Talk:Paramore/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Add a CD

Paamore will be featured in the upcoming Now That's What I Call Music CD, the 27th edition. The chosen song in Crushcrushcrush. Please add this to the cd list.

Thta is a compilation, not a paramore album and is pretty much irrelevant trivia. --neonwhite user page talk 03:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Member Pages

With the new paramore.net there's plenty of info on the individual members so I think it's about time they get their own Wiki pages.

while I agree, there's a ton of stuff about Hayley than there is on the Farro brothers. - Nthach (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The information there isn't independent of the subject. Basically, it could be argued that anyone with a myspace (as I'm sure that tells plenty of info on a person) or any other self published source deserves their own Wikipedia article. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

According to guidelines to be notable, she has to have meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Most importantly she has to have been the subject of several reliable second party source indepedant of the band. Regardless, a split at this stage, with regards to the small amount of information, is unescessary and unlikely to improve the article. --neonwhite user page talk 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

She certainly deserves her own article, per reasons outlined by WP:BIO. See Talk:Hayley Williams for further elaboration. Consensus is trying to be reached on this topic. нмŵוτнτ 19:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hayley said it best on TRL last year: "I would say, um, it's not so much about me, you know. This is a band and... I like Gwen Stefani as part of No Doubt." True, it's not up to the artist to determine their worth, but I really don't see how she's noteworthy outside of Paramore. Let her do a solo album or design a clothing line... 64.229.197.66 (talk) 05:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Though, why does Mikey Way or other members from other bands have their own wiki pages and not other members of Paramore?? XXalyXx ^{Talk to Me!!} 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jason Clark

JASON CLARKE WAS A FORMER BASS PLAYER FOR THE BAND..HE WAS THE ONE WHO CAME UP WITH THE NAME (ITS HIS MOMS MAIDEN NAME) HE SHOULD DEFIANTLY BE LISTED UNDER FORMER BAND MEMBERS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy55 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) as far as anyone's seen, their has been no mention of him...the members of paramore have said that it was their friends moms maiden name..but never said he was actually in the band.therefore he should not be included in the former band members because you are not a reliable source, and their is not a reliable source out there that says JASON CLARK was the bands origional bassist...infact all the interviews I've heard and articles I've read they've said Jeremy was the original bassist but i really dont know what im talkin about you really shouldnt even be listenin to me im a badddd girl and i really dont even who jason clarke sry hahahahah . —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Emo genre

Right, hows this for ya?Alternative punk, emo, punk, rock. BTW who put power pop:| ~ Dboy05 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

FINAL DECISION, PARAMORE IS NOT EMO

Yes, That's right, first of all, there are no reliable sources, secondly the band doesn't classify themeselves as "emo" finally, their style is obviously not emo, they are uncomparable to other emo bands. Lonerguy_87 (talk)

agreed, the citations is invalid too,

Yeah. There were Web sites like Howtobeemo.com or whatever, and I totally researched the term "emo" before I knew what it was. The sites would tell you what to wear, too, but I shopped at Goodwill, and I didn't really care about fashion. I still wear this maroon hoodie I got at Goodwill in Nashville. It cost twenty-five cents!

Just because she talks about emo, DOES NOT mean she is admitting the band is emo, wtf --Casket56 (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

More punk

It's quite obvious that they are more punk than emo. Even if they aren't punk, they are still moreso punk than emo. Neither are they a Christian band. They are all Christian, but they stated they are not a Christian band.

Jeez. No need to get mad b/c someone says Paramore is emo. Just accept the fact that they are awesome and their music rocks!--69.108.126.182 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Crystal

I totally agree with everybody here. They are definently NOT emo! When compared to other emo bands. People need to research before posting their songs as emo. Listen to their song 'We Are Broken' in Riot! That is very soft! I am out of here. {User Talk:Luigi_1995} 18:47, 11 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.122.78 (talk)

they are so not emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.166.46 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My god

In no way, shape, or form is Paramore Emo. They're songs don't have an "Omg...he broke up with me, I'm gonna slit my wrists"-vibe to them. I would argue that they are not punk either. {{}} Paramore is never emo they never are. goodbye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I know! they never were! Stop vandalizing.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.56.102 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on info from reliable sources not on personal opinions. --Neon white 04:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually im a hard-core paramore fan and I am a Christian. But people consider me an Emo.. is that even possible? I think so in my personal opinion because nobody ever said that Emo's can't believe in God. :) I love you Hayley. <333 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.22.120 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment just blew my mind.24.68.128.218 (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG!?! ARE YOU PEOPLE PLAIN STUPID?! obviously! how can you call Paramore emo!! Jesus...you people must live a sad life...can we please remove it? Matt 2601 atl (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Emo(again)

I just noticed that the source used to demonstrate the band's genre as emo is actually a broken link and so it is no longer supported. I would change the infobox, but it sent me to the talk page where I am now making a section on it.Kurasuke (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference is a copy of an article on their official website, which appears to have been removed nevertheless the total guitar article still exists. --Neon white (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because people say they're emo doesn't mean they are. Emo is The Cure and Rites Of Spring. However, they are emo-influenced.--Tame The Tiger (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based an reliable sources, if they say they are, then they are. --Neon white (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Cure most definitely is not emo. They may have influenced early emo, but they predate emo and have nothing to do with the emo scene whatsoever ... Anyways on topic, I don't consider Paramore emo, however as long as there are reliable sources that describe them as such then it should be listed as a genre in this article I suppose ... By the way, given that the link does appear to be broken, NME also regularly refers to Paramore as emo if anyone wants to add a citation. See for example http://www.nme.com/news/3241780.195.246.3 (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a better nme page? press releases for tours arent generally considered a very good enough source. --Neon white (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you say if they say they are, they are? But what about the many bands that say they aren't, nonetheless they're still labelled as emo. I think the wiki editors need to make up their minds.

Reliable second party sources are preferable to self-published sources in articles about themselves. It's all on the policy pages has been for a while. --Neon white (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think its soooooooooo funny that anyone can consider them as EMO and influensed by Rites of Spring. Here is the deal, Sunny Day Real Estate is influensed by Rites of Spring and Paramore is SDRE fans so ye they have taken a bit from them so it got a small spark from RoS but thats a very small spark. Whats Emotive Hardcore about Paramore anyway? Just because you sing about it is Emo. Paramore is today Power Pop/Pop Punk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.216.179 (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you find it humourous, nevertheless it is sourced and veriable, do not remove it again. --neonwhite user page talk 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramore is not emo at all, just because there are like 3 sources claiming that paramore is emo does not in any way make the band emo because they do NOT sound emo at all and this is just one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever seen on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamdpatterson (talk • contribs) 22:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ok wikipedia either needs reality check or they are just idiotic

Paramore is not an emo band it is not on my opinion it is the fact. if they are emo they wouldn't sound post-hardcore and if they are emo they do not sound like one see what does emo sound like. don't get me started on panic! at the disco THEY ARE NEVER EMO use your brain please. they are not emo and never will. emo bands like alesana and boys like girls are ok to be called emo since on their myspace they put themselves as emo. use your brain people i beg of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

They are described as such by reliable sources, which makes it verifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

You may want to try listening to the large number of people who post here, versus the single source (or small handful of sources) that state Paramore is emo. Like was posted above; use your brain. That album review is written by one person (or one small team of people), and just like anything else edited by a human - is prone to the possibility of error. Don't hide behind the policy - any good policy has its exceptions. Just because there's a website out there that states something is true, doesn't make it true. I could post that the square root of ten is five on any of my websites - again, that doesn't make it true.

Wikipedia generally goes on a consensus basis. Take a poll as to whether or not this statement (and, transitively, the source) should be removed. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You could write whtever you wanted but it would not be permissable as a source for wikipedia. The NME article was written by a journalist and published in a magazine which has a serious history in music publication and a clear editorial policy making it WP:V. Your opinion and those of anyone posting here have not and therefore are unverifiable. Wikipedia does not publish truth but verifiable facts. --neonwhite user page talk 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are utterly unwilling to come to a compromise here is rather disturbing. There is a very simple solution. Take a poll. On one side, we state that they're emo - on the other side, we remove the statement and the source of said statement. We don't, in any case, state anywhere that they are not emo, but in one case we do not state that they are. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 03:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or you can flesh out cites that say Paramore isn't emo then we can say that the emo tag is disputed. That'll be an easier workaround. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

emo is a derogative term in some aspects, and labelling a good hearted christian band like that, is offensive and gives the band a bad name. there are interviews where Paramore THEMSELVES deny the Emo tagSteve37 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal opinion and nothing else. Wikipedia reflects what verifiable sources say not the band themselves. --neonwhite user page talk 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Paramore have been described as Emo by various reputable sources. Therefore they are Emo as far as wikipedia should be concerned. That is how it is meant to work. The people who dispute that Paramore are emo seem to fall into two categories: Those who are Paramore fans and regard the term emo as derogatory and those who are fans of traditional emo (rites of spring etc.) who regard the association of Paramore with the genre to be derogatory. Either way, those who are disputing that Paramore are Emo appear to have alterior motives. The meaning of words change with time. Paramore may have little in common with Rites of Spring or the genre Emo as it was previously understood, but the term 'Emo' has changed and has come to describe the sound of bands like Paramore in popular usage.80.195.246.3 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I just say something I am a big fan of Paramore and I think some of their songs such as Emergency have emo influences! Not all of their songs are emo but emo rock is completely different from the stereotypical self harming depressed teen, emo rock songs are to do with depressing issues and sung in an emotional way! I am not an emo but I think some of you don't want to be fans of an emo band and are stating that they are not emo! --Seán Travers (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers, 18:54, 23 May 2008

Some of the bands i listen to are christians and i think its silly when people call christian member bands emo since one is meant to be negative and the other positive however underoaths chasing safety album is ever so emoish. SDRE and minerals singers were christians, and those bands were considered REAL EMO ---- signed by loveyourfaith

paramore are a pop band

It is not the source that makes paramore emo

It's the BAND that is the most reliable. if you go to their myspace it doesn't say emo anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zeron (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. --neonwhite user page talk 01:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't we use sources from the band itself? An FA, History of Michigan State University, uses a lot of MSU references. --Howard the Duck 06:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You can but independent second party sources are nearly always prefered. --neonwhite user page talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case it would be preferable to use the Band as a source. My reasoning is that if you can find an interview where the band states specifically that they are not emo then we enter into a WP:BLP situation. Since the term "emo" can be viewed as a derogatory term and the band specifically states they are not emo we shouldn't call them emo just because a music reviewer did. At the very least it may be appropriate to state that some critics define them as emo but the band states they are not. Just some thoughts. Elhector (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We have two indepedant second party verified sources refering to them as emo, that is what matters, we clearly do not need self published primary sources here. This is not a biography, it is about a musical group. Your personal opinion about the word is only that, it is a music genre and is neutral. --neonwhite user page talk 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be stated (particularly in the infobox) that the band prefers not to be classified as emo (if what Elhector said is true and if it hasn't been done yet). The band is currently composed of living people so WP:BLP can apply here. --Howard the Duck 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's utterly unimportant what the band thinks. The infobox represents what the band are generally thought of, all generization of bands is subjective that's why there are generally a handful of them in there. The fact that NME and the NY Times considers them so is easily good enough for it to be there. Again this is not a biography about a living person. The band is not a living person. --neonwhite user page talk 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

So what the band thinkz is unimportant in that band's article? Wow.

