Talk:Paramore/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removed trivia

I have removed:

• Members Josh Farro (guitar) and Hayley Williams (vocals) are currently in a relationship with each other.

I think it poses a WP:BLP issue, particularly when unsourced. Erechtheus 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good. Because they aren't in a relationship, as said in some interviews.

tj moore is going out with hayley

XstraightXedgeX

About trivia

Paramour is not a French word, it seems to be an english word derived from the french "par amour", meaning "by love". The Free Dictonary

Fan Sites

Adding fan sites is not appropriate, in my opinion, because to include one would require you to include them all, and that would take up entirely too much room, not to mention call into question what qualifies as a "fan site."

Deletion

Seems to be written by a fan... 'the arrival of a truly enthralling new rock band .. debut is made indelible by the irresistible force of singer' liking the band is fine, but keep the article neutral.

I agree. Sounds like a press release to me.

User:Leemorrison here. Yeah I like this band and all but Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia and it's all mega-biast. Needs a rewrite for sure.

Meh, I've cleaned it up rather shoddily. Chopped it mainly. Deal with the rest as yuou see fit, i know NOTHING about this band. HawkerTyphoon 20:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

User:guesswho9 then why do you care about posting,think before you post something stupid please because if you dont like the band i am fine everyone is entitled to their options but don't post information we dont need please.

New Picture?

Since there are better pictures of Paramore than the current one...a Yahoo search yields some nice results.

i uploaded a new picture yesterday which is very recent from their nme photoshoot where hayley is not blonde and someone took it down. the current picture is very nice but it is quite old. ther was nothing wrong with my one! Nemesis90 19:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

i think its time for a new picture?

I think we should add a more recent picture from a photoshoot. The one currently up is from at least from Spring 2006 if not earlier and Hunter Lamb isn't in Paramore anymore. If anybody has any objections feel free to comment. I'm going to try and find a good one and add it. Omg starburst 23:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Hayley Williams

I believe this article should be merged with the one for Hayley Williams. Outside of Paramore she has done nothing significant enough to merit her own article. The information contained in her article is nothing of true importance and is mostly redundant when compared with the main Paramore entry.Princeendo 16:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirected. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 08:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Paramore is getting really big which means people are going to want to know more about the members. I think all the members should get their own page, even if it is just a stub.

I agree. I think until enough information is gathered the articles should be stubs, but they should exist nonetheless. If one wanted to look up ages/birthdays, etc that's the first place one would look. 76.79.104.118 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Zac Farro

Please, someone merge the article on [Zac Farro] with the main entry for Paramore. It contains very little information, much less than even the [Hayley Williams] article. There is no reason to keep it that way. Fanship is one thing--this is quite another.71.207.222.200 01:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That has been done. The Zac page was a two-sentence stub. I'm going to hold of on doing the Hayley one until I hear from a few more people or a few more days have gone by. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 13:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

NO! None of the pages should be merged! If people need information and sources, they can easily go to Paramore's website where there are bios of each member!

Reading/Leeds Festivals

The sentence "The Reading and Leeds Festival brought them to the United Kingdom from October 5 to October 15, 2006, where they ended in London at The Mean Fiddler" needs clarification. The festivals take place August bank holiday (last weekend of August), so they were two months late if that's why they came over! Or does it mean that they booked a tour as a result of their performances at Reading/Leeds 2006? Nouse4aname 12:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Born For This

Hey, why is Born For This listed as a single? I love the song mucho, but it's not the first single off of RIOT! They'll release a clip of the first single on April 10 via purevolume, which I added to the page, so I think it should be deleted. Omg starburst 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

paramore on the drop on mtv2!

Album covers

Is there any reason Corvus cornix keeps on removing album covers from the discography section? I'm going to recreate the section with a table instead of <gallery> tags, since Paramore's album information is missing from the page. --JYi 10:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pressure on The Sims 2

"Their song "Pressure" featured in the Sims 2 Playstation 2 edition."

It's also on the Xbox edition of the game.

