Talk:Jimmy Eat World/Archive 1

Archive 1

Future albums

I don't know what you are talking about, but I added the name of the latest album.--Origami dragon 23:18, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• cprompt and Camembert felt it was pointless to listed "to be announced" (TBA) albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 09:05, 23 May 2003 (UTC)

---

The above refactoring dates from a time when edits to talk page conversations like this were more common. Here's the original conversation. Graham87 (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

What's the point of posting TBA? -- cprompt — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 19 February 2003 (UTC)

None that I can see. The 2003 album should be added to the list if and when it's released. I'm taking it out of the article. --Camembert — Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 19 February 2003 (UTC)

TBA stands for To Be Announced. -- Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.191.90 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2003 (UTC)

So? Post it when it's announced and released, and not before then.

--cprompt — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 29 March 2003 (UTC)

It was me. I added the To Be Announced recording by Jimmy Eat World -- No-Fx — Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 16 May 2003 (UTC)

My edit.

WTF?

There was nothing wrong with my edit of the Good To Go EP.

Why call it rubbish... thats just mean. -- 195.194.178.252

You copied the text off another article (via your browser) then just pasted it all as text. Seriously, you even copied and pasted the "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" from the top of the page, as well as the "Edit" Wiki editing links, and left it in there.

See for yourself, your edit: [1]

Now, compare to how it looks now: Good to Go EP

I understand if you're new to Wiki, but please learn the proper code techniques before starting an article. Pick a couple of long articles, click "edit this page", and do nothing but look at how the pages are written and how things are oriented. Your last edit of this page included several Wiki goofs.

Also: articles (a, an, the) and prepositions (of, on, to) are not capitalized in titles. (There are exceptions if the preposition is used adverbially, as in "Stay On" or "Hold On".) I know that people do it where they capitalize every word, but that's not the accepted standard. -- ChrisB 20:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, consider me told. But seriously, theres NO CHANCE of me ever learning proper code techniques... can't I just carry on doing crappy edits and let you clever people make the changes??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elwhy (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no way that Jimmy Eat World is emo.

Where the hell did that classification come from?

They were the preeminent emo band of the 1990s. You all do realize that emo existed before 2003, yes? When people talked about emo in the late 90s, the first name that came out of their mouth was Jimmy Eat World. Clarity was considered one of the defining albums of 1990s emo. Seriously, just go to AllMusic and read their bio and reviews, for crying out loud.

Jimmy Eat World is one of the main reasons that modern emo is what it is. Before them, emo was something drastically different. Jimmy Eat World turned mainstream and brought the word "emo" to a more mainstream sound. BTW, this is all entirely documented in the article for Emo (music). -- ChrisB 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Look, these classifications are bullshit, TRIVIAL, to say the least. **

---TOTALLY EMO!!! xx little anna 19:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They are Emo. Early Emo. However Early Emo is not a genre.--WhereAmI 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, but they were Emo and an early band in the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.65.47 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Their very old stuff was emo (a sort of "indie-emo"), but you cannot say the new material is even close to emo. They abandonned that style a long time ago. They're just alternative rock now. -- FatalError (talk | contribs) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up this discussion a bit, and I'm removing this emo nonsense from the article as it is uncited (saying the information in another article is not citing it).

The albums up to and including bleed american use emo as a genre but after that they are no longer emo EG the 3 most recent albums are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.150.149 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World (1994)

Why is this album not mentioned on the first part of the article? I just double checked, and it is mentioned, but not linked. I'll try to rewrite the paragraph.

.-Zingazin 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Emo Discussion

Tey another artice arguing over the tag emo. Why does the wiki community still continue to use it? "Jimmy Eat World were WIDELY considered the prominent Emo" The keyword there is "were" Nowadays Jimmy Eat World is no longer considered emo.DevelopmentArrested 22:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Genre" doesn't specify present day. -- ChrisB 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone were looking to get info. on the band, implying that they play emo music would give the wrong impression. DevelopmentArrested

How exactly does it give the wrong impression? Three of their four albums were specifically labelled as "emo", and many media outlets labelled Futures as "emo" as well.