Yes, see WP:SOURCES. --neonwhite user page talk 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that'll virtually wipe out lots of information from biographical material (such as direct quotes). Nor does Wikipedia ban information emanating from the people or organization or association themselves, only WP:OR (such as instances when someone just comes up with a website proclaiming the end of the world on February 29, you can use that a source on end of the world)). In this case, this band is pretty popular and we can use their website for generic "about us" info. --Howard the Duck 05:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And not to mention WP:BLP is not only restricted to a living person's article, it simply says about biographical material, material not restricted to articles about the people themselves. It includes a person's dealings with other persons such as organizations, associations, etc. An example would be saying that Kobe Bryant choked on the 2006 NBA Playoffs on the Los Angeles Lakers article. Clearly, that's biographical material not seen in the Kobe Bryant article; is that passage "exempt" from WP:BLP? --Howard the Duck 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIVING does not apply here. We are talking about the genre of a band, it is not about a living person. --neonwhite user page talk 21:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An association of a group of people can be hurtful and anyone can invoke WP:BLP.

No it can't. You are misrepresenting policy which is incvil. The genre of a band is not controversial bio info. --neonwhite user page talk 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S.: What will happen if someone comes up with 2 secondary sources stating Paramore isn't emo? --Howard the Duck 05:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, infoboxes are for what genres a band is considered not what they are not considered. --neonwhite user page talk 18:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and if two reliable sources state that they aren't, the same number who state that they are, I'd say that's sufficient to not state that they're emo. See my vote proposal above. It's a very simple solution. Once again, your unwillingness to come to a solution over a single word is disturbing. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The genres listed in infobox are one's they are commonly considered as. Genre's are subjective so you will often find different sources and different people think different things. That is why infobox's contained several different interpretations. It's not definitive, not absolute and not exclusive. There is no reason not to include it seen as it is well sourced. Whether some think they aren't does not change the fact that a number of major sources including a major newspaper and a major music magazine describe them as such. The consensus decided it was appropriate and so far all onbjections seem to be based on nothing but personal views which are inappropriate for an article. --neonwhite user page talk 02:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are 2 or more sources that say this band isn't emo, I suggest to add an asterisk or "(disputed)" beside the word "emo" to note that their classification as "emo" is disputed (though it won't be removed, unless the ratio is like 10:1). --Howard the Duck 17:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

None have been provided and it is irrelevant anyway. Genres are always subjective, the info represents a selection of genres that a band have been called in reliable sources, nothing really changes the fact that the nme and nytimes define their genre as that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Read my question: "if someone comes up;" an if-then statement, of course it will become valid if does find citations. Then it'll become disputed and it'll be duly noted. Who knows if someone a dozen other sources then it might be removed. Selection of genres can be dicey and can be widely debated by music fans, there's no point in ignoring this issue, especially if someone does come up with citations. The challenge for anti-emo people here is to find citations. No citations=it stays there, that's a good enough compromise, don't you think? Instead of "it stays there in perpetuity" that you'd want to happen. --Howard the Duck 03:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the final time the infobox does not represent what genres people don't think they are, there is no heading Genre's they aren't, it exists to represent what genres they are often known as and as genres are subjective we add multiple ones as they are bound to be known differently in different sources. Rhapsody calls them power-pop so we can add that, mp3.com calls them pop-rock so we add that. This ensures it complies with WP:NPOV. The only reason cited genres are usually removed is if there are too many, which is unlikely with most bands, but in this case the sources for emo are so strong that it would likely be the first to stay. There can be no valid dispute that 'emo' is a genre they are known as. The verifiable sources are cited and there to plainly see. The challenge for anti-emo people is to realise that wikipedia is not based on personal views, nor is it a soapbox and they would make better use of their time improving other areas of the article rather than taking part in pointless warring. --neonwhite user page talk 16:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Paramore are in no way whatsoever an emo band. They are an alternative/pop punk/pop rock band, you only have to listen to the music to realize this. Neon white, you said that "a number of major sources" yet there are only two sources which are both written by journalists who have written on opinion not fact there for just personal views which as you said are "inappropriate for an article". But seen as you are using these opinions as sources it would only be fair to use everyone's elses opinion here as sources well, making the majority of sources saying they are not emo, therefore "what the band are generally thought" the statement that they are emo in the infobox should be removed. Dark247 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is not revelant as you are not a verifiable sources. The two source are major publications and verifiable according to policy. There are currently no sources saying that, regardless it wouldnt matter if there were. --neonwhite user page talk 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to both of you: The real challenge is to find enough citations that say "this band isn't emo," not just an article that omits emo as their genre. For example, if one article says, "Paramore, a band commonly classified as emo but it really isn't, since...", then if anyone can find 20 citations saying that it can be removed, or least said that the emo label is disputed, not simple omissions such as "Paramore is a power pop/rock/punk band." I'm not saying "emo" should be removed pronto, I'm saying in for it to be removed, or least labeled as "disputed", someone has to find credible, multiple sources that say that "Paramore isn't emo." --Howard the Duck 18:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You still do not understand the purpose of the infobox, if some sources think they are a different genre it doesnt change the fact that others regard them as an 'emo' band. All genres are subjective so it isn't a question of it being 'disputed'. The purpose of it is to simply represent what genres they are considered. As much as you obviously dislike it, that is one of a number of genres that the popular press use to describe them. You can't change that. --neonwhite user page talk 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard the Duck has a fair point though obviously as far as common sense goes it is unlikely for journalists to write "" band isn't a "" genre because that would be unprofessional. Even if it 'was' possible to find these sources, I don't know what would count as "reliable sources" as I doubt me or anyone else just writing 20 different articles or so saying "Paramore more are not emo" would count; so at least seen as the majority disagree, couldn't we just put 'disputed' next to 'emo' anyway at least for arguments sake? Also if anyone here doesn't like something, it is obviously you Neon white who seem so determined to keep the "emo" genre on their Wiki page probably because you don't personally like them and wish to give them a bad name especially seen as from your bad arguments, other than the two sources which seem to be your only [reasonable] point of argument.Dark247 (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no valid dispute, it's well cited. We do not remove something that is that well verified because of someone's personal opinion. Genres dont give anything a bad name they are utterly neutral as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. My arguements have been completely logical and follow policy. The point that is being misunderstood is is that the genres lists are not definitive or absolutes. Like all info on wikipedia it is not the truth or fact. The article is not saying that this band is 'emo'. It is saying that 'emo' is one of a number of genres they are known as and two verifiable sources are cited as an example of this. Some people may well say they aren't but that isn't going to change the fact that they are known as 'emo' by the popular media. There really is no need for any debate on this, it's obvious. --neonwhite user page talk 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You, it's only you who's been saying there's no dispute, but what are doing? Arguing a disputable statement which isn't a dispute? As I've said, the only way for emo to be even called "disputed" is if someone finds several valid citations for such. Heck, even if Paramore had an interview on Billboard that says they disown the emo label, that should be enough to add the word "disputed" after emo.

No citations for "Paramore is not emo" = the emo label stays. --Howard the Duck 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The only dispute is that certain editors are trying to change cited info based on personal opinion which is inappropriate. What they think is not rtelevant. They aren't a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 17:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup, this bullshit is the reason I washed my hands of this website. You're more concerned with "playing the game" and making the article look how you want it to look, and contain the information that you want it to contain, than you are with making the article a quality one.

A publication doesn't say "X_band is popular", and suddenly X_band becomes popular; quite the contrary, in fact. A publication writes an article about a band because that band is popular. Simply put, the fans make the band. Clearly, the majority of the fans feel that Paramore is not emo. But, clearly you feel that they are, and as I mentioned, you're more concerned with playing the Wikipedia game than making a quality article.

Attempting to argue with this person is only going to be a waste of your time. ~Floppie^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The fans don't make wikipedia, verified sources do. Personally, i have no opinion on their genre whatsoever, on account of never having heard any of their music. If you'd had bothered reading any other comments and policy you know that wikipedia does not claim to state the truth. The infobox represents a number of genres that a band is commonly known as. What genre you know them as has little bearing but the media's opinion does. --neonwhite user page talk 18:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The most pointless arguement to engage in is over genres. Just face it people, if there is a reliable source saying they are emo, then the genre goes up. It is not a case of anyone wanting to "make the article look like they want" as you suggest, but a case of simply following the guidlines and rules for verifiability. Maybe you should all ask yourselves why you are so adamant that the emo genre 'shouldn't be included? Nouse4aname (talk) 08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side note to this debate... Paramore's MySpace page list "Regional Mexican" as one of their genres. It's as a joke of course but never-the-less it is out there. Genres are a joke anyway. Any writer can say anything about anyone and if it gets printed then it becomes a source. Those of us who are very much into the details of the sub-genre know that Paramore is not by any means an "emo" band. But now-a-days everyone uses the term "emo". I read an artical in this months Time magazine with the word "emo" in the title. Emo is being used to label everthing: music, fashion, people - whatever. Let's all just step back and be ok with the gerne of "emo" being on there knowing that some uninformed people may think that they are emo.

