Talk:Beatnik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Culture (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Beatnik vs. Beat Generation[edit]

Could the authors working on this article please go and look at the page Beat Generation? Can you tell me what the point is of having this article as a separate page (as opposed to an automatic re-direct to the Beat Generation page)? It's looking to me like it's gradually turning into a duplicate of the page, albiet with less information about the original Beat writers. -- Doom 02:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but...[edit]

can anyone just tell us what a beatnik is??

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.4.125 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I second this question - it looks like someone deleted the introductory paragraph and went straight into etymology. And judging by the discussion below, this has been an issue for over a year. Should be merged into Beat Generation? Mosmof 06:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, lead paragraph fixed. The problem with this article is that the original writing was done by someone who mistakenly believed that beatniks were real people rather than media caricatures. Thus, when I did a total rewrite, I found it difficult to make changes because that attitude permeated every paragraph. The article still needs a direct quote from Kerouac's "Origins" PLAYBOY article in contrast with a description of Roger Corman's A Bucket of Blood (1959). Discussion below makes it clear why it should not be merged. Pepso 11:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The way I would put it, is that the original article here was intended to be "pro-beatnik", and now it's veering toward the opposite pole. Myself, I think the issue is more complicated. I don't doubt you could find people who called themselves "beatniks", and who are we to call them inauthentic? To deny that "Maynard G. Krebs"-wannabes had a large impact is to rewrite history. (I'm a proponent of merging this material into Beat Generation, and making beatnik a re-direct). -- Doom
Thanks. I actually came here looking for an explanation for beatnik, and your edit helps a lot. Though I think it still needs to be broken up into sections to make it more digestible, I appreciate the work you've put in. Mosmof 11:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was starting to think this was all a lie. I'm not sure if their steriotyping the beat generation though, it could be a derogitory term. I'll look into it. Unforgotten 04:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that the beat generation refers to a small group of writers and poets who chronicled the movement and the era, whereas the beatniks are the literary figures together with the artists, musicians, and people they chronicled. It's a pretty important issue to the social history of the United States and perhaps the world, having given rise to (or at least being somehow related to) the emergence of hippies, drug culture, avant garde music forms, etc. This all gave rise to the public perception, stereotype if you will. If the article fails to convey that it should be updated and properly sourced -- Wikidemo 12:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this is not "pretty clear" to me. "Beat Generation" was the original name given to the trend by the people who identified (and perhaps helped to create) the trend. Their claim was that they represented something new that was going on, and the name for it mutated into "beatnik", which originally was certainly a derisive term -- it's not clear to me it was always derisive though. Anyway, my point is that the distinction you're making is reasonable enough, but it's a distinction applied after the fact, a new set of definitions for older terms. -- Doom 21:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any beatnik photographs?[edit]

I followed a link from Yves Saint-Laurent, talking about how he was known for popularizing the 'Beatnik' look. I would like to see some photographic examples that encompass the 'Beatnik' look.

-User:Oblio Sept. 9, 2004 21:43 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with and redirected to the 'Beat generation' article[edit]

This article did not contain anything that was not present at Beat Generation, and frankly, I don't see how it ever could...if not for the programming language, I would have preferred a simple redirect to Beat Generation.

-Ferkelparade 12:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The slew of links to the page all seem to refer to the Beat Generation meaning; what I suggest is a redirect to Beat Generation and one of those notices there saying "Beatnik redirects here. There is also a programming language..." If anyone objects to this, say so now or forever hold your peace.
-Deltabeignet 22:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I object to it very strongly.
(On the other hand, it could be I didn't understand what was being said very well... now I don't see much difference between what "Deltabeignet" was proposing and what I'm saying below -- Doom 21:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC) )
I'm one of the authors of the Beat Generation page, and (1) I really don't like having a remark about an obscure programming language being the first thing someone sees on the page; and (2) many things are discussed in the Beat Generation page besides the term Beatnik... you need to read really far down the page in order find the discussion of the "Beatnik Stereotype". This has already created some confusion where another author came by and decided that we really needed the bit about Herb Caen inventing the term Beatnik in the first paragraph, even though this repeats material further down in the article.
What I would suggest is to leave the page "Beatnik" in place as a disambiguation node, included the cross-reference to Beatnik. Don't automatically re-direct from Beatnik to Beat Generation. If we've got to repeat the Herb Caen bit, we might as well do it on another page.
I'm afraid I don't understand how these redirects work well enough to fix the thing myself... it looks a lot to me like it should skip automatically down to the sub-topic The Beatnik Sterotype, but instead it points at the top of the Beat Generation page, which is a big part of the problem in itself.
- Doom July 4, 2005 23:39 (UTC)

'Beatnik' is a derogatory term, am resetting redirect to point to 'Beatnik' subsection of 'Beat generation' article[edit]

I, for one, am of the belief that referring to a member or disciple of the Beats as a "Beatnik" is quite derogatory. The definition of Beat is detailed sufficiently in the Beat generation article, but a Beatnik is the type of person who followed the egregious stereotypes of the culture presented in the mass media for the sake of trendiness and/or superficial style. The type of people that hounded Jack Kerouac into the solace of the bottle, and thereby a tragically early grave. My weak side despises this kind of person, fervently. For the sake of respect, if nothing else, I've changed this redirect to point to the subsection on Beatniks within the main Beat Generation article (even though redirection to an anchor is not correctly implemented in Wikipedia}.