Power pop

Paramore is powerful, which is what the power stands for, but they are not a power pop band, they can be powerful without being power pop just like they are emotional without being emo.

power pop is a genre of music, whilst they seem to have power pop influences, they are more pop-rock --Neon white 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Neon White; Paramore are not pop-rock. GET OVER IT YOU LOSER! Paramore do NOT sound like Kelly Clarkson, P!nk or any of that other sh!t. ok? Stop trying to convince everyone Paramore are pop-rock; your just a try hard. Get a life, if you can find one beyond your computer.

Sleep well & I hope you burn in hell. (:

It has citation. [The Edge] compares them to kelly clarkson. 'Basically Paramore is doing what Kelly Clarkson & dare I say Avril Lavigne are trying to do but coming across classy , edgy and down to earth' --Neon white 18:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

found a citation for power pop. Added. --Neon white 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

what are they then if they arent pop rock?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinGOLDENEYE (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Band Member's Birthdays

Over the past few days I've been doing some drastic edits to this article in addition to trying to cite whatever I add into it. With that in mind, I cant seem to find a reliable source for the birthday's listed. Sites like Paramore.org list their b-days, but does anyone know of a more reliable source for this information? If nothing arises, I'll delete it as it doesn't seem that important to the article in the first place. -Lindsey8417 01:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

they're pretty much a pop-punk band --79.64.106.199 21:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Linking Dates

I have removed the wikilinks to dates, as I feel they are pointless. See the last point in MOS:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, which states that dates should only be linked to "if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Obviously linking to October 5 for example in the article will not deepen anyones understanding, and few people (if any) are likely to require such a link. I understand that when to link a date is quite a hotly debated topic, but I think this approach makes sense.Nouse4aname 11:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok ignore me. forgot about the preference formatting. will reintroduce links.Nouse4aname 11:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead vocals

Someone has been changing the lead singer to "Erika Jayne." I've changed it back to Hayley Williams, but whoever this person vandalizing this page needs to stop. Kittenwhiskers 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I think this article needs some serious editing. Yes, they're getting a lot of attention right now, but putting every review and everything ever written about the band is not necessary. This article is double that of other bands that have been around much longer. Seriously, you don't have to put everything. 66.141.164.190 04:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)Amy

Genre

Don't add emo unless there is a proper reliable citation. The PureVolume category is not verifiable as such categorisations can often be done arbitrarily. --Neon white 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

the mp3.com article does not mention emo wasnt don't add it. As it stands there are no firm citations for this genre, if there are some found let's check them for verifiability before adding them. --Neon white 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Both albums have reviews for ultimate guitar.com where one of the two genres is emo.

it says in the article that hayley said "its emo without being whiny or bratty"

- matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a citation use it. Nevertheless vandalising the pre-existing citated genres in the infobox is not acceptable. --Neon white 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Charts

I doubt that CrushCrushCrush has reached the #11 position in the modern rock chart... Could someone confirm this or fix the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.181.222 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no entry for the song on billboard.com so i assume it didn't chart. --Neon white 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Musical style and influences

Alot of this section seems to consist of quotes plucked from reviews and reads a bit like a NPOV review. Any thoughts on how it might be improved? --Neon white 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Split Hayley From Article

Hayley Williams should have her own article. It does not talk about her enough in the Paramore article. 18:46, 4 November (PT)

That's because she wasn't considered notable enough as an individual. See WP:N. If you think this has changed, please state why. --Neon white 17:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hayley doesn't have that much information on her self to have a split page. Without Paramore she is nothing

Insult.

Maybe it's just me, but I get the feeling that a Paramore hater put "emo" in and then cited an opinionated source. I take emo as an insult to the band and its fans.

It's a genre of music. Go read the article on it. --Neon white (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look, the reference is on Paramore's official site. Would they put it up if they didn't agree that they are emo? Jack?! 19:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the emo in the generes?

i removed emo from it and it gone back. if they are emo how come it isn't on their myspace page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

myspace is niether reliable nor verifiable and is never likely to be considered the superlative source for music genres. --Neon white (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiatus

did hunter go on hiatus or did he leave for good? if its just a hiatus then we should put him on the members list with hiatus next to his name.