EINXIII (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What you have to remember is that it is journalists and the media that have always defined genres rather than the fans or the artists themselves. 'Emo' might mean something different now to what it originally meant and what some people still understand it to mean. --neonwhite user page talk 00:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't think the Paramore fans realize is that emo is *not a bad thing.* We're not insulting them by saying that they're emo or trying to bring them down. It's just an observation on the band, who do have some emoesque tendencies. Just *chill.* 68.116.148.117 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, you are all right. In the real world, they are not emo by how the genre has been defined, they just do not meet the criteria for emo in the real world. However, by the policy that wikipedia uses they do meet the criteria for emo. Policy states that if it has been stated by a verifiable source, then it is true by wikipedia standereds. They have been called emo by verifiable sources and thus emo stays. It is in no way, shape, or form definitive by real world standereds, as wikipedia does not state what is true or what is fact, only what is properly sourced, be it true or false. Many times (like now) what is stated is false, but it is still properly sourced and thus must stay. BTW, why do some of you seem to take emo as an insult?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The media is the real world and it is predominantly the media that ultimately define what a genre is. Even if it significantly different from what a minority think, the majority will likely know emo as similar to what paramore plays due to the influence of NME, MTV etc. --neonwhite user page talk 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, part of what you said is true. The media is part of the real world and they do define genres. What people often fail to mention is that after the media defines a genre, they don't use their own definitions to classify bands. They usually classify the bands based on trivial things like clothing (they often get this wrong too) or when that band reached it's popularity peak in with when a genre reach its popularity peak, the lyrics of one song while ignoring the majority of their songs (the first one and the third one are the biggies here). All media are guilty of this including MTV and NME. Therefore anyone smart shouldn't really care about what the majority of people think (or the minority of people for that matter) because all of them use a media outlet to tell them what a bands genre is, despite reasons stated above. Me? I take a look at how a genre has been defined and then I look at how a band plays a majority (being what they have done so far) of their music. If they don't match overall, it's back to the drawing board. BTW, most people don't watch MTV for music anymore, as now they spend 95% of their time making (poorly done) reality tv shows and whatnot, hardly spending any time on music at all anymore. As far as most people thinking Paramore is emo based on the media, doubt it, alot. The only way to confirm somthing like that is to ask people who have listend to a good amout of their songs, not fans, just people who listen to music and have happend to have heard a good number of their songs, about what they think. Second reason is because most media don't define said band as emo (I think...). Of course I wouldn't use any means stated above for wikipedia as it's OR (reasonably good OR but OR none the less). This arguement is irrelevent really, since we have sources that meet wiki standereds that also call them emo, so on wikipedia one of the genres they should be known as is emo (please note I have already stated this).13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Emo

Paramore can only be described as a mix of pop, punk, and hard rock. Emo music has violent and or depressing lyrical content and an ethic that addresses sadness by the guitar riffs. Paramore is always bright and hopeful. Emo music is slower and is a form of hard rock without aggressive distortion or much feeling by instrument do illustrate the numbness of the state of depression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.133.228 (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep paramore do generally sing bright hopeful music but Emergency is a rather depressing song! I don't think they're complete emos but they do hav emo influences and I am a big fan of Paramore and I am not emo! --Seán Travers (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers, 19:00, 23 May 2008

Hello, you appear to be new here so here are some pointers/tips for you: sign your posts by typing four tildes(~), ALL stuff on wikipedia must be sourced by reliable and varifiable sources (yes, ALL sources MUST be BOTH), wikipedia does not include what is true only what is sourced (properly). Anyone who has listend to Paramore can tell you they aren't emo, however, we have proper sources that call them emo and thus, emo must included in the article. You see we can't use ourselves as sources.13Tawaazun14 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't what the band says be considered more reliable?

MCR is labelled by a lot of magazines as "emo", yet they're not listed as "emo". Since the band doesn't consider itself emo, shouldn't they not be classified as emo? Also, there are many sources that say Paramore isn't emo. Should the infobox be changed to "disputed subgenres"? I'm new here so don't flame me... -- Blaze7755 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is actually being discussed on the talk page, the reason is largely due to the amount of sourcable styles and genres available. The bands opinion is exactly that, just their opinion and is not considered verfiable or reliable according to policy. We rely on second and thrid party sources for info. As far are as i know there are no sources that say that and regardless the list is a list of genres that they are considered, we don't have a list of what genres sources consider them not to be. The fact that two notable sources refer to them as that is what is what's important. --neonwhite user page talk 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is from another person's opinion, too, and IMO, Paramore's opinion about themsleves > Some random guy's opinion about them. -- Blaze7755 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Emo?

I hate when people put "Emo" underneath Paramore's, (or any other upbeat, happy, non-emo band), genre. Now are we putting this because we are judging them based on appearance and stereotypes supported by a source which is an article written by the same type of ignorant person who doesn't listen to their music first? I seriously want someone to tell me in what way they are "Emo". NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, please note that the content of wikipedia is based on verfiable sources rather than personal points of view. In this case the verifiable sources are NME, New York Times and Rolling Stone. --neon white talk 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the sources are other people's opinion, not quotes from the band stating that they are "Emo".

NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

From verfiable sources, which is what wikipedia is based upon. The bands opinion is not relevant. --neon white talk 05:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I quote an interview of the band saying "We are not emo!", that wouldn't matter because someone else quoted an article of a guy who feels that they are emo? So the band has no say in what their genre is? If a verfiable source says that Paramore is a rap band, then they would be even though in my opinion as well as Paramore's opinion they feel that they are not. The bands' opinion is not relevant. Some guy who writes articles is. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia's shit policy. Paramore: We don't play emo! Time: They play emo. Wiki: Time is a credible source so we'll call them emo. --Blaze7755 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, this sucks!

We should be quoting the band, I'm pretty sure that Paramore knows more about the band than any other source.

NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

NME is not a good source they chat bare bullshit on a regular ting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.210.62 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop, THEY ARE EMO. YOU JUST CAN'T ACCEPT CAUSE YOU'RE A HIPSTER.

They are emo and definatly not Punk. Punk is stuff like the Clash, Ramones, Sex Pistols, and Dead Kennedys and they are nowhere near that. They are definatly emo. They look emo, sound emo, and just are emo, so get over it you stupid posers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Chart positions

Someone has vandalized the Chart positions (singles) section on this page. "Misery Business" only reached #26 on the Hot 100, and I don't think "crushcrushcrush" reached past the Top 50 yet. And I'm suspecting that the other chart positions are wrong too. And "When It Rains" is not really released yet and it says it reached #2 on the Hot 100, which obviously isn't true. Could someone please fix it? thanks --Crocodileman (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What is stoping you from doing it? --neonwhite user page talk 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment - GA or A

Does anyone think this article should be nominated for good article class or A-class? It's very well sourced and definitely deserves a better rating than B. Timmeh! 17:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --neonwhite user page talk 21:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I felt like it deserved one quite a while ago. After re-writing it, the article has really improved, but alas, it probably will not pass a GA review. There is the whole edits back and forth concerning genre and one point of a GA is that it is stable and there are no edit wars occurring. So, for that reason, unless some consensus is made, it probably wouldn't pass the review. -Lindsey8417 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

IP/anon fiddling is the problem, it's annoying but not enough to restore semi-protection. --neonwhite user page talk 02:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Musical style and influences section

I think this needs serious improvement it reads very much like a self-serving press release at the moment. Can we remove some of the peacockness? --neonwhite user page talk 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

and all the people become favorite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.197.150 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.87.153 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What looks "Peacocky"? Let me know and I will de-fowl it. Although, it seems like the section is pretty well cited (both citation 6 and 51 support the longer sections that don't have many cites).

EINXIII (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK/peacock might be the wrong term, i think the POV is distinctively opinionated rather than factual. --neonwhite user page talk 05:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cover Songs

Cover songs do not need to be listed on a bands page, if they appear on an album or single then they should appear only an that particular article, if they havent then they have no place in the article. --neonwhite user page talk 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, paramore covers At The Drive-In's songs, One Armed Scissor and Invalid Litter Dept. This is only at live shows though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.112.153 (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Grammy Info

Since article this is locked... An admin may want to add a note in the History section about Paramore losing the "Artist of the Year" Grammy to Amy Winehouse.

As a side note - I'm not a big fan of the rules surrounding the "Artist of the Year" Grammy. Feist has been in bands and been putting out albums since the early 90's, but yet since she is now solo she is "new". Also, Amy Winehouse released an album in 2003 and has been winning UK music awards since 2004.

I think the "New Artist" award should be reserved for truly NEW bands / performers to the scene. EINXIII (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's only semi-protected, as long as you have an account you can edit it. I have added a line saying they didnt win and removed the mention from the lead. Leads are summaries and as this point has no real weight in the article it doesnt warrent a mention in the summary. --neonwhite user page talk 20:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone added the Grammy statement back to the Lead portion of the article. Also the "EMO" thing was taken off the Genre tab -again.