Wikipedia is not the court of public opinion. It represents facts and histories. The "Genre" element of the infobox encompasses a band's entire career, not just the specific present. -- ChrisB 05:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To reply to this old comment I'm just going to say that the genre should tell what they are NOW with their latest album. For example, If AFI's infobox were to encompass their entire career it would list about 20 genres since the band changes with every release. And also infoboxes should only contain the most general genres which definitely doesn't include emo. So maybe I will just remove emo and some other genres and leave it as alt rock and hopefully solve this problem for good. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake... They're EMO. GET USED TO IT. Sheesh, people that complain about this annoy me. Should it matter if they're emo or not? No, it shouldn't so shut up.--punkromance 17:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The reason they're no longer considered emo is because all the bands,fanboys and girls are trying to distance themselves from the cliche that is emo.Regardless, Jimmy eat world, among so many other bands which insist they are just 'rock' ,'alternative' or 'hardcore' are emo bands and will always be remembered as so. 220.237.23.19 11:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to consider Jimmy Eat World emo, then why aren't Taking Back Sunday or Brand New labeled as emo on wikipedia? After all they have a lot more emotional styles than Jimmy Eat World. And JEW aren't entirely emo, even if they had a few characteristics similar to 90s emo bands like Sunny Day Real Estate, they are undoubtedly Pop Punk/Alternative rock now. As seen by songs like The Middle and they were in the heart of the 90s punk revival movement (toured with Green Day and Blink 182). Why are you people so hung up on calling them emo anyway?

ok. to the dude abov me talkin about how they hav influences from 90s emo bands. THEY ARE THE 90s EMO BAND that people would take influence from —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

-Also I've taken the liberty to say list emo as their early material. That way it satisfies the emo enthusiasts and pop punk/alternative rock enthusiasts. Its true anyway that Clarity had some emotional characteristics but the recent albums have had less.

Because the editors of those articles refused to allow Emo to be included in the infobox. That's not our fault or our problem.

"Early material" doesn't work in the infobox for several reasons. Mainly, it's not an accepted part of the infobox template. But, furthermore, what counts as "early"? It's POV, especially considering that Static Prevails, Clarity, and Bleed American have all been specifically called "emo". (Some reviewers labelled Futures that way as well.) There's no reason to split the difference.

And, no offense, but your version of events is a little bit of a historical rewrite. Jimmy Eat World have never been popularly considered part of any "90s punk revival movement" (assuming such a thing exists). Sonic similarity doesn't count - such a statement would need to be

attributed per Wiki guidelines. -- ChrisB 16:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright you have a good point. In my opinion they are generally alternative though. But if its wrong to put early material in the infobox why does it say that in Brand New's infobox? You guys gotta get on top of your game. As for the 90s punk revival movement you would have to be ignorant to say that did not exist. It was brought forth by Nirvana and the grunge movement who basically opened the gate for alternative artists like Smashing Pumpkins and Pearl Jam. Punk, being part of the alternative genre soon broke through with Green Day's "Dookie", NOFX's "Punk in Drublic", The Offspring's "Smash", Bad Religion's "Stranger Than Ficiton", etc. which were all popular albums in 1994. Thus followed by late 90s/early 2000s pop punk bands like Sum 41, Blink 182, SR-71, New Found Glory, etc. I would consider Jimmy Eat World part of these bands because in some situations they are listed as "pop punk". But whatever makes your wikipedia world flawless and happy is fine, I really don't care because I don't have to agree with it. unsigned comment

Just so u kno, a revival is when a genere starts up again. this so called "punk revival" in the 90s was more of punk-pop coming into the public, not a revival —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

To repeat my comment from above: Jimmy Eat World are definitely NOT emo. Come on people. Emo music reflects death and is a style in which the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good Wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Even Yellowcard probably has more emo in their music than Jimmy Eat World. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the emo article, the term "emo" is admittedly wrongly applied to many bands on wikipedi, but music does not have to reflect "death" to be considered "emo", you are confusing the “emo stereotype” with what is actually considered to be “emo music”. As well the genre was been thoroughly sourced in the article, and thus it should remain. Jacknife737 (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since only their early albums were emo, I noted that in the infobox. They have changed from emo without a doubt since a few years ago. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