-69.226.120.209 June 11, 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I fixed the link so that it goes to the subtopic: it needed to be in "canonical form", i.e. "The_Beatnik_Stereotype". Currently there is no mention of the "Beatnik programming language" in the landing pad at that point though... maybe I'll get around to "fixing" that later (I still think a disambiguation page might be better than this redirect).
-Doom July 5, 2005 11:18 (UTC)

Rationale for reinstating article[edit]

I agree with the discussion immediately above about how the term beatnik was originally intended to be derogatory, but I think that just as the term 'yankee doodle' was originally intended by the British to be derogatory, what was later done with the term remained up to the 'yankees', who seem to have done quite well with it thank you. So I believe that the term 'beatnik' need not be shunned, but merely accepted and moved on with. Accordingly I have now reinstated this article as a Wiki article, removed its status as a mere redirect, and I have rewritten the article to attempt to better clarify the distinction between communism and beatnikism, whatever that is....

I think that this article on beatnks deserves its own dedicated article, as the term looms so large in popular vernacular usage. As such, it seems to me that an article that serves to clarify the meaning of the term might be of value to some, especially if it might delineate the differences between the beatnik philosophy and the communist philosophy.

-Scott P. 18:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But you haven't succeeded in adding any information that wasn't in the original squib that I wrote inside the "Beat Generation" article. There's a weak connection to the "Beatles" in there, and a *really* dubious assertion that Yoko Ono is seen as a beatnik... otherwise it's a lot of words that don't say too much, if you ask me. Oh, and you used the phrase "anti-materialist" a lot, which could be played up in "Beat Generation" if you're really interested.
I guess I'm not *entirely* opposed to having this as a second page, I suppose... it may help alleviate the tendency to bloat the original "Beat Generation" page, but on the other hand I'm not going to be happy if this node siphons off material that really should go over there.
The distinction between beatniks and beats seems awfully small to try and justify a second page. You're worried that people might confuse beats and commies? This strikes me as being an issue that dies along with communism. And anyway, some beats really were commies, of a sort.
Maybe a page on "beatnik fashion"? That might make some sense. As it is most of this article is redundant with what's in "beat generation".
-- Doom 02:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The main reason that I see a need for two separate articles is the difference between the popular image of what beatnik means, and the actual beat generation school of thought. Trying to merge this article with the article about the Beat generation would seem to me to be like trying to merge the Hippie article with a New Age Thought article. I do agree that detailed information about the actual Beat generation belongs only in that article, and only a very brief summary of this type of information would seem to belong here.
I didn't know Yoko Ono considers herself to be a beatnik. Also, I looked for evidence of actual beatniks that were commies and wasn't able to find any. I'd like to know who you might be referring to. I did see one reference to Ginsberg being called a commie, but nothing in Ginsberg's writings accepting that title. Thanks for your thoughts and suggestions.
-Scott P. 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I came to this article after typeing in "beatnik" as opposed to "beat generation", because I was not aware there was a difference. I found the article to be informative and quite well written. I fail to see any good reason for it's deletion; I actually came to this talk page specifically to comment on the article's unusually high quality. Snowboardpunk 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, this article is not in bad shape at all, but it remains somewhat redundant with the material in Beat Generation. If this article did not exist as a separate page, what would've happened to you is that you would've been redirected automatically to the "Beat Generation" page, which currently introduces the word "beatnik" in the first sentence, and includes an internal link downward to material on the subject.
Sorry if that explanation isn't clear -- the main point is that either way, we've got you covered. Myself, I'm still an advocate of merging the material here into the "Beatnik" section of the "Beat Generation" page, but that doesn't mean I think the material here is bad and deserves to be deleted. -- Doom 06:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a better image we could use?[edit]

The picture from Zig Zag cigarettes has nothing to do with the Beat movement. The man depicted on Zig zag products is a French soldier known as a Zouave, and is used because the Zouave is credited with inventing the cigarette.