EINXIII (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound nothing like emo or pop punk

I read up the emo and pop punk genre in wikipedia. and emo is supposed to sound like jawbreaker, fugazi, rites of spring, etc. paramore dont sound anything close to that and their lyrics do not match the genre. pop punk; ramones, screeching weasel, the queers. even green day and blink-182 (before their s/t album) sound nothing like paramore. paramore sounds closest to the style of all american rejects, click five, etc. therefore, i am changing the genre to what i think is most appropriate, pop rock and power pop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Himynameisnick (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. We source information from verifiable sources rather than personal opinions. This is considered original research --neonwhite user page talk 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

just in case you didn't know this but ALL AMERICAN REJECTS are emo. Ive seen interviews where they've said that they were but yes indeed Paramore is not all that emo. Everybody thinks so because they dress in clothes from Hot Topic but not everyone who shops at hot topic is emo. and by the way when your emo you really shouldn't say your emo cuz that makes u a poser. :) I love u Hayley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.213.22.120 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Paramore is not emo or pop punk. I just consider them rock. The only way they could be even considered as pop is by their melodies. Parajunkie (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Postponement/Cancellation of European Shows

As this is a protected article, I can't do it myself, but I think someone needs to add the news about how they have cancelled/postponed their remaining European shows....it's all explained on their livejournal: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.44.18 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be ok but ideally we would need a second party source for this. --neonwhite user page talk 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Faith

• According to the November 2007 edition of Breakaway magazine, there's a section near the end(entitled "Worth Joining Paramore's Riot?") that reads "...that's because some members of Paramore profess Christian faith...". It also says near the end of the article that the lead singer, Hayley Williams said: "...I'm a believer in Jesus Christ and I claim Him as my God...". LethalReflex (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? --neonwhite user page talk 01:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• They aren't a Christian band although some of the members are Christians. LethalReflex (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article says they are. --neonwhite user page talk 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article or the magazine article? LethalReflex (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) uuh the wiki page definitely says that paramore is a christian band... but they're not. in fact the guitarist Josh Farro has said many times that paramore is not a christian band and they don't regard their music as christian. someone should definitely change that... i would but it's locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.60.103 (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what they don't consider their music as. We just need two sources calling them a Christian band and voila! 64.229.197.66 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But even if they're Christian themselves, their music isn't religiously themed. Cailunet^rawr 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Band Members

It's very unnecessary that it lists what every band member is at diffrent times, and only Rhythm Guitar changes. This should be changed to list all the current members, and when they joined, then list the people who were on rhythm guitar after the Current line up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.9.72 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I remade the band members section so it could be easier to understand.Optimous (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The only positions that have NEVER changed are Zac on drums Hayley doing vocals, and josh on lead guitar. Jeremy left the band when they were about to record all we know is falling. Also the line up for the recording of AWKIF was Jason Bynum on guitar, and John Hembree on bass...It wasn't until like some point on warped tour that the band asked jeremy to please come back and play bass and he did...Then Jason left and hunter joined, then hunter left because he got engaged, and now taylor york is playing rhythm guitar and will become a full fledged member with the next album most likely...according to hayley in an interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

not a real band

i have heard that hayley is the only one signed and that they aren't a real band - just a marketing gimic of the label's to call them a band rather then hayley a solo artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.128.36 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm well that's a load of bullshit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.86.250 (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 

if it can be sourced do so. --neonwhite user page talk 15:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ITS BULL SHIT....Hayley is NOT a solo artist. I've known hayley since she first moved to franklin. We met in 1st period. PARAMORE IS A BAND...SIGNED AS A BAND....WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A BAND....

US-centric wording

After the singles chart table, Ireland and the UK are referred to as "over there". Isn't Wikipedia meant to be geographically neutral? If so, can someone think of a better wording for this sentence? Allanlewis (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the last part it's a bit of an unsourced specualtive opinion anyway. --neonwhite user page talk 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative rock

They are alternative rock. MP3.com calls Paramore an alternative rock band. MP3 is also not a self published site so yes they are alternative rock.Paramore AOL music says the band is alternative rock band. The band also calls them self alternative rock. You can se it on their official website and their myspace official website that they are alternative rock. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of alternative rock on either page. Myspace is not reliable neither is there offical site. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (WP:V) There is no evidence that mp3.com has any fact checking the only reason it is used in this case is because the origin of the text is actually allmusicguide which is written by music journalists. --neonwhite user page talk 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

AllMusicGuide ain't a reliable source and Answers.com calls them rock. First it's many sources that sais the album is alternative rock and many that sais them are Punk pop. Can't we just add alternative rock and Punk pop. Their are sources for both the genres. Lets add alternative rock and i wont take away Punk pop okay. They are both pop rock and alternative rock and the only reason i don't think they are pop rock is that lostprophets have many more popish songs and they are called alternative rock. Get Underground calls them rock. Starpulse calls them rock.--Freedom (song) (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic guide is reliable, it is written by music journalists. Answers.com is self-published and not relaible. Neither starpulse nor getunderground.com have any reputation. If there are reliable second party sources then use them. The sourced genres are on the main page. Pop-rock, power pop and emo. As album and single genres are hard to source, these are usually used. --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree that Paramore are an alternative rock band I don't think all of their songs are alternative rock, I mean Pressure is a bit too poppy iI think to be alternative rock!--Seán Travers (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

No they are NOT. The members have rock and have their own sense of style, it doesnt make them alternative rock. Alternative rock means "instead of rock'N roll" its slower and quieter it includes muse, travis, sdre, jimmy eat world, fugazi, snow patrol, downhere and so on. These are more of a straight up rock band than alternative rock. They have some like franklin, my heart, until tomorrow, sunday bloody sunday, when it rains. But really you cant call it to their albums and singles. By the way, we really should only use genres that are on the front wikipedia page to use for other paramore-related articles

signed by love your faith - - - -

Discrepancies with Albums and Release Dates

As the title indicates, there appear to be inconsistencies between stated release dates in the chart of albums and EP's. For example, 'All We Know Is Falling' is listed in the 2005 row, yet is stated to be a 2006 release. Similarly, 'The Summer Tic EP' is listed in the 2006 row, yet is stated to have been released in June of 2005. Those are just a couple of examples. Can somebody look into this?209.173.81.173 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pop rock

Pop rock is reliably cited and verfiable, there is no justification for removing on the basis of personal views. It is the most basic genre that accurately describes the music of this group. Pop is too basic. --neonwhite user page talk 16:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources for the genre, that's fine, but I see no reason why it sould be singled out as the primary genre in the first sentence of the article. Why not emo or pop punk? Given there's so much disagreement about the other genres here, the best solution would be to go with the broadest genre possible. And that would be just plain old rock music. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the most basic, general genre there is to desribe the band. It covers pop-rock and power pop. It's both obvious and common sense. 'Rock', however is unsourced and therefore OR so we can't simply put that. We have to go with sources we cant just make it up. Maybe pop/rock? --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not unsourced because all these genres being debated are all widely recognized as forms of rock music. Unless someone is debating they aren't a rock band at all, there's no need for a reference. Inline citations are for contentious items likely to be challenged. It would be like putting an inline cite for the fact that they are on the Fueled by Ramen label. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, pop-rock and power pop is associated with both pop and rock music. From the sources they are equally pop and rock which is the definition of pop rock. Pop rock is a major genre and it doesnt really need to be generalized any more. --neonwhite user page talk 13:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because they share pop characteristics does not negate the fact that both pop rock (a very broad term that I think is relatively useless) and power pop (a style of rock music that emerged in the 1970s that drew heavily from British Invasion rock bands) are rock genres. It'll just save a lot of aggravation just going with "rock" for the lead. Also, you can build upon genres in the lead. Notice in R.E.M. how the band is introduced simply as a rock band, then the new few sentences talk about how importance they are to alternative rock. Start general, then get specific. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Pop rock is equally pop and rock hence the name, though it's largely considered a genre of popular music. --neonwhite user page talk 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Music genres aren't math; you can't quantify how much "pop rock" is pop or rock in a set value, and you have to fully understand its origins to determine whether or not your view of the genre is accurate. For example, the name of Britpop is a bit of a misnomer; it's a style of alternative rock that emerged as a movement in the British indie scene against the pop mainstream, and it's quite rockist. Putting aside the terminology, without getting into the whole subgenre debate you can either say Paramore is a pop band (which they are, given that rock music is a form of popular music; thus even Nirvana and Slayer are technically pop bands), or you can say they are a rock band, which is more specific. Nonetheless I see no strong argument for putting "pop rock" in the first sentence over, say pop punk, which seems to be used far more consistently when describing this band. As no rock subgenre is widely applied to the band over the other, it's best to just say "Paramore is a rock band". WesleyDodds (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't call them pop rock! MP3.com calls linkin park and even METALICA pop rock! i think we should just stick to Punk pop/Powerpop/Alternative 'cause all these genres have reliable sources... I'm still not too sure about Emo though... but oh well. Matt 2601 atl (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No they dont, they are no verifiable sources for alternative rock and we are not calling them pop rock we are representing what allmusicguide considers them. Emo is also well sourced. --neonwhite user page talk 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon, Paramore's Band Info Page passes all 7 criteria of WP:SELFANDQUEST. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 02:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No it doesnt please read it carefully, it fails 1, 2 and possibly 3. This subject has sufficient second and third party to make first party sources unecessary and we should disregard them. --neon white talk 16:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neon white, there are PLENTY of third-party sources that consider them alt-rock (AND pop-rock). Amazon.com, ArtistDirect.com, TicketNetwork.com, MP3.com. You CANNOT say these aren't reliable because they aren't written by journalist. In fact, I'd argue the opposite. Because a journalist thinks something is one genre or another does not mean that is so. More importantly, the music industry considers them alt-rock AND pop-punk (and perhaps emo to a lesser extent, although personally, I'd disagree here). I'm all for everyone making nice and including it as pop-punk AND alt-rock. Either way, we should be clearly sourced and assume good faith of fellow editors. Wikiwikikid (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Paramore should not be "Emo Bands" category