They are still referred to as "emo" by several notable sources. Right or wrong, "without a doubt" is absolutely incorrect. -- ChrisB 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris B is obviously obsessed with referring to this band as emo so let him leave the little three letter, insignificant word on the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.253.184 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Eat World was not part of the 90's punk movement, they were a part of the 90's indie emo movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.118.197 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Their first single "The Middle" was not emo. It was pop punk. I don't really see how they were part of this "indie emo movement" you talk about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.137.84 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats because the Middle was in their album that was punk pop. The album Clarity and Static Prevails had indie emo elements in them. Although many confused people considered the album Bleed American emo, it was punk pop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.189.82 (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They have said before that they don't want to be lumped in with emo, so let's respect that and not include it in the genres. Rocker10000 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Emo is Emocore

Emo is Emocore! it's like: punk is the smallversion of punkrock! or hardcore for hardcore punk and alternative for alternative rock!

Emo did originally stand for emocore, but that stuff is almost completely different than the emo stuff you hear now. Emocore was hardcore punk with an emotion edge. Stuff like Jimmy Eat World definitely isn't hardcore punk.

Emo isnt emocore? Its 'Emotive Hardcore'. And Jimmy Eat Worlds earlier work is punk. And finally Emotive Harcore/Emo is a type of punk.

It's not "emotive hardcore". That term only came into popular usage in the last few years. Emocore was established as "emotional hardcore". The elitists in the current emo scene have patently ignored the history of the scene in favor of their own belligerence.

The term "emocore" largely fell out of popular usage in the mid-90s, and was almost entirely used to describe the 80s and early 90s emo bands. By the time Jimmy Eat World was associated with "emo", it was simply that: "emo". It wasn't "emocore". The terms are not exactly the same: all emocore is emo, but not all emo is emocore. -- ChrisB 00:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ive never really done anything on this site. but my question is if jimmy eat world IS emo....that is the term for the music....what would you label such bands as my chemical romance, sum-41, NEWER greenday, the used, AFI, and stuff like that? the eyeliner the gloves and gay hair?.............also what is the term or label or whatever the f- for bands like thursday, bayside, brand new and taking back sunday? i mean i'm like seriously genuinly curios as to what u guys think. i dont like to be the one to say that the whole emo scene today is extremely stupid, because you know i respect people and their right to a certain lifestyle. but come on....the stereotype thing....ive heard the whole 'cant spell crap without rap' and 'crock without rock' stuff. i hate seeing these pretentious people dressing up in black and growing their hair out, the make up and just the whole style man seriously. do you HAVE to paint ur nails black? what happened to the term goth? when did it become cool and trendy for the outcasts to put those stupid fingerless glove whatever the heck they are things on. i mean HOT TOPIC??? wtf. oh god im getting tooo crazy. im sorry. got a little to into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.32.150.109 (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

okay dude. none of sum41, any greenday, or AFI could really ever be considered emo, punkpop yes, but not emo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Emo stands for Emotional Hardcore. Hardcore = Hard, fast, heavy. Jimmy Eat World is not hardcore, and therefore, is not Emo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.30.153 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You got that from Fox News didn't you?

"Emo" doesn't stand for "Emotional Hardcore"; just "Emotional".

NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

But they were, at some point, so the tag BLOODY WELL STAYS, DISCUSSION OVER PEOPLE - savage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.2.214 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What? Do you really think the 1994 Self-Titled is Emo? Because none of their other works have any little bit of hardcore. The 1994 Self-Titled is the closest thing to it, but it still IS NOT HARDCORE. 189.110.235.175 (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg

Image:BleedAmerican.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 14:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clarity.jpeg