The old zig-zag image that was a bereted and bearded dude did seem to me to be at least somewhat representative of a beatnik, however, working on your suggestion, I have replaced it with what is probably a more representative image. Namely a cartoon portrayal of a beatnik. Thanks for pointing out the need for a better image.
-Scott P. 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Pare back down to a disambiguation page?[edit]

Having read the above discussion... I agree with the arguments against maintaining this page separate from Beat Generation, not because of any past or present perjorative connotations (we have a page for nigger after all), but simply because the information is mostly already there, and might as well be centralized there, until the Beatnik section is big enough to bud off on its own. So, I wonder if anyone has an argument against this being a disambiguation page, something like:

Beatnik may refer to:

{{disambig}}

Some of the current contents of this page could be merged into Beat Generation, but a lot of it is just attempting to summarize information that's more well-covered there already. Opinions?
-GTBacchus(talk) 19:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

GTBacchus,
You are correct that much of the information in this article is duplicated in the Beat generation article, however much of it is not. It seems to me that the etymological explanation of the different derivations and connotations of the words beat, vs: beatnik is an explanation worthy of its own article, and that these types of information would probably have to be mostly deleted if a merge were attempted. Also, the term, beatnik seems to me to have a certain popular iconic status, which seems to me to also show the merit of this separate article here about the word's etymology and popular meaning, cross-linked with, but not merged with, the Beat generation article.
Thanks,
-Scott P. 03:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I disagree with this: "It seems to me that the etymological explanation of the different derivations and connotations of the words beat, vs: beatnik is an explanation worthy of its own article". I think that in order to explain what beatnik means, you've got to back up and explain what beat generation means, which means you're stuck with a bunch of duplicated material. Myself, I don't see why there shouldn't be a discussion of the different senses of the meaning of beatnik over in the Beat Generation page. In point of fact, Scott P started this page with material that I wrote for Beat Generation (e.g. Herb Caen, etc). -- Doom 21:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What this article is about[edit]

I'd have to agree with the earlier suggestions that "Beatnik" be merged as a subset of "Beat generation", if for no other reason that that this article seems more about the coinage of the term than about the stereoptype itself. And since the stereotype isn't really the point of the beat movement, but simply an essentially made-up media idea that was then assimilated as pop-culture iconography, it probably would make sense to discuss it simply within the context of the beats in general.

However, this entry with some trimming could be put in the category of word etymology, so that, with a name change (and I'm afraid the etymology category isn't my beat, so I don't know its Wiki conventions), it becomes about the word not the stereotype, which might best be discussed under Beat generation. Thoughts? — Tenebrae 21:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with reporting on iconography, which, admittedly this article does. For example, to create an article on iconography itself, or the making of actual religious icons in the Eastern Orthodox Church, may not have much to do with early Christianity, but it would have much to do with the society of the Eastern Orthodox Church. To delete or merge such an article merely because it would not have much to do with early Christianity itself would seem to me to be a mistake, well intended though it might be. Likewise to delete this article about the iconography of the Beatnik movement and the etymology of the term, simply because that iconography has little to do with the original Beat Generation philosophy would seem to me to be a mistake as well.
-Scott P. 18:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs must be a joke.[edit]

The etymology of the word 'Beatnik' contradicts the explanation offered in the 'Beat Generation' article, which explains it as a combination of the word 'Beat' used by the beat poets, and the '-nik' suffix used to insult them by implying communist sympathies. Where did this whole string of older words come from? All these assigned meanings to 'dig' and 'cool', is this page intended for Uncyclopedia? -user:207.190.229.94 March 31, 2006

I agree. All the statements detailing Cornish or Irish etymologies need sources very soon. I'm assuming good faith; otherwise I would've removed the statements immediately and possibly archived them here on the talk page. Google for beatnik bennek does not impress me at all. The passages that I question span several edits from 2006-03-23 03:06:51 UTC to 2006-03-26 03:03:10 UTC. --Officiallyover 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Word-of-mouth documentation not enough for Wiky[edit]

I have removed the undocumented etymology references. The fact that the references themselves stated within them that they were undocumented and only verbal was enough for me to assume that they were what Wiky defines as original research and therefore not suitable as Wiky content.

-Scott P. 23:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatnik Communist connection[edit]

This article needs to be revised. Marxist-Leninism is a materialist philosophy. And I don't mean in the "spiritual" sense as this article implies. -User 68.236.5.240 19:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain exactly what you mean here. Would you be able to point out exactly which wording of the article you think could be improved? (BTW, if you sign your entries with a dash followed by four tildes like: -~~~~, then Wiki will automatically fill in your user info and the date for you.) Thanks, -Scott P. 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing, the article on wikipedia about Materialism goes into detail about it. Marxist-Leninism is a materialist philosophy, it doesn't have a problem with Consumerism other than it being a perpetuation of the Capitalist system by commodity fetishism, it is not anti-materialistic like in Beatnik culture and as such is not based on spiritual grounds. The thing Beatnik culture has in common with Marxist Leninism is its subversiveness to the status quo in a Capitalist country.--68.236.5.240 02:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Organisation[edit]

I think this article should be sorted into categories as it is just one and has become to long for an introduction

Communism[edit]

"This connection is questionable because of the distinctly spiritual element of the beat philosophy, as contrasted with the anti-spiritual views in Marxist philosophy."