thats just off limits ok? God, paramore is pop punk going on power pop not emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here.Is.Elle (talk • contribs) 10:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just stating what should be done, be bold and provide sources to prove that they're not, or use Wikipedia policy to disprove the current references as credible, such as I am about to do. Reference 2 (NME) is a questionable source because it is full of personal opinions and bias. And reference 3 (New York Times) states that "Paramore is loosely affiliated with the world of emo". Is loose affiliation enough to place Paramore in the Emo genre? I'm going to be bold, and say no; this is probably going to start some edit war, but I'm removing the Emo genre from the page as per WP:QS. Without credible sources, I will hunt down sources which prove they are not of the Emo genre and place them on this talk page. And before anyone points at the Joshua Martin quote saying that it proves they're emo, that is a writer's personal opinion of what they think Paramore's music sounds like. It would be like saying... French toast is bread, but with icing sugar, and its less healthy; yet French toast and bread aren't the same thing. They may seem similar, and may have qualities of each other, but they don't taste, look, smell, or feel like each other... and in before "French toast isn't Paramore", it's an analogy... I really need to eat before I edit, only analogy I could think of is food-related. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NME is one of the oldest and most reputable music publications in existance. Personal opinions about what is written is of no consequence. I believe there at least 6 seperate articles published by NME calling them emo by at least three seperate authors.[2][3][4][5][6][7] The NY Times is equally reputable and clearly states "Paramore is a fizzy emo band led by a tireless, clean-scrubbed singer named Hayley Williams". Josh Farro is also quoted in the article saying "It's emo without being whiney, or bratty" and add to that Rolling Stone [8] calling them "one the first emo bands" nominated for a grammy. That a whole load of very reliable sources. Being bold does not allow removal of content based on a personal point of view. There is no way on earth that these sources are ever going to be regarded as questionable. They meet all aspects of verifiability. What genres they are considered not to be is of no interest to this article. Remember wikipedia does not claim to state the truth it repeats what verifiable sources say. --neon white talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Pop rock

All Music Guide calls them Emo and Punk-pop not pop rock. So why does pop rock have allmusicguide as a source. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It calls them pop/rock in the opening paragraph. "The energetic, spunky pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN". Mp3.com isnt really a reliable source. --neon white talk 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but they don't take that on the genre secion. Why is that. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The verifiable source is the bio by Corey Apar, that is the only part of that page that is verifiable according to wikipedia standards. Classifications by online stores are not verfiable, they are simply ways to arrange releases. --neon white talk 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Band members

Why hasn'y the band members there own page her english wiki.--Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

None have individual notability. --neon white talk 13:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Spell Check

Was trying to edit spelling: Hayley's hometown should be spelled "Meridian", not "Meridan" could people actually USE spell check when adding things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.243.206 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems you are correct, though spell check doesn't really help when it comes to place names etc ... Anyway, I've changed to Meridian and linked to the Meridian, Mississippi wikipedia entry for you :) Peteds (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For the love of God will people please stop removing the genres?!

Why is it that people keep removing the genres from Paramore's infobox namely the pop rock genre or alternative rock! Paramore ARE the following genres: pop rock, punk pop, power pop, alternative rock and emo rock! Please leave it that!!!--Seán Travers (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

I agree, although we dont have a reliable source for alternative rock, the others stand and are verifiable. Any major changes should gain consensus here first. --neon white talk 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe these are the best sources to use. Emo - Rolling Stone, NME, NYTimes, Power Pop - Rhapody, Pop Rock - Allmusicguide, AOL etc, Pop punk MTV. changes need to be discussed here. I'm not sure we can leave any out as the all differ. --neon white talk 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok look they are not alternative rock. They are simply emo not emo rock. they are pop punk not punk pop. They are not pop rock for now since its not sourced on their page and i think we need to use genres that are on the main page and yea they are power pop.

signed, loveyourfaith ----

P.S since paramore are christian i get the hint tht your title has a double meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveyourfaith (talk • contribs) 09:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre sources

I added an official review from a Sputnik staff member, which is much better than the online music store which are only data bases and AMG whic is notoriously unreliable. Please do not remove the Sputnik review--SilverOrion (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic ain't a reliable source. The reviewers aren't proper music reviewers. They are normel people which becomes users and writes reviews. While Allmusicguide is written by proper reviewers. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It was written by a staff member not a contributor. Besides, AMG has a terrible track record. I have nothing against the genres, I just think that the citations could be improved --SilverOrion (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Staff member reviews are ok as far as i know, the rhapsody source was also a staff member i believe so that is ok too, as is allmusicguide, especially bios that are published elsewhere in other reliable sources. --neon white talk 13:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I gess your right but as long it's reliable we should juse it. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Gold Certification

They have reached Gold certification in Ireland. it should be included since the UK and US are.it was mentioned in their live journal. http://paramoreband.livejournal.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screamingmute (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a more reliable source? --neon white talk 00:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

you can't get any more reliable then a site where hayley williams herself posts things...

First line in arcticle

I consider paramore to be a Christian Pop punk band - such bands include Fm static Paramore and even The red jumpsuit apparatus these are pop punk bands with christian members

What i am NOT calling them, is a Christian pop punk band, a band that plays such a genre of music. Christian pop punk bands include Stellar kart and Relient k

loveyourfaith Loveyourfaith (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt belong in the lead section and their general genre is rock or pop or pop rock. --neon white talk 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian most certainly doesn't belong in the lead. In fact it doesn't belong in the lead on any of those articles. Christian pop punk needs to be their genre before it is in the lead. It is confusing to readers when it's in the lead. It appears they are a 'Christian pop punk' band. Landon1980 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what!? Emo?

I have always thought of Paramore as more of an alternative punk band... and the emo genre has never crossed my mind. To me when I think of emo music, I think of slower-paced music with really deep lyrics and some good acustics. (However, there is emo music that doesnt fit this discription). The magority of Paramore's collections are all quick-tempoed, more punk-styled songs with simple lyrics. Therefore, I did not see the connection between Paramore and the genre Emo.

I also don't think it's just me who feels this way. I have read quite a bit of this article and a lot of others agree with me in some ways... I know for one that many of my friends and aquaintences, boths teens and adults, share the same opinion too. Hithertoo, I think that the genre Emo should be removed from the article, to avoid confusion and make wikipedia more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.82.35 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia, please note that the content of wikipedia is based on verfiable sources rather than personal points of view. In this case the sources are [NME], New York Times and Rolling Stone. Wikipedia doesn't claim to be the 'truth' but represents what reliable sources say and it is music journalism that defines what kind of music a genre is and what bands are attributed to it. --neon white talk 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided meet the criteria of WP:SOURCE. I couldn't possibly care less if Paramore is alternative rock or not, but it needs to be cited properly before being added. Look over wp source, then see if you can find a reliable, third-party, published source. Not some fan site, or online store. Find something such as review from a reliable source which explicity says their genre is alternative rock. Landon1980 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Paramore are alternative rock

Paramore are alternative rock! All you have to do is read the article on alternative rock to see that it derives from punk rock and often includes punk music! And last time I looked you had Paramore labelled as punk pop!!!--Seán Travers (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

See no original research. --neon white talk 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there's no need for me to provide research as it is written on this very site if you read the Wikipedia article (with references!) on alternative rock, you will see that it is punk based and derives from punk music!!!--Seán Travers (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Again, that's original research. --neon white talk 00:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taylor York

Ok, i've been hearing things like Hunter is coming back, and Taylor's just been filling in while hunter got married, and spent some time with his new wife.? but then i've also heard Hunter is gone permanantly and Taylor is going to be made a full member...what's the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourGuardianAngel2 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The band has said in interviews that by the time Taylor York "joined" the band, they had already taken promo shots for "Riot!" They didn't want to confuse newer fans by the line-up changes, so they decided to just wait to make him a permanent member. They will probably make him one on the next album. The band haven't mentioned anything about Hunter coming back into the band. So I think Hunter is gone permanantly. Sorry for the long answer, YourGuardianAngel12.Parajunkie (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks...ya i didn't think he was coming back...plus i like taylor i think he's amazing.

Def agree. I love Taylor, I think he is so amazing and awesome. So was Hunter, but I personally like Taylor better. Parajunkie (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Taylor revealed in a comment on his blog he posted on paramore's official live journal, that he is infact writting and recording with the band, and is an official member of the band now... Where as before he wasn't really official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.26.39 (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In an interview with Ultimate Guitar from 1/28/09, Josh Farro is asked: "Has Taylor become an official member of Paramore now? In many bios it still lists him as a touring/studio member." His response, "Well, he’s not yet a member – but he will be soon! We’re just kind of waiting for the 3rd record, which is not too far." (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/interviews/interviews/josh_farro_of_paramore_i_like_things_pretty_simple.html)--Witchy1125 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ATTN: neonwhite

No offense, dude, but you act like you own this page. --Blaze7755 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He does seem to live for genre disputes and loves to flame other users if they don't share the same point of view. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

People, people if it so importen we can block with the reason of Wikipedia:Ownership over an article. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I've read through this whole page and I wouldn't describe neonwhite as a troll or a flamer. He's obviously very knowledgeable and this article is lucky to have him. Now, if only he had some interest in The Veronicas, as well. 64.229.197.66 (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i had never heard this band or heard of this band prior to editing this article. What i do have knowledge of is wikipedia guidelines and policies and how and where to find sources. All i know about this band is based on reliable sources. I believe it is always good for an article to have an objective editor who has no preconcieved ideas about the subject. If there is anything in particular you feel needs doing to the The Veronicas article then i would be happy to help or point you in the right direction. --neon white talk 14:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. And as far as The Veronicas article is concerned, when I'm willing to put in the effort, I just may take you up on your offer. Cheers! 64.229.237.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree Neon thinks he owns the page, and he is unwilling to accept ANY sources unless HE deems them reliable and verifiable. As I stated on your talk page, Neon. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Wikiwikikid (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reckon he probably hates Paramore, he's taken away all individual pages for members when members from loadso of bands as famous as paramore have pages on wiki. If your gonna pick on a band neon make it a shit one like Fall out boy or MCR.