Image:Clarity.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Futures.jpeg

Image:Futures.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg

Image:StaticPrevails.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

my two cents

I disagree with their debut album being called an emulation of punk-rock influences. Is it being claimed that the album sounds more like The Sex Pistols and Ramones than late 80s/early 90s college rock like Husker Du's last album? "most major-label bands were ostracized from the underground as "sell-outs"" is a dubious claim. Most major label bands were ignored by the underground because the kind of music they played was irrelevant to it, however bands that had underground cred to begin with have never typically lost it for signing to a major. I disagree with the claim that Bleed American is a more emo-influenced song than A Praise Chorus. I assume this distinction is based on vocals? The vocal performance on Bleed American has no specific relevence to historical emo vocals styles, although it could be claimed to be "emotional". The chiming guitars and dynamics on A Praise Chorus however do have particular relevence to 90s emo playing styles. "Jimmy Eat World continued to be referred to as an "emo" band, meaning that the term "emo" began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 90s". Yeah, just like Sunny Day Real Estate being called emo in the 90s meant that the term began to describe something completely different and more mainstream than what existed in the 80s. I think the term "completely" is an exaggeration and should be removed or elaborated on. 149.135.107.165 18:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Liam

The contentious statements that you're concerned about are not currently sourced in the article; if no sources can be found to back these statements, they can and should be removed. Several do seem like plausible statements that a reviewer might have made, though, so it's possible that sources will be found. Of course, if there are sources that are in disagreement with these statements, those can be invoked to provide a balanced view, as well. Antelan ^talk 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Music videos?

I think the article could use a list of their official music videos. A lot of other band articles or discography articles have these and it is a helpful reference. That's what I was looking for but couldn't find one. Just a suggestion. --IllaZilla 18:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear....

They are emo (I guess) but I also would label them as post-grunge. Their newer material kinda reflects it. Plus I found a source. :DRaikiriChidori (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

They are definitely NOT emo. Come on. Emo music reflects death and the band wear makeup and cut themselves. I can't believe so many otherwise good wikipedia editors believe that all pop punk and alt rock bands are emo. This is completely false and too many people think it is true. Just listen to the band's newer music. It sounds completely different from emo and even from what most people think of emo as today. Calling this band emo is insulting them to the highest degree. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What, are you kidding? Before you criticize an entire, well-respected genre like that, at least know what you're talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.101.163 (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah who am I kidding? They aren't emo. I just said they were (I guess) as to not start an argument. Yeah, they're not emo, people. There is another genre in which emotional lyrics apply: post-grunge. If you don't believe me, read this article. It will convince you otherwise. RaikiriChidori (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You dont have to wear makeup and cut urself to be emo, and its not all about death. emo was first used to described emotive/emotion hardcore. emotions dont necessarily hav to be death related. at least kno what ur talkin about if ur gonna talk about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iandrummer204 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cutting yourself and wearing black has nothing to do with emo.you're just possesed by bands like my chemical romance and aiden.real emos aren't preppy or wear makeup or dress like a woman.jimmy eat world always looked normal.including when they were emo,but they aren't now.so putting 'early' in brackets after emo is very important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. Emo is short for emotive hardcore. www.emotivehardcore.com. LEARN before you argue.

Jimmy Eat World Genre

Hello, I believe the justification you gave for the removal of pop-punk as a genre for Jimmy Eat World is insufficient. I’m not debating whether or not the band is considered emo, in fact, if you check some of the article’s history, you will see that I have frequently fought for its inclusion. That said, I believe (and the source provided agrees) that Jimmy Eat World do have strong elements of pop-punk in their music. Several other band articles in wikipedia have various genres listed for the band (ie The Offspring, Green Day) Jacknife737 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you said about "emo" is irrelevant. Jimmy Eat World is not popularly recognized as a pop-punk band. Even if they were, you've got to find a better source than a negative (and poorly-written) review: WP:RS. Regardless, whatever pop-punk style they have fits comfortably under the umbrella of "alternative rock". -- ChrisB (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jimmy Eat World are popularly recognized as pop punk. I agree the source previously included was poorly-written and unreliable, but it doesn't matter if it's negative or not. We are supposed to be aiming for neutrality here. I added 2 reliable sources so it shouldn't be removed again. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ(^talk/_contribs) 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