He's left for good. - JDFL 17:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Emo

wow cant you just drop it they arent Emo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.216.179 (talk) 12:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think no band should be classified as "emo" withought their aproval. Take Panic! At The Disco, Fall Out Boy, etc. they are Pop-Punk or Alternative Rock bands not "emo". is you wanna call something emo just for the fun of it, go ahead. I'm not saying you cant. Its just extreamly rude. so those of you who want to be rude then go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.11.65 (talk) 17:07, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

i'm sorry i have to tell whoever put that this band is emo that they are pop-punk and there is no other genre to describe them. they sound nothing like dashboard confessional (1st wave), taking back sunday (2nd wave), FFTL (3rd wave) and other bands that are considered emo.

That's as maybe - discuss changes like this before making them please :) HawkerTyphoon 02:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

thats fine with me. but paramore is not rock or emo in any sense of the word if you compare it to real rock/emo bands.

Before making edits like this, you need to

really prove that they aren't emo by using a reliable source, rolling stone magazine or the like = not a blog, and not amn e-zine or anything. Something official and unbiased! HawkerTyphoon 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Per Blender magazine's list of The Blender 100 one can say that this band does, in fact, qualify as emo.

Are they an emo band? No. Is there an emo influence? Yes, as with every other band out right now. While I would typically avoid genre discussions, as they are very subjective and tend to be elitist, the idea that Dashboard is the 1st wave of emo, TBS is the second, etc is just plain crazy. Emo has been around for a couple of decades, read the wiki on it. I was listening to emo bands over 10 years ago (like Sunny Day Real Estate) that emo purists wouldn't even classify as emo, and bands like TBS (even though I like them) pale in comparison to them to the same purists. If you're going to critique a band for being or not being something, you should at least be standing in the ballpark first. - Don Bradshaw

Take that up with Blender, not Wikipedia. It is an appropriate citation. Princeendo 23:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said except for the fact that this band shouldn't be labeled emo (I know, that sounded a little weird). As you can see from the ignorance of this discussion (Dashboard Confessional? first-wave emo? hah, try Rites of Spring dude), many incorrectly classify a LOT of music nowadays as emo, most of which has heavy emo influences. The thing is, as that becomes more and more prominent all of those bands with emo influences will become forms of emo. Many an example would better illustrate my point. Look at pop-punk. Know compare a pop-punk band like The Descendants and Blink-182. Both are indisputably pop-punk, but both are very different musically. In other words, yeah, Paramore isn't emo in its purest form (nor is Sunny Day Real Estate, as you've said), but really, save for a few bands in the 80s Dischord/DC scene, none are. In other words, let's give up on the fact that true emo no longer exists, and start calling the crap with heavy emo influences emo. sigloiv 03:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So Blender is the definitive source for genre labeling? Finally, all the arguments will end. Did you add that to the Blender article?

I did not. I assume you did not, either. Belaboring this will not change its truth. It is an appropriate citation (check the Wikipedia section on authorities, and for the record, magazines such as Kerrang! and Rock Sound also agree with this genre label). Wikipedia discussions are supposed to be limited to the relevance of facts. This discussion is fruitless.Princeendo 21:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

and NME. Nemesis90 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You cant classify paramore to EMO just because they sing about feelings. All we know is falling all songs is about loosing there band member Jeremy and I wouldnt call that EMO. EMO is today often about that you dont want to live because your love doesnt love you back.

To call Paramore Emo is just so silly. Its hard to put them in a specific genre though. Its a mix of Pop/Rock/Pop-Punk/Indie Rock and so on.

If there's this much argument, then just put emo/pop punk.

I will add emo, but keep both pop punk and alternative. Some songs can't be described other than emo such as my heart, if you listen to it.

I'm pretty sure 'My Heart' is directed towards God.

They aren't emo or Christian. They are pop/punk/rock/indie

Dashboard Confessional - 1st wave emo 0-o...You know so much about this genre... About Paramore - " They aren't emo or Christian. They are pop/punk/rock/indie "

I cant see any relevance to punk rock in this band, they are a pop/rock band.