This quote suggests communism is solely based around Marxism. In reality, communism was a wider school of thought that included Marxis, but continued to exist around it. There have been Christian Communists and New Age Communist societies in the past, both of which contained strong spiritual elements. It's misleading to suggest that being spiritual prevents one from being a communist. I would like to delete the above quote from the article.

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebeatniks.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Thebeatniks.jpg 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 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 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatbeatbeat.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Beatbeatbeat.jpg 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 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 20:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Shaggy[edit]

There really needs to be a mention of Shaggy, a la Scooby Doo. I'd assume he's the image of Beatnik most people picture (some older people may picture Maynard G Krebbs, or younger people Flanders' parents.) Still, Shaggy is a universal symbol of beatnik-ism... --Mrcolj 14:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Beats...[edit]

I have always thought of them as stylish Proto-Hippies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.142.6 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BeatGenerationLOC.jpg[edit]

The image Image:BeatGenerationLOC.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does not meet Wiki Standards[edit]

The introduction reads like a highly opinionated essay. Or, the writer is a beatnik who is just pulling the reader's leg. Either way, it does not belong in Wiki. Jrgilb (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to be an original research with personal theses and not an article for an encyclopedia. The first two sections could be erased with no loss of content at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.135.251.181 (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"two sections": The opening has been carefully constructed with specific references to show Kerouac's attitude and then jump immediately to how Johnson (Kerouac's friend) and Charters (Kerouac's biographer) perceived the intrusion of Madison Avenue marketing. These paragraphs are so positioned to establish historical facts as a basis for what follows. "original research with personal theses": Many hours have gone into the research for this article to find quotes by authorities on this subject, and these are all referenced. Further evidence is indicated in the choice of visuals. Pepso2 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In it's current state (October 24, 2008), the one sentence lead doesn't say anything at all, and a glance at the article shows it remains substantially redundant with the Beat Generation article. What justification can there be for having this as a separate article, rather than a re-direct to Beat Generation? I know I've asked this question before, but no one seems to have an answer. -- Doom (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Doom. This article says nothing that cannot be said, or is not already said, in the main article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
To clarify: The two June 13 comments were written BEFORE the opening was altered to the "one sentence lead". The earlier opening (as noted above) was carefully assembled to show that the media construct of "beatnik" and the literary movement were two distinctly different things. To fix, I have reinstated a slightly rewritten version of the original opening paragraphs.
I'm quite certain that if this "beatnik" article is ever merged with the other article, the distinctions and differences will be blurred almost as if you ran a wet sponge over the paragraphs. If you go back through the "history," you will see that the early info here was just that sort of blurring (leading to quite a bit of confusion). Then go step-by-step through each change in the history to see how dozens of contributors stepped in to piece together this jigsaw puzzle that sits on a different shelf from the article about the literary movement. Pepso2 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
... the media construct of "beatnik" and the literary movement were two distinctly different things. The media construct grew out of what the literary movement was talking about, and the literary guys in turn reacted to the media constructs (e.g. Kerouac adopted James Dean retroactively). This sharp distinction that you see does not at all strike me as being all that sharp -- which is why this "beatnik" article keeps threatening to turn into a clone of "beat generation". It's very difficult to avoid speaking about them together. -- Doom (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
" threatening to turn into a clone of "beat generation".": Actually, that was the starting point. If you go back in the history, you will see a huge overlap in which no distinction was made between "beatnik" and "beat". That was so askew that it was very difficult to rewrite, but I did so over a period of two years, off and on. It was necessary to seek out quotes from Charters, Johnson, Ginsberg etc. that would clarify. The recent alteration of the opening paragraphs diminishes the effectiveness of the carefully structured opening designed so it would NOT be similar. Ginsberg's reaction to the Madison Avenue intrusion pretty much sums it up. Pepso2 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Objectivity?[edit]

The opening paragraph seems to be lacking it.

165.134.209.174 (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The opening paragraph in its current form reads like something generated by those gibberish advertising mass-mailers in an attempt to evade a spam filter, but from what I can tell it seems to have a condemnation bias. Calling a social discourse a 'misrepresentation' in an encyclopedia needs to be immediately cited, which is not the case here. 122.49.168.102 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatniks in theater, films and animation section...Daria[edit]

Just now I took this garbled sentence out from the end of this section. AS I quote it here I have already removed a whole lot of mostly incorrect markup:


"List of Daria characters#The Morgendorffer family, Quinn Morgendorffer from MTV's Daria, Daria exhibits clique behavior and changes her appearance in one episode .ref http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0762839/ ,"Quinn the Brain"


If anyone can make sense of this and it appears to be relevant please put it back in. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)