First off, I would argue that Jimmy Eat World are in fact widely recognized as a pop-punk band. Secondly, Chart (magazine) is a prominent Canadian based publication, and I hardly think a single spelling error suddenly invalidates its content. Furthermore, there is nothing under WP:RS that should prevent the reference from being included within the article, Chart is a third party, published and relatively reliable source. Just because you do not like what the source says, does not mean that it is somehow invalid. Jacknife737 (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing if it were a Chart article about the band. But it's one guy's paragraph review of the album. That's not a reliable source. Plus, given Tim's sources, it's completely unnecessary. -- ChrisB (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with how it is, but ChrisB, I’d appreciate that next time you decide to move a comment of mine, you’d let me know afterwards. Take care, and happy editing. Jacknife737 (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with the guy at the top. Maybe they have a post-grunge sensability. 71.203.146.98 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The rewrite is COMPLETELY unacceptable

Seriously, this is among the worst rewrites I've ever seen on Wikipedia.

1) Many of the sources fail WP:RS. Songfacts is not a reliable source, and neither is CD Universe (among others). Furthermore, most of these cites are completely unnecessary. We don't need to cite that Static Prevails was released in 1996, as the information is not controversial and cannot be challenged for veracity.

2) The rewrite contains incredibly poor grammar, with countless run-on sentences. Honestly, it reads like somebody's grade eight English assignment.

3) The rewrite contains several POV statements, such as "with British new-comers Hard-Fi replacing unfortunately Simple Plan", "the band performed at one of the largest gigs the United Kingdom has ever seen" (unlike every other band that has filled Milton Keynes), etc.

4) The rewite also contains several statements that are COMPLETELY FALSE. Clarity was not a "big hit" - it wasn't even successful. Capitol didn't promote it, and dropped them a few months after its release. And Jimmy Eat World never had a deal with Drive-Thru Records - they released the self-titled EP on Fueled by Ramen.

Worst of all, the rewrite was completely unnecessary. Everything in the article as it currently stands is factually accurate (and is siginificantly more detailed than the rewrite). The problem is that it's mostly unsourced. The correct course of action is to add cites for the existing material, not replace it with a wholly inferior new version. -- ChrisB (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Adkins' Death

I've found no information online that he was killed in a car accident on April 18. I was in Des Moines for the show, and if no source can be found confirming his death, it should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenwayNation (talk • contribs) 00:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand!!

Can someone please tell me why people consider Jimmy Eat World "Emo"!? Usually people are ignorant and classify a band's genre as "Emo" simply if they wear black and/or have hair in their face, but they don't. Which means they must actually be listening to their music. But I still don't understand. Their music is pretty upbeat. If music doesn't have emotion in it, then it must be sang by robots or machines. Even the heavy metal bands that hate "Emo" have emotion in their music-- anger.

NewYorkStyledCheesecakes (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking the editors and journalists of the New York Times, Village Voice or Rolling Stone would be the only way to know that. --neon white talk 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

---Jesus fu*king christ, "emo" existed before 2003 people, actually dating back to the early to mid-80's. In any case Jimmy eat world certainly fit the description of "emo" as it was in the mid to late 90's, the cliched term since has pretty much NOTHING in common with the genre of old. Christie front drive, Mineral, Chamberlain and dating back to the DC sound was "emo" All the makeup wearing cookie-cutter garbage you hear today may carry the tag "emo" but certainly IS NOT.----outintheRED (not signed in)

No crap, of course they're not emo in most of our eyes. Just the people that matter, the journos, "experts", all label them emo, so there's not much we can do. kiac (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

They were, in fact, always known as an emo band in the mid nineties. Both the band and emo may have moved in different directions but they are still considered a major emo band. --neon white talk 12:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe how much of a fight is being put up against Jimmy Eat World being called Emo. Clarity is considered, according to the article, a landmark album to modern emo. Regardless of whether they are anymore, or how emo has evolved, they were at the forefront of emo for years, before it became a derogatory term. And if emo hadn't evolved, Futures would still be widely considered an emo album. And an awesome one at that. 136.181.195.10 (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

claimed influences from other bands

I've noticed that a huge number of bands (pop punk, indie, punk, etc) have claimed that they've been influenced by Jimmy Eat World. I think this should be added. Saying that they influence a lot of today's younger bands is a big compliment and probably interesting information to readers.