I disagree I've read through almost this whole page and through most of the MCR pages. Neon White is a good editor. He knows the rules, he knows how to edit properly, and he knows the regulations. He's a good editor, and i'll stick up from him on that. He's got my respect. Emo777 (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. this guy only keeps the stuff he wants, not respecting the others point of view. Maul day (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. He seems like he knows a lot about the subject and is willing to put in effort to make it better. Cailunet^rawr 17:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. He acts like he is the sole decider of content, and if he doesn't like it, it's not going in. Ozzyismetal (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

needs another clean up

this is still chock full of grammatical short comings, and bad spelling. i have no hard opinions on the band, but this article seems rather amateurish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.210.207 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To all of the fucking idiots

Look, if 50 Cent says he isnt rap, and he is Thrash Metal instead, do we believe him? NO! Same reasoning here when people cite paramore as sayong they arent emo. PXK ^T /_C 05:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct but you would be advised to avoid calling people 'fucking idiots' --neon white talk 14:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Found a reliable source that Paramore is alternative rock

Found a source from the BBC so don't remove it okay, i've added alternative rock with a reliable source. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The source does not cite alternative rock at all. Please check sources carefully. --neon white talk 14:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot take the single word 'alternative' out of the context of the article and decide that it means alternative rock, this is synthesis. There's isnt even an indication in the article that this refers to a genre or style of music, let alone to alternative rock. The only thing we can take from this is that they are being linked with one of the numerous concepts listed on Alternative. We cant fill in the blanks ourselves. --neon white talk 20:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Its alternative rock, what do you think it links to alternative hip hop, alternative country, alternative metal or alternative rock, its clear what its pointing at, if you don't get it fine but i do and you are the only one which has anything against it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication as to what the article intends because it doesnt clarify. It could be linking them to alternative fashion, alternative culture or an alternative lifestyle or simply using it as an adjective linking the band to alternative music in general. It doesnt specifiy any particular style or genre of alternative music if it even refers to their style of music at all which we cannot assume. --neon white talk 05:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That source doesn't even come close to saying their genre is alternative rock. You are taking the word 'alternative' out of context and expecting ppl to arrive at the same conclusion as you. In case you aren't aware, that is not how we do things. Landon1980 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They are clearly implying alternative rock. The wikipedia page for alternative rock even states that it is sometimes simply referred to as alternative. Either way, there are plenty of legit sources for alt rock. I agree with Black Hole Sun on this one. Wikiwikikid (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It implies the band is alternative, not that 'alternative rock' is their genre. What you are doing is synthesis, the source must definitively verify the claim. I don't understand: "Either way, there are plenty of legit sources for alt rock." So why exactly have you not presented one? Landon1980 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to what?! It does imply that it is alternative rock. As for your question, I did present them, several of them on neon white's talk page. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The key word being imply. What do you not understand that the source must be definitive? You can't ask readers to draw a conclusion of any kind regarding sources, they must explicitly verify the content. Landon1980 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I will go beyond saying imply and say it definitively MEANS alternative rock. What else could it mean? The WP article for Alternative rock even says it's often referred to as simply Alternative. FURTHER, it doesn't matter b/c if your ead down I've provided several other sources for anyone that has a problem with the one Black Hole Sun provided. Wikiwikikid (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources you provided meet the criteria of WP:SOURCE. I couldn't possibly care less if Paramore is alternative rock or not, but it needs to be cited properly before being added. Look over wp source, then see if you can find a reliable, third-party, published source. Not some fan site, or online store. Find something such as review from a reliable source which explicity says their genre is alternative rock. Landon1980 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. According to WP:Reliable_source_examples you may use sources from trade organizations/commerce (although care should be taken to not include any advertising features associated with this type of citation). However, there are plenty of reviews that call them "alt", "alternative", etc. The one Black Hole provided is fine in my opinion. As is this one that states "If you have not heard of Paramore yet, you are lagging behind the up and coming rock/alternative scene." Or this one that states that "Indeed, the band leans much more toward churning midtempo alt-rock ("Let This Go," "My Heart") than racing three-minute blasts of punk-pop melody ("Whoa," "Pressure") on their debut." How about this one that states "with the lovely Hayley leading the way, we can imagine that the sky might be the limit for this alt-rock outfit." These are all reviews by paid-staff of the given publications. Shall I continue? Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

PS The sites I originally provided, are in fact, published, by the way. Also, I am properly citing before I add any information. Hence my participation in this conversation (if you notice I've made NO changes/contribs to the actual article yet). Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the sources I retrieved and posted above, I have included alternative rock as a genre. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before, I couldn't care less if it is there or not. All I wanted was it to be cited properly. Why exactly didn't you just be bold and make the edit using the two good sources that you had? Why all the arguing on this talk page, and even user talk? In the future if you know your edits follow policy, just do it then discuss if someone reverts you. Landon1980 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Go look at the page history now. This is a perfect example of why. I made the changes (even AFTER this discussion) and User:Straight_Edge_PXK keeps reverting it. (I suspected something like this would happen).Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it because noone has deemed it reliable yet. -- PXK ^T /_C 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is BACKWARDS to the Wikipedia process. You don't have to have a consensus/vote for EVERY SOURCE ADDED. I added two legitimate sources. Go look at them yourself. They are legitimate and verifiable and reliable. The burden isn't on me to prove the sources but for anyone else to DISPROVE them... Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with you on this one, Wikiwikikid. I'll go on record that I'm not a very experienced editor. Having said that let's wait and see what some of the other editors think of these two new sources. To me they seem to meet WP:RS. I could most certainly be wrong though. Landon1980 (talk) 15:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to remind both of you that you are approaching WP:3RR. I'd hate to see either of you blocked over something like this. Landon1980 (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for the warning. I made sure to stop at 3 (but I knew that reverting with two people would end as it currently is). Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If it helps end the edit warring, I'll weigh in as an uninvolved observer and say that the sources look reasonable - it'd be great to see some more refs, but those ones are fair enough. Can I suggest that alternative rock be moved to the bottom of the list in the infobox, as it's probably the most tenuous of the genres? My search turned up mostly pop-punk and a little emo, with alternative coming in below those two but still there. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How many more do you need me to post before it's enough? Pop-punk has one reference, emo has 3, alt rock has 2 listed (I can provide COUNTLESS others, I assure you, in multiple languages). If anything it should be alphabetical (OR reverse alphabetical OR whatever other unbiased way you can think of). Establishing how tenuous something is or is not is very subjective. Wikiwikikid (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. I added more refs, per your request. Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My point here was that the alt-rock refs are somewhat weaker than others; my search indicated pop-punk, then emo, then alt-rock as the likely order of the genres that one would find. I've got no problem with the genre being included, just encouraging that there be good, strong references to ensure that it's verified. (Check your last ref on there, by the way - the word "alternative" doesn't appear in it at all.) Tony Fox (arf!) 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know we were in the business of ranking legitimacy of different independent verifiable sources. I think that I could find a good number of people who would value an Arizona newspaper over the New York Times any day (offered earlier in conversation as a legitimate source for reviews). As for my last reference, it does say alt-rock. Do we need a new debate as to whether Alt-Rock and Alternative-Rock are the same thing? I certainly hope not. This is getting ridiculous... Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, my only beef was that you had added the sources and noone had said they were reliable. -- PXK ^T /_C 15:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NO ONE HAS TO SAY THEY ARE RELIABLE! I say they are, that's enough (Assume Good Faith) UNLESS you can prove otherwise. Requiring every source to be voted on would be ineffective and inefficient. Wikiwikikid (talk)

Er, to clarify, consensus *does* make the decision on stuff like this, so discussion is a good thing. Voting is evil, though, so... Tony Fox (arf!) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

About the consensus, I agree. A vote, I disagree with. Further, one is not required to seek approval/vote/consensus for every single well-documented/verifiable source provided. On the other hand if there *is* any issue with a source, then it should DEFINITELY be brought up for debate. Wikiwikikid (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one that is reliable is the Phoenix new times. Self published sites, fan sites and blogs we can't use. --neon white talk 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Neon, those are not blogs, fan sites, or self-published sites! Those are music review sites. I will revert your revert. Wikiwikikid (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Cristina Carrazza is a staff writer for Musiqtone.com, "an online music news & media website." She wrote the musiqtone.com article that is a review of a Paramore concer.

Ugo.com, is a lifestyle website targeting gamers, but they do music, film, game, and many other types of reviews.

AskMen.com, the online version of the Ask Men magazine, is also a well known and definitely independent/verifiable source that does entertainment reviews.

PopMatters.com is also a music review website whose Associate Interviews Editor wrote an article that mentions Paramore as being an alt-rock website.