I remember seeing this discussed on another talk page. Pop/rock is more along the lines of Pink, Kelly Clarkson, Ryan Cabrera, Maroon 5. Paramore is not pop/rock. --JYi 20:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

They have a very similar sound to kelly clarkson. Pop/rock is pop music influenced by rock and roll, they fit perfectly in that catergory. --Neon white 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Paramore do not sound like Kelly Clarkson AT ALL. You must be deaf or something. Either that or you just want to try & insult Paramore. Paramore are awesome,, so shut your face Neon white. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.45.74 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

go read the guidelines on civility. WP:CIV --Neon white 18:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to state that Paramore does not fit into the Pop-Punk genre because of the tone of the music, lyrics, and speed. Compare Paramore to Blink-182, Sum 41, Green Day, or Offspring and they definitely do not fit in the genre. I move to change the genre to pop, emo, pop-rock, or rock. But not pop-punk.

i agree with the above, i can't see any real link or similarity to the ramones, buzzcocks etc. There music is very much pop-rock, i propose the genre change if no-one can credible cite why it shouyld be pop-punk. --Neon white 21:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Its just extreamly rude. so those of you who want to be rude then go ahead.**

how is emo rude?? emo means "emotive post hardcore" that isn't rude, unless you are one of those idiots who think that emo is of the devil and that Avril Lavinge and Fall out boy are punk rock and Paramore and Three Days Grace are hardcore. get over yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinGOLDENEYE (talk • contribs) 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now this page has labeled them as pop-punk. They are not really pop-punk to the fullest sense of the term but there are some elements so its fine to include that even though it does upset me a little. Then it's only fair to also put emo right there with those other genres because although they aren't emo to the fullest sense of the term they have some elements of that genre. Heck, they're even influenced by well-known emo bands. It shouldn't upset people who like the band and it shouldn't change what you think of them its just part of their sound and associated acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.31.168 (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs a source. --Neon white 01:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:: The was a source for the last change that included emo. I used the source from http://www.mp3.com/artist/paramore/summary/ (It is citation no. 3). Someone used this source to support that the band Pop-Rock, but this source also indicates that Paramore fits under the Emo genre! You can't use that a source for evidence of one genre and yet ignore it when it is used as a source for emo. You can't present the facts they way you like it (selecting only the pop-rock and ignoring the part that clearly says emo a few words down) becuase for some reason you don't want your favorite band labeled as "emo". I also had the source from their livejournal that says Emo under the genre. Two Sources! Listen, emo music may not be what it once was and there is a big difference between them and the original emo bands but this is what people refer to emo nowadays. Genres and what define them change! I'm sorry but if you use the same logic people use to keep Paramore from being labeled as emo, then this band can't be labeled as pop-punk either becuase there is considerable difference between them and actual pop-punk. I say put all the genres they can fit into, this includes pop-punk (even though they aren't truly pop-punk) and emo (even though they aren't truly emo). People don't struggle over the pop-rock distinction despite the same source...the same source was used (http://www.mp3.com/artist/paramore/summary/)! The sources were there but people don't want to present everything becuase of some sort of stigma. If you're fan, get over it! It is what it is and be fair...it's a supposed encyclopedia not an opinionated, biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.31.167 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

:: Correction: the second source that was used for the emo distinction was the Paramore purevolume.com page (http://www.purevolume.com/paramore) and not the livejournal as I posted above. There were two sources one of which was already used as evidence for pop/rock. Picking and choosing information...not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.31.167 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The mp3 article does not mention the word emo once or refers to them as such in any way. The article is used for 'pop-rock' because it desrcibes the band as pop-rock. Seen as it is short, i will put it here so everyone can look through it. Journals and blogs arent reliable sources. There is nothing on the purevolume page that is verifiable according to WP:V. Read this and WP:RS for more info on what can be used as a reliable source here. If they are known as this genre to the degree needed for inclusion there should be plenty of reliable sources but it fact all i can find so far are SPS. In future please assume good faith when editing wikipedia, making accusations of bad faith against other editors is not acceptable behaviour.--Neon white 00:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