Jmh010 (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Boring Article

This article used to be lengthy and jam packed with information, now it is just absolute basic stuff you can find on their website and in their fan base. This isn't some small band that does gigs in their neighborhood! These guys have a platinum album and a gold album out, that's an accomplishment! The first section has one short sentence, that's it! Put some detail into this, make people want to be interested by this page and this band!--Samushi101 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a lot better with the new change!--Samushi101 (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I was just going to say when i read this last week, you should be bold and make some changes yourself, i know it's dissapointing when an article loses it's touch because of vandalism, etc. But the only way it gets fixed is if someone puts in, sitting on the sidelines criticising doesn't work. Well it did here cause it spurred me to write the lead ;) Actually i've just seen that the lead was partly deleted, i might look into incorporating that back into the article. Sweet. kiac (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirection

The articles on Jimmy Eat World's band members have been deleted and redirect to this page, why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Read wikipedia's policy on the Notability of things related to music and bands, it reads: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article.". kiac (talk) 08:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Emo-Pop

A new genre? All Music Guide: Emo-Pop Or a way to separate the new emo bands from the old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.61.168 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

yes,but jimmy eat world were one of the old.i would hardly consider their 2000's stuff anything like fall out boy or my chemical romance.--Nirvanarox55 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Emo-Pop is a genre. Jimmy Eat World is not Emo-Pop. Shan (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Splits

how come the discography doesn't have a section for jimmy eat world's many splits.they're even referred to in the split record article about they're releases.all the other indie/emo bands had a section for them so why not jimmy eat world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarox55 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This page only shows general discography information - Studio albums, because they are the main releases. A more specific look at JEW's releases can be viewed here: Jimmy Eat World discography. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 13:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What about Post-emo?

I mean that's what their old stuff really is, not as much Emo. Like really, why isn't Post-emo on this website? It'd cover bands like Cap'n Jazz and stuff too.

Why EMO?

Emo because multiple, many multiple reliable sources, have said this. It is not up to us to go "No, no, my favourite band is not emo, it's gonna wreck my cred and rep bros!" Wikipedia requires us to use what they say, so that's what we will do. We're not making up crappy genres just to tend to someones need for more freaking categorisation and diversity. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Was that a reply to the post-emo thing? Because post-emo is a real genre that consists of the more indie sounding emo rockers of the nineties like Cap'n Jazz and Texas is the Reason. I'm somewhat suggesting that a page be made for it, although its not that widespread of a genre. However there are other less-known genres on Wikipedia. And calling them emo is not wrecking real anyone's cred, its just not really their genre. I can't really make a stub on post-emo though, i don't know enough about it, so i guess this somewhat a plea, someone make a post-emo page please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.29.189 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ja-90 telecaster

Jim adkins custom tele model aught to be in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.245.217 (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Rock/Emo Label

Pop rock seems unneeded, as power pop is a subgenre of pop rock. And most of their pop rock songs do fall into power pop.