NONE of these articles are user-generated, fansites, self-published, or the like. These are all separate, independent, verifiable, reliable sources. As has been pointed out by myself and others previously, I feel as though you are trying to assert ownership over this article. Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Only Phoenix new times has any kind of reliablily, the others have little. Only one source is needed and the best practice is to keep the most reliable. The others are unecessary. Askmen is not a great source for music genres it has no real reputation. Ugo.com appears to be user generated and has no reputation at all. Musiqtone.com similarily has no reputation or history in publishing which is irrelevant seen as the source does not actually back up what is claimed which also applies to popmatters it isnt a source for alt-rock (You need to check your sources more carefully, they should be clear and unambiguous so synthesis is not required to gain the info). The thing to remember is that anyone can create a website with reviews, not all websites are considered verifiable by merely existing, policy requires that we only use those with a reputation such as allmusic. You can use the reliable sources noticeboard to check some. The bottom line is we have an adequate reliable source (Phoenix new times) so there is really no need for further debate or sourcing. --neon white talk 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Neon, WHO ARE YOU TO BE THE ARBITER OF WHAT IS RELIABLE? Askmen.com (the actual magazine even longer!) has been in existence since 1999, with one of it's core sections being ENTERTAINMENT. Ugo.com has existed since 1998, IS NOT USER GENERATED (why you insist that it is, is beyond me) and provides "editorial for more than 35 million monthly unique visitors around all things central to the Gamer Lifestyle: Movies, TV shows, Music, Comics, Technology, Gadgets, Gear, Girls, Sports, and of course, Games." Musiqtone has provided music/and concert reviews since 2002, and has staff in 48 of the 50 states to cover regional shows. Their goal was originally to "cover the mainstream music world in a 'fair and balanced manner'." They have since expanded to cover indie music as well. Claiming they have no history of publishing is like claiming they do not exist! "PopMatters has been profiled and/or namedropped in all of these reputable sources: BBC, New York Times, The Times (London), The Guardian, Slate, Salon, Entertainment Weekly, Financial Times, NME, CBC, Variety, The Globe & Mail (Canada), Scotland on Sunday, Daily Telegraph, Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today, Newsday, Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, and Curve among others. " Their "staff ranges from the multiple-degreed and/or well traveled, to young writers of high caliber, to 'seasoned' folks who punch the 9-5 clock." They provide reviews on "music, television, films, books, video games, sports, theatre, the visual arts, travel, and the Internet". You are being dishonest, and you are attempting to OWN this article (as well as the MCR article I see). NONE of your claims about these sources is true OR correct. Wikiwikikid (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V policy is the arbiter of what is reliable. Read it. Ask.men is a webiste with no particular reputation. Ugo.com is similar to a 'buzznet' type of site, there is absolutely no evidence of verifiability. Musiqtone was a student generated site with no reputation at all and as i clearly pointed out the article doesnt call the band alternative rock. As i already said anyone can create a website, this doesnt make them all verifiable or trustworthy, compare them to the other sources used in this are other articles, NME, rolling stone, MTV, village voice all have a major history and reputation in music reporting, this is the quality we should be idealy looking for. Pop matters doesnt cite the fact claimed so that is irrelevant. I also said the point is irrelevant seen as we have a source already and no more are necessary. --neon white talk 14:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V does not provide any guidance that would discredit ANY of the above sources. Besides, you are LYING. I provided a site-by-site reasoning as to it's credibility, but you follow up with unsupported lies as your argument. Askmen DOES have a "particular" reputation. They are notable enough for their own WP article in fact. Musiqtone mis NOT "student generated" but WHO says that a STUDENT cannot ALSO be a paid staff member? As a student, I certainly held jobs. The claim is false anyhow, as only staff members (whose work is presented to/reviewed by editors) have articles published. These clearly aren't "anyone creating a website" for the sake of calling Paramore alt-rock. NME, Rolling Stone, MTV, etc. may have a reputation and history, but SO do the sites I've listed. Perhaps not as long, but that does not imply any less reliable, credible, or verifiable. As for your INCORRECT claim that musiqtone does not label Paramore as alt-rock, apparently you are missing the first sentence that says "If you have not heard of Paramore yet, you are lagging behind the up and coming rock/alternative scene." As for your claims about PopMatters, apparently you are also not reading where it clearly states that the band "Anything Matters" is in the league of other alt-rock bands (including Paramore). If you want to debate this, then be honest. This is beyond an "assuming good faith" issue in that you are flat out making up things. Wikiwikikid (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:V#Reliable sources "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This is the policy that applies. Sources are not 'discredited', the burden of proof is on the source to itself, it needs to be verifiable. They need to have a reputation, your word isnt good enough on it's own. "Musiqtone is an online music news & media website founded by two former students at Indiana's Purdue University in 2002" - from their own site history. It's a young site with no evidence of a reputation for accuracy. "rock/alternative" is not necessarily the same as alternative rock. It means rock or alternative. It's too ambiguous. Pop matters makes claims about Anything Matters. This article is not about them and at no point does the article say what you are claiming. Also brush up on civility. Your not going to do yourself any favours by making silly personal attacks and accusations. --neon white talk 02:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I still can't believe you are acting this way over this. Only one source is needed, it doesn't matter if the rest are reliable because the one in use is. Furthermore, Emo has so many sources because it is heavily disputed and has been for some time. Landon1980 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My point is that there should be consistency. Also, earlier in this conversation I was told that they wanted "more sources" to back up the alt-rock claims. Also, regardless of how heavily disputed a genre is (this one, quite obviously is as well) they should meet the same burden of verifiability. If alt-rock only requires one source, than so does emo. Wikiwikikid (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got done reading the section and your right, if alt-rock needs only one source then so should emo. However, I think we should have multiple sources for both of them, seeing as they appear to be the genres most disputed over. Furthermore, alternative can me more than just alternative rock, I'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying, it's easy to see how you could be accused of taking it out of context. Emo777 (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To all of the people who say they arent emo

Lets say If 50 cent says he isnt rap/hip hop/whatever sucky genre that shouldn't class as music, and that he is Thrash metal, do we believe him? No. If Paramore says they arent emo, they are (Whatever genre they say they are) do we believe them? -- PXK ^T /_C 15:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have independent sources saying something, then we go with what the independent sources say. The genres that are listed in the infobox right now are backed up by sources. That's how verifiability works. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Fox. Wikiwikikid (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

O.M.g... for god sake.. we are all EMO... everyone emote right??? and by the fact that, we all have emotions... so? i think in short, we are all EMO.. even if you don't wear and act like one as an EMO.. we are still consider as an EMO..^^ that's all.. mwah..<3..--Vanessa2403 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403,--Vanessa2403 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)2008November28

Livejournal as a reference

Reference number 35 is a link to Paramore's personal livejournal. Doesn't that present the same problem for what it references as does the band's own opinion as to their Genre? Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, but according to wp rs primary sources may be used for this type of thing. As a general rule primary sources are not to be used for evaluation or interpretation, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. Landon1980 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i think it should be removed under condition 3 of self-published sources in articles about themselves. This makes a claim about a third party. Plus there's no hint as to who wrote it. --neon white talk 21:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. I looked at the material and source rather quickly, failed to notice what you pointed out :). The main point I wanted to get across is how and when primary sources can be used. It appeared he was under the impression they could never be used. Landon1980 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It should not have appeared as such, as that was not my implication or my impression. Essentially, I agree with neon... Wikiwikikid (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

         O.M.g... for god sake.. we are all EMO... everyone emote right??? 

and by the fact that, we all have emotions... so? i think in short, we are all EMO.. even if you don't wear and act like one as an EMO.. we are still consider as an EMO..^^ that's all.. mwah..<3..--Vanessa2403 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403,--Vanessa2403 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)2008November28

Emo does not mean emotional, it's short for emotive hardcore... Cailunet^rawr 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Pop Rock

Paramore are also pop rock and I have references to prove it! [9] Besides it is their basic genres and can be applied to their less agressive, catchy songs such as [[Pressure (Paramore song|Pressure]!--RandomEnigma (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)PurpleRadish

Hey, I'm all for you adding it if you have the verifiable/reliable third party...blah blah blah! Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

They don't call them pop rock in the genre section. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How come you can no longer edit this article????!!!!!

Everyone should be allowed edit this article. There is no need to stop his article from being edited as it has not been vandalised badly!

It doesn't matter weather or not it was vandalised badly, the point is that it WAS vandalised. If people are going to edit without sources or discussion then they shouldn't be edit it anyway. Emo777 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

e-bay incident

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere about the incident where Hayley Williams' ex-stepfather tried to sell her old diaries on e-bay? I have the source for it http://www.mtv.com/news/article/1588991/20080609/paramore.jhtml [10] --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

i get a 404 error. --neon white talk 02:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So do I. Landon1980 (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for that. When I googled it however, the link was displayed on the results page and it worked just fine. Try this one then, because I tested it myself and it works fine.http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1588991/20080609/paramore.jhtml --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like this is particularly encyclopedic, but I'm not entirely opposed to it being included with proper in-text citation. I've certainly seen less notable events included in articles... I wonder though, if we include this, should we also include news such as the (false) rumors about her pregnancy/band breaking up? Link to rumors article Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes since it's in conjunction with everything else and it is notable considering it's the most amount of drama the band has been publicly subjected to thus far. If you see the Evanescence article you will also see the band's personal and public drama is included in there and their problems are no more notable than that of Paramore's. I think any Paramore fan or someone who's just plain curious about them would want that included, because I only found out this tidbit myself on Kerrang magazine's official website, though I didn't know if they would be considered a reliable source or not (which is why I decided to use MTV and VH1 instead). However, if Kerrang is ok to use, than here's the link: http://www2.kerrang.com/2008/06/hayleys_exstepfather_sells_her.html --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article are you wanting to put it? Landon1980 (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)ssipy

I'm a little concerned about the nature of the articles, they seem a bit 'gossip magazine' like and we have to be very careful about some of the accusations made as this concerns a living person. The MTV one is [11] --neon white talk 14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but mtv/vh1 are certainly verifiable/reliable third-party news sources. Perhaps it should worded to state that "according to MTV (or vh1 or whoever else) Williams claims that her step-father attempted to sell..." rather than stating it as a statement of fact (i.e. "Her step-father attempted to sell..."). Wikiwikikid (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't just some random, fabricated stuff I found on blogs or made up myself. It did happen, otherwise you wouldn't have statements coming from the subjects themselves confirming it and then reputable news sources publishing it. The incidents do belong in the articles if they are proven to be noteworthy and coming from reliable sources, so there's nothing gossipy about it. I understand you don't want anyone adding whatever crap they feel like adding to articles, neonwhite, but these are coming from proper sources and I'm not violating any of Wikipedia's policies. I am new here, so I try and follow the rules as closely as I can in order to improve this project without offending anyone. I am only making making a suggestion to improve this article, that's all. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's fine to include it if put in the proper context. I think this was neon's point. For instance, we do not know for a fact that her step-father did this. The article doesn't say that in fact. What the article DOES say is that she SAYS her step-father did this. If included, it should be included as such. Wikiwikikid (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then let's include it in the article. Problem is, I don't know how to edit.--Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ya, it's definetly true hayley talked about it on live journal and actually posted his cell phone number, i went on ebay and looked up the stuff and their it was, it leaked to perezhilton,mtv,vh1,and a few other news sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.26.39 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to incorporate this fact into the article or not? Anyone? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hayley said in a recent blog entry on Live Journal that Paramore will be recording one song for the soundtrack of the up and coming Twilight movie, based on the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwearconverse (talk • contribs) 20:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the REAL story behind these demos floating around?