All Music Guides description lifted from mp3.com reads - Pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN, when lead singer Hayley Williams met brothers Josh and Zac Farro (guitar and drums, respectively) after moving into town from Mississippi. The two had a young band that the burgeoning singer was soon asked to join. Opening Williams' 13-year-old eyes to the likes of U2, the Cure, Sparta, and Failure, the teenagers began performing together under the name Paramore following the addition of Jason Bynum on rhythm guitar and Jeremy Davis on bass. Local hangouts and a school talent show helped the young bandmembers hone their chops before at last moving up to gigs at area rock clubs. The quintet's sweet melodies and earnest charisma eventually caught the attention of Florida's Fueled by Ramen label, which signed the band in April 2005. Working with James Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath) and Mike Green (Yellowcard, the Black Maria), Paramore recorded their full-length debut, All We Know Is Falling. The album was issued in late July 2005, and Paramore jumped quickly into their van to support it. In addition to a spot on New Jersey's Bamboozle Festival and multiple Warped Tour dates, they also played shows with bands like Simple Plan and Straylight Run. Hunter Lamb replaced Bynum on guitar in December 2005; time was spent in the early part of the next year on dates with Halifax, So They Say, and Bayside. Similar to many of their musical peers, summer 2006 was then passed back on the annual Warped Tour circuit. ~ Corey Apar, All Music Guide}

There is an article posted on Paramore's OFFICIAL WEBSITE that says they are an emo band. I don't know how much more reliable a source can get, the paramore.net official website. Go to http://www.paramore.net/main.php and about half way down the page there is an exerpt under the heading "Total Guitar Article" that calls them emo based on what people in the band said and analysis of their sound. I will even post it here just in case:

Description lifted from official website paramore.net reads -

'Total Guitar Article - 02-28-2007

Check out this article about Paramore's guitarists Josh Farro and Hunter Lamb in the latest issue of Total Guitar magazine. Visit totalguitar.co.uk for more information.

Who are they and who do they sound like? Paramore are an American emo quintet from the heart of country music Tenessee. Describing their sound as "energetic, emotional and fun", they're everything you'd expect from the genre: soaring melodies, crunching guitars and plenty of angst thrown in for good measure. But although the band itself is almost three years old now, the oldest member is still only 21, and their drummer Zac, a mere 15. But despite their youth, they've already been touring extensively in the US, UK and as far afield as Japan.'

I don't know what more you need for emo to be listed along with the other genres on this page. There is an article on mp3.com that says pop/rock and it was used; this article saying "emo" is posted on the OFFICIAL website (so all the content of the article including the emo part must have been approved and promoted by the band or their reps for it make the OFFICIAL website) so how can it not be used as evidence? And if this isn't enough, how can you expect the person above to assume good faith?147.126.31.167 14:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Neon Black

Official websites are often self-published therefore not always reliable, as i said read WP:RS and WP:V for a better understanding of what are good sources. The total-guitar.com article is verifiable because it has an editorial policy but it still remains that there are articles that specifically say they are not an emo band. Therefore that categorization remains controversial. I think most people would admit they don't really fit in the genre or with other bands associated with it. --Neon white 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think most people would admit they don't really fit with the bands truly associated with the pop-punk genre. It doesn't matter what I, you, or most people think...according to you, what matters is finding a credible source that says something. This is why intelligent people can't take Wikipedia seriously...because people like you somehow fit sources you agree with into "Wikipeida Rules" but articles from credible sources posted on an OFFICIAL website don't fit into "wikipedia rules" becuase "most people" (especially Neon White) don't agree with what it says. Why don't you understand that things posted on Official website deserve more weight than what a website like mp3.com says. When did mp3.com become more reliable than totalguitar.co.uk and more reliable than a totalguitar article posted on the paramore.net official website no less! Of course official websites are self-published. If paramore.net posted an article that said pop/rock you would be all over that and use it as real evidence. But when the official website promotes an article saying "emo" you say its not reliable becuase its "self-published". It would seem to me "self-published" things (like autobiographies) are most reliable. In these circumstances, who knows better than the self?? And the self-published thing is a moot point; it doesn't matter becuase its an article taken from an outside credible soure. Wikipedia will never be looked upon as intelligent and reliable as long as people like Neon White keep on policing it to their liking. And don't tell me i need to assume good faith...we're beyond that my friend.147.126.31.167 14:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)NEON BLACK