Also, Jimmy Eat World should have final say on "emo", and they say they aren't: http://rockdirt.com/jimmy-eat-world-cant-shake-emo-tag/11875/. They don't consider themselves an emo band, so we should respect that and not include it the genres. I'm removing "emo" from the infobox on all Jimmy Eat World pages. Rocker10000 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm reverting your mass genre changes. Numerous reliable sources classify Jimmy Eat World as a leading emo act. Statements by the band that they don't care for that label are irrelevant: the fact remains that numerous critics and music journalists place them in that category. The very source you cite is titled "Jimmy Eat World Can't Shake Emo Tag". Please do not make mass changes to genres based on your own point of view. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I must say it's relevant. The most reliable source is the band itself. They say they aren't emo, and don't want to be lumped in with it. It's not just based on my point of view. It's based on theirs, and the one that should be considered the music. It's not like their claiming to be a polka fusion band or something like that. They are just claiming that they aren't emo. That's not necessarily something that is obviously not true. Plus, if you look, emo was originally a subgenre of hardcore punk. I think we can all agree that Jimmy Eat World is not a hardcore act. And your argument about the genres, they might consider themselves a rock group but they never said anything against alternative rock, pop-punk, power pop, or whatever else people are calling them. They just don't consider themselves an "emo" band. They never said "we never considered ourselves an alternative rock band", so a reliable source can remain reliable, but Jimmy Eat World is the most reliable source you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocker10000 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, it does not matter if the band dislikes being called emo. That is completely irrelevant. The most reliable sources are reliable secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Numerous such sources (music journalists, critics, historians, etc.) have described Jimmy Eat World as emo and have commented on their importance to the genre. Andy Greenwald, for example, followed the band on tour for his book Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo and devoted an entire chapter to them. Genres are generally applied by secondary sources such as critics and music journalists, not by the artists themselves, and you cannot refute the fact that numerous such sources have over the years categorized Jimmy Eat World as emo. If you read the emo article, you will learn that although it originated from hardcore punk in the 1980s, its style and definition have shifted and evolved over time. Most emo artists today (and even in the '90s) were not hardcore bands, but that does not refute the fact that they are/were considered emo by critics, journalists, and historians. You (and the band) are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Six or Seven Studio Albums?

The article mentions that there are seven studio albums (where the article Jimmy Eat World discography claims that there are six). I am not sure, if we should count the self titled or not, allmusic.com does not list it officially. Cekay1 (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the other article is incorrect as, prior to the release of Damage in June 2013, seven albums have been released by the band. I will look at the albums article.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! --Cekay1 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section

I have reviewed and edited the Lead section, as some of the content was not suitable; however, none of the information has been lost, as I have merged the unsuitable content into the relevant sections in the main body of the article.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jimmy Eat World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVD5BabK?url=http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Jimmy%20Eat%20World%22 to http://riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?artist=%22Jimmy%20Eat%20World%22
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BVD82vkD?url=http://intunemusiconline.com/2009/03/24/jimmy-eat-world-reubens-accomplice-nyc-223/ to http://intunemusiconline.com/2009/03/24/jimmy-eat-world-reubens-accomplice-nyc-223/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jimmy Eat World. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713051020/http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/11/30/jimmy-eat-world-finish-mixing-album-now-mastering/ to http://www.underthegunreview.net/2012/11/30/jimmy-eat-world-finish-mixing-album-now-mastering/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105024007/http://jimmyeatworldonline.com/jimmy-eat-world-sign-to-rcadine-alone-records/ to http://jimmyeatworldonline.com/jimmy-eat-world-sign-to-rcadine-alone-records/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206053921/http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html to http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Paste comments cut from the previous article talk page, posted before the redirect was emplaced

Dubious claim removed

I removed:

He is famous for wearing the same style of black top for each live show.

I see lots of pictures of him at shows on the web, and I don't see any consistent style of dress. Is there a reference for this claim? -- Beland 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He actually does pretty much wear the same thing almost every concert. I've seen them live 3 times spread out over a 3-4 year period, purchased a DVD, and seen several live videos of him with the same black short sleeve button up shirt. You do have a great point though, there's really no references to back it up. I've even spoken to him about it on the official forums, but that's hardly a reference. Jerolin 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone listed him as being in an "American Boy Band". Anyone who has ever heard even one song by Jimmy Eat World can tell you they hardly fit in the same genre as the Backstreet Boys or Nsync, so I changed it Jerolin 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If you actually listened to their first album from 1994 you'd know that they clearly aren't a boyband--86.43.217.185 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

66.96.211.167 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I herd he's jewish. i read in rolling stone mag. adn on the itnernet illl find the site after my heart surgery

I'm pretty sure he's not Jewish, he writes and does a few covers of christmas songs, such as 12.23.95, and Last Christmas.--Samushi101 (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206053921/http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html to http://www.studentbeans.com/advice-hq/music-03/interview-jimmy-eat-world720.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)