all called "emo" during the same time period). I think splitting up the list would invite just as many opinionated arguments as it might alleviate. Alphabetical is simple, neutral, and easy to navigate. Readers can click on the links if they want more detail, and can read the main emo article for the historical context. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) You're probably right. Never mind. One other suggestion, though: perhaps some of the entries could have brief notes after the artist's name, something like "Owl City; combines emo with synthpop (ref, ref)" or "Weezer; Pinkerton was important to '90s emo (ref, ref, ref)". Not on all of them, just the more significant ones. Would that work?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As i think there are a few rumors about what is an emo band and what is not (everyones who wants to discuss this whole emo thing with me is invited to mail me) i like to add my thoughts about the listed bands ^^ Definitely the most of them are really good bands, no question about it, but more than 90% of them are NOT emo. Well I think the understanding of "emo" is an other then it was 20 years ago but i read more Screamo, punk , pop, indie, hardcore and metal bands than emo ones. In my thoughts the only list for an emo band list should inculde (from the 80ies to what i think emo is now):

The Academy is... Anberlin Amber Pacific Brand New Cute is what we aim for The get up kids Thursday Jimmy eat World Jawbreaker The Juliana theory Emery Further seems forever Bright eyes Ivoryline Embrace Taking Back Sunday Texas is the reason Sunny day real estaste Something corporate Senses Fail Saves the day The promise ring The Spill canvas

Could we be a bit more thorough with the sources?

For example, it's visible that all the "real" (yes, I know it's subjective, but hear me out) emo bands have often multiple sources by people who are on the very least purported as genre connoisseurs indicating their connection to the genre whereas "scene" bands are either passing mentions or "inclusion via osmosis" (ie. "along with [insert equally contested band], [band] plays emo"). Again, I know this is subjective, but a bit of editorial caution should go onto deciding just how much weight the sources carry in this particular context. Love, your resident musical nitpicker 201.190.31.4 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@201.190.31.4: You may wish to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, a list of reliable and unreliable sources for genres that may be applicable to the specific sources/artists you're talking about. That WikiProject is also a good venue to start such a discussion. It sounds like you're making two points, though: some sources are unreliable, and the language of some reliable sources may not be sufficient to designate something as emo? --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Foot_Krutch 209.2.60.81 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - although you have not made a specific request, I assume you are asking for Thousand Foot Krutch to be added to the list. However, nowhere in that article does it even say they are an emo band, let alone support that statement with a reliable source which is what we would require. - Arjayay (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015

Bring me The Horizon and Black Veil Brides

Zach04509 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note that the articles (Bring Me the Horizon and Black Veil Brides) do not note these groups as emo artists. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Tokio Hotel is also not an emo band. Why are they on the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.217.90 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of emo artists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/glimpses/2004/thebridge.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016

The following bands should be added:

Fuel (Actual a founder of the sound from the early 80s. Predates Fugazi) Jejune Evergreen Lync Floodgate Planes Mistaken for Stars Gloria (lead singer of Mineral founded after they disbanded) John Wilkes Kissing Booth

Jchauser (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done because every entry on this list must have:-

1. A Wikipedia article of their own
2. An independent, reliable source specifically identifying them as an emo artist - Arjayay (talk) 14:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

A

• The Academy Is...
• Acceptance
• Ace Troubleshooter
• AFI
• Aiden
• Alesana
• Alexisonfire
• Alkaline Trio
• The All-American Rejects
• All Time Low
• The Almost
• Amber Pacific
• American Football
• Anberlin
• And Then There Were None
• ...And You Will Know Us by the Trail of Dead
• The Anniversary
• The Appleseed Cast
• Armor for Sleep
• As Cities Burn
• At the Drive-In
• Avion Roe

Boy tipak (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Though not mentioned in the specific format, I examined the request this time and added Alkaline Trio to the list. In future, just please request in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

E

• The Early November
• Edison Glass
• Eisley
• Elliott
• Emanuel
• Embrace
• Emery
• Empire! Empire! (I Was a Lonely Estate)
• Escape the Fate
• Ever Stays Red
• Every Avenue
• Eyes Set to Kill

Boy tipak (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

W

• Watashi Wa
• The Wedding
• Weezer

Boy tipak (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Y

• You, Me, and Everyone We Know
• You Me at Six

Boy tipak (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

F

• Fall Out Boy
• Falling Up
• Family Force 5
• Farewell, My Love
• Finch
• Fire Party
• Fireflight
• Flyleaf
• The Fold
• Forever Changed
• Forever the Sickest Kids
• Foxing
• The Fray
• From Autumn to Ashes
• Funeral for a Friend
• Further Seems Forever

Boy tipak (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

F

• Fall Out Boy
• Falling Up
• Family Force 5
• Farewell, My Love
• Finch
• Fire Party
• Fireflight
• Flyleaf
• The Fold
• Forever Changed
• Forever the Sickest Kids
• Foxing
• The Fray
• From Autumn to Ashes
• Funeral for a Friend
• Further Seems Forever

Boy tipak (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)