See consensus. That's how wikipedia works by editors forming a consensus, reliable sources are important but that doesn't necessarily equal inclusion. The fact that a website is deemed 'official' does not guarantee it's reliability or verifiability, this is not in the guidelines. Again read them WP:V WP:RS. Both MP3.com and allmusicguide are well known music sites 'AMG content is created by professional data entry staff, editors, and writers', that gives it a high level of reliability. I did not say the article was unreliable, i said Official websites are often self-published therefore not always reliable and The total-guitar.com article is verifiable because it has an editorial policy. Please read posts before answering them. Self-published sources have never been accepted on wikipedia. Anyone could say anything, it doesn't make it verifiable. I do not decide wikipedia policy and have had no say in it. If you don't like the guidelines don't edit. Do not accuse people of misrepresenting wikipedia guidelines when you clearly have not read or understood them. Also read up on [WP:CIV|civility]]. I believe the rule is always assume good faith --Neon white 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is because there have been previous objections to the inclusion of this in the infobox (see above) it's important that a consensus is formed with all editors involved. --Neon white 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I think that is the case here. Anyway, now you've added something entirely new. The idea that we need a consensus of ALL editors is amazing. Technically isn't anyone with an internet access an editor on Wikipedia? You've never said I needed your personally approval as a part of a consensus since you're an editor! Let me direct your attention to further down this page under the discussion of "powerpop". It seems that there that you didn't have the approval of an editor that didn't want the powerpop genre added and yet you disregarded him/her and added anyway when you found a proper citation. Theoretically, based on what you said about consensus as a objection after I found a credible source from a reputable magazine, it doesn't matter if you have credible citation(s) if there isn't consensus and you obviously didn't have consensus in that case. If you look above there is disupte over the pop-punk label with a few editors and yet you don't care that there isn't a consensus with pop-punk...I have never seen you argue that pop-punk shouldn't be there on account of a lack of consensus and dispute. Looking further down this page under the discussion of "genre" you told someone that he/she could add emo as long as there was a proper citation found...you never told that person that a consensus was needed (including your approval since you are one of "all the editors")... I have to ask were you going to wait until after he found a proper citation to tell him/her that your approval as an editor was needed? There are objections to the pop/rock, pop-punk, powerpop labels used for this band but its obvious by looking at your previous discussions that you don't care as much about them as you do about the objections to emo (as you are one of the objectors). You said that emo could be added with a proper citation and now that one is found you came up with a consensus thing that is obviously impossible to achieve (now I know you didn't "come up" with the Wikipedia rules but you seem well-versed in them for some reason and didn't inform people of consensus when it wasn't necessary for your argument). "If you have a citation use it.-Neon White" Well here it is! and just like you said "found a citation for power pop. Added. --Neon white" without looking for consensus and apparently not having consensus I will now IN THE SAME WAY say "found a citation for emo. Added!" and just like you I will not wait for consensus.147.126.31.168 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC) NEON BLACK