Does anyone have ANY sourced info on the 5 "demo" songs floating around? They are: "Another Day", "My Number One", "Hello, Hello", "Just Like Me", and "Adore". I have been writing music for a long time and these "demos" are very well produced, they sound like a finished product and not like a demo. Most of the users on YouTube claim that these songs were written before their first album and some people have even suggested they were recorded for an abandoned Hayley solo-project. I'm looking for SOURCED info on these songs. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.239.59 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, youtube says their demos, they do sound rather proffessional.but they were probably done before the 1st album. I think we can agree that its not JUST hayley in the songs, the other current and previous band members are in these songs.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dboy05 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Work needed

with a bit of work this could be a candidate for good article status. The band member info needs sourcing if anyone has any. --neon white talk 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The information about each band member should be removed from the band page (DOB etc.), and a page should be made for each band member.--NotoriousTF (talk) 10:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:MUSIC to find out why individual members do not have their own pages. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Summary style explains when it is appropriate to split a subject into multiple pages. Due to the lack of sources and content it would be innapropriate here. --neon white talk 17:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Newer Picture?

The picture on the page from August 2007. Since this is a current band I think the picture should be more recent. Just a thought. Anyone got a newer/better one? User_Ein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.64.134 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, we could just get a new picture off of their website. They just updated with some shots from the Decode shoot. Sylfi (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

New video released on November 3rd?

That's not the case when I google "Paramore Decode video". I get websites showing a 30-second preview of the video, not the full-length video itself, such as on the MTV Buzzworthy Blog. I think that should be clarified in the Twilight Soundtrack section of the article until the full version is actually available. No longer an issue. Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC) --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Why was Emo removed

I haven't watched this article in a while, but why was emo removed? There are several reliable sources, it is verifiable. Landon1980 (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. I hope that it wasn't a problem that I used Twinkle, though. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The only mention of them being emo is in the categories. No where else on the page is it mentioned that they are emo. Your edit summary is "Do not remove cited genres or add genres without discussion, which is exactly what you did. Emo isn't sourced, some IP user just added it. I don't see where else emo is mentioned in the article or where it is sourced. If I'm looking over it, then please excuse me, but I used searched and nowhere is "emo" even mentioned on the page. Edit: besides the source "Socialite Life". How reliable is it? It's slogan is "Gossip is served"...looks to me like a gossip site to me...Fantasy Dragon (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, but if you look at prior discussions from above, the whole genre thing has been a subject of great controversy among editors, so I naturally assumed it was another case of "they're not emo!" going on. Landon1980 even mentioned that there were several reliable sources and he couldn't understand why emo was removed, (I guess those reliable sources were removed) so I had even more of a reasoning to restore it. I never added the genre, nor did I look at the source for it. I only undid your edit, that's all. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you will find in the Musical style and influences section that a music critic used the term emo to describe them. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I said that. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Fanboys/fangirls have been removing emo for moths now. I didn't see a discussion where consensus was to remove the genre so I thought I'd ask. I didn't realize it had just been removed or I would have reverted. In the past there were 3 or 4 sources for emo, one of them being a review from 'New York Times'. Finding sources for emo isn't the issue, the issue is all the IP's/editors who come on here and say "I DONT CARE WHAT THE SOURCES SAY THEY ARE NOT EMO, NOT EMO, NOT EMO, NOT EMO." Landon1980 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've dug out the sources, people need to watch the page for vandalism. I'm sure this is the same editors and sockpuppets that are removing it. --neon white talk 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, I removed it this time. I mean, if you can provide more sources then that's fine. I personally don't consider them emo at all, but if you have sources for it, that's fine. The only reason why I removed it was because in the infobox, "emo" was unsourced, and the only other mention of them being emo was one time from a gossip website. I don't have a problem with leaving emo in, I just think that it should be sourced better. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone, NME and the New York Time should be fine. --neon white talk 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, then add those sources. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I personally don't consider them emo at all" And that is the problem. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. Not to be rude, but your personal opinion has absolutely no relevance. How many sources do you want? All it takes is one reliable source, there are several sources for emo. Landon1980 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There more sources BBC, Female First. MTV UK --neon white talk 03:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. No one should ever be able to dispute the genre from here on out, not with any valid arguments anyways. I found a couple more reliable sources too, but 6 or 7 should be enough I'd think. I'm going to start watching the page again for unconstructive edits/vandalism/etc. Landon1980 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you weren't talking about me....my edit wasn't intended to be unconstructive or vandalism. I'm not accusing you of saying that, I just want to be clear about my edit. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said you intended anything negative when you removed emo, you are the one that said they were not emo to you. My point was regardless of who removes emo, or any other type of POV pushing, and/or other unconstructive edits need to be reverted. Some very reliable sources have called this band emo, hence it stays. It doesn't matter what anyone "thinks" or "knows." Just help us watch the article, because trust me there will be fanboys disputing emo in the near future. Landon1980 (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, that's what I was saying. I have been watching the article...Fantasy Dragon (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Adding Emo-Pop

Hey what do you think guys of adding Emo pop as a genre of Paramore? According to All Music Guide, and its Emo pop history, Paramore are one of the bands that popularized emo-pop music... here's the link ===> Paramore emo-pop Also click in Emo-Pop in the part of genres of Paramore, and you will see a review/history of that genre --Gas3191 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It'a a made up genre so no. --neon white talk 19:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I seriously think we need to protect (not semi-protect) this article. The info here is good, but people keep vandalizing it. I just undid some really badly coded vandalism, so yeah. Sylfi (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Editprotection

I would like this page to be unlocked to edit. Sure, it will stop vandalism, but somebody vandalized it and now there's no way I can erase it. So can you please unlock it? (talk)19:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You could always register for an account...Cailunet^rawr 02:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I did register for an account. It created my user and logged me in, but it still will not let me edit. Why? E-Pro 264 (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's semi-protected so only established users can edit it, which means something about having to make 10 constructive edits first. Hope this helps;; Cailunet^rawr 17:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are auto-confirmed after 4 days. Landon1980 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, really? Then... I'm not sure what I read. Cailunet^rawr 22:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about the 10 constructive edits, but I'm positive that accounts are auto-confirmed after 4 days. Landon1980 (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You probably are right; I haven't checked in a few months. Cailunet^rawr 05:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of emo AGAIN

This is getting ridiculous, you claim there is something wrong with one citation yet you remove the genre altogether??? Your edits are borderline vandalism. There are tons of reliable sources for emo, Rolling Stone, NME, Ney York Times, and many more meet WP:RS and definitively call them an emo band. If you have a problem with one of the sources find a different one, but emo stays, end of story. Landon1980 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have discussion backwards; you will need to gain consesnsus before you remove a genre with multiple reliable sources. Even then policy will trump consensus. Read over WP:VERIFIABILITY our opinions do not matter. Multiple reliable sources call this band emo, there is absolutely nothing to discuss. You put in your edit summory something about one of the sources, yet you remove all three references along with the genre. Blanking can be considered vandalism, policy and consensus say emo stays. Landon1980 (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, so all three sources are invalid? "It was invalid because there was no where on the page of the genre of emo being discussed" Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you are talking about, those sources definitively call them an emo band. Have you not looked at them? Landon1980 (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Look mate, im not going to argue or get into a revert war, If you look through the talk page you will find valid points, alot of people discussing they are not emo, and also if you listen to the music, jsut leave the genres as they are, I dont care whether it says emo or not its not worth getting frustrated over. Lets just forget about it :D --Casket56 (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you continue editing you need to read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONSENSUS. "Valid arguments" and "people saying they are not emo" mean absolutely nothing. What matters is reliable, third-party, sources say this band is EMO. Continued blanking of content backed by multiple reliable sources, and consensus will be considered vandalism and you will be reported. If you are out for the "truth" I suggest another website, one of our core policies is verifiability. Again, you are being disruptive, especially with your sneaky edit summaries i.e. "removing citation for emo" when in reality you removed the entire genre along with 3 reliable sources. If consensus and dozens of sources back something there is no point of discussing it, if you have a problem with that I suggest you start a petition to have WP:V rewritten or disregarded. You do not commit good-faith vandalism then ask others to discuss before cleaning up after you, that is not how it works. Please look over some of our policies before you go around reverting other material. "Listening to the music" and what "other ppl say" both constitute WP:OR Landon1980 (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

== Hey!!! ==

O.M.g... for god sake.. we are all EMO... everyone emote right??? and by the fact that, we all have emotions... so? i think in short, we are all EMO.. even if you don't wear and act like one as an EMO.. we are still consider as an EMO..^^ that's all.. mwah..<3..----120.28.194.54 (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Vanessa2403 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2008

Refused cited as influence

As the band use the Refused lyric 'We want the airwaves back' from the song Liberation Frequency in their song 'Born For This', it only seems right to me that this be included in their influences.

Terrorvision101 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you source your claims otherwise it's original research? --neon white talk 20:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm... they are a band. Bands play over the airwaves... it would be safe to say two bands would have the same line about that subject. Also, who's to say that they heard that song for sure? A favorite local band of mine (my hotel year) had the same lyric "we want the airwaves back, take 'em back, take 'em over". On the same note, how many pop/dance songs say something along the line "hey Mr DJ". I'm afraid all music is bound to repeat itself. Chord progressions, a lyric here and there, it's going to happen. ~ Ein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.64.134 (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Paramore is alternative punk, you can tell by her voice, and their style of play!! This should be understood.. -- Dboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.13.50 (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the album leaf, the band credits the song 'Liberation Frequency', but using a lyric and being influenced by a band don't necessarily correlate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Braceface2011 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Rock or Pop

why are they defined as a rock band when none of the genres are rock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.236.4 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

JEREMY DAVIS

As of today, Jeremy Davis is now 24 years old. That needs to be editted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.244 (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Video games

Anybody going to enter that "Misery Business" is featured in Volition's Saints Row 2 on my behalf?

Much appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazerSauber (talk • contribs) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)