It actually says Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it is not contentious, which in this case it is, again (see above). An editor is anyone contributing to wikipedia, the idea of consensus is central to wikipedia policy and always has been. Power pop and pop-punk were agreed by consensus. There have been no real objections for months. People are free to bring up any objections here. I have always maintained that emo needed a citation but as i said a citation doesn't equal a consensus. I don't need to remind people that a consensus is needed it's wikipedia policy, they should know. Please do not misrepresent my posts, i have never told anyone to add anything to the infobox. --Neon white 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what your reading Neon White! Everything is documented on this page! When you labeled them as powerpop and compared them to Kelly Clarkson there was no consensus on that. Above there was no total consensus of ALL editors on the pop-punk identification. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm just saying that you aren't as adamant about the lack of consensus on the other genres as you are on the emo thing. You are being hypocritical on this issue and it is right here on this page in writing! You posted powerpop without the consensus of that one editor and you don't seem to have an issue with the pop-rock being there despite another editor saying that they are not pop-rock or comparable to other artists you considered pop-rock like Kelly Clarkson. I'm just pointing out your inconsistencies...fine I'll assume good faith with you but you are inconsistent. Case in point, you have a problem with me putting up emo (with a reliable citation) becuase you (and apparently others) don't consent to it but you don't have a problem with the other genres already there when there is obviously not consent with those genres either. I mean just look above in this same discussion, only a few months ago (and only in September in the powerpop discussion below) there wasn't consent on pop-punk or powerpop or pop-rock but you didn't have a problem with no consent in those instances as nearly as much as you have a problem with there being consent for "emo". The guidelines for Wikipedia are good as long as you're consistent with all genres...it doesn't seem like you are being fair and consistent with the consent thing...that's all I'm saying. And you did tell "matthew" he could add something to the infobox as long as it had a proper citation. I understand there is consent and there always has been on Wikipedia and you didn't come up with it just now, but you never had an issue with it when people were not consenting with genres you wanted in the infobox (pop-rock for example)...that's what it looks like when reading all these previous posts. I agree with all the genres there already but include emo (they can fit so many genres and thats part of what I like about them), be consistent that way or the other way you can be consistent is to drop all the genres (even the ones you defend) on account of no consensus! I hope you don't do the latter and drop them all and put a big "disputed genres" thing to be strict and true to the letter of the Wikipedia guidelines on consensus.147.126.31.167 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC) NEON RAINBOW

Discussions about other genres are irrelevant they have no baring on this, the fact is there have been serious objections to using the term emo (unlike the other genres, pop-rock and power pop are the consensus and are not controversial), therefore careful consideration is needed lest we end up in an edit war like has previously happened over this term. You have misrepresented what i have said in other posts several times and have been basely personal accusations in violation of WP:CIV. I argued against pop-punk but the consensus was to include it. I did not tell anybody they could add anything in the infobox. People are free to add whatever they like. To be clear i don't believe i personally included any of the genres in the infobox. --Neon white 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine you win...take it down Neon White, take it down...147.126.31.168 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC) NEON BLACK

Seen as there have been no further objections in 7 days, I think it can stay there but the previous controversy may be reignited and a new consensus may have to be formed at a later date. --Neon white 23:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about what genre Paramore are defined as to be honest. But I think the Power-Pop and Pop/Rock tags fit them best. I really don't see why so many publications describe them as emo, I think that has more to do with their look, fashion sense etc. than their actual music. It seems it is easy to categorise them as emo as they have big hair, crazy fringes, lots of eyeliner etc. Musically and lyrically they don't have much more in common with their emo contemporaries or older emo acts than Kelly Clarkson etc. I don't see why fans object to the Pop/Rock tag, or Kelly Clarkson comparissions personally. Kelly Clarkson's music has been widely critically acclaimed in the serious music press. When I heard Riot! I immediately heard the similarities to the rockier elements of Breakaway. there is nothing wrong with doing pop music well. Alot of people enjoy some mindless power-pop. I do. I think Pop/Rock is a slightly more appropriate tag than Pop/Punk but there are definitely punk influences in their music, though admittidely maybe not in their attitude. I think the Emo tag is way off personally and is based on their look rather than their music. 80.195.246.3 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically they aren't but obviously they have been described as such. I'm waiting to see what other editors think. --Neon white (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Change the emo, they aren't emo, and whoever you got the evidence from is an idiot because they are alternative rock, so changed it, and you'll make us all happy, cuase not alot of people are, hearing that Paramore is emo, Paramore is not even close to emo, so don't ever descripe them like that again. What i don't get is that Paramore is on the alternative rock list but it doesn't list the genre under the genre, that is freaking retarded.

read WP:RS. everything needs to be sourced, they are mostly described as power pop or pop rock, they are not alternative so they would rarely we described as that if ever. If you have a source present it. --Neon white (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)