Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

Just a point.

Check the Arsel & Thompson article (see ref in article) 4L14S (talk), 3:17 EST, Nov 30th.

Do hipsters call themselves hipsters?

Without getting back into last year's whole neutrality debate, here's a simple question: Is it common for hipsters to call themselves hipsters? I've only heard the term as a label others apply to people, usually as a derogatory term. If that is the main usage, the article should at least mention it. --Baumi (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, adding Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people Roidroid (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

From my personal experience, self-aware hipsters frequently adapt the term ironically. Remember that a great deal of hipster culture is ironically using terms and symbols to acquire authenticity through insincerity. Ironically embracing hipsterism itself is a perfectly valid expression, and there are many hipsters who go out of their way to embrace the stereotypical hipster look as a meta-joke, myself included. Of course, this runs the risk of being called a try-hard, but what can you do. --99.224.174.102 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no basis in the article for that categorization. "Hipster" is not the equivalent of "faggot," "nigger," "kike," etc. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't hipsters despised because they are "tryhards"? They're the new-wave preppy kids of the 90's. If you try to be cool (or ironic in being "uncool"), you're still just uncool and unoriginal... and furthermore, a tryhard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.138.249 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 5 October 2011

This article is good overall, but there are a few references that suggest to me it has been compiled largely by people who are not speaking from first-hand experience within the hipster subculture and thus are not aware of recent changes in trends.

In particular, the top summary paragraph is a bit lazy compared to the rest of the article. In one example, it seems to suggest that hipsterism is rooted strictly in 1990s musical tastes - while there are clear roots there, this is a gross oversimplification that deserves to be expanded upon briefly, even in a summary.

Swag.

StefanoBlack (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests aren't for general rewrites, but specific changes and additions that already have consensus or are unlikely to be controversial. Also, nothing in the article should indicate it was compiled by people who are speaking from first-hand experience, as all information should be sourced to third-party references. — Bility (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Getting a good article requires sources and first hand experience. Sourced and detailed suggestion will be surely added if you provide some. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article info should be sourced to third party references, however being written from a person with first hand experience should help with the validity of the page.Meatsgains (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Mr. Walling, I am not holding up progress, or whatever you said. You said the article "needs" a picture, and I disagreed, and then gave clear reasons why the pictures you have chosen seem inappropriate. And please do not tell me to "stop" unless you can point out how my edits are against policy. If you are so adamant that we need a picture, find one that is appropriate, and make a case for it here on the talk page. But self-identified "hipster" pictures are not, to my mind, appropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 20:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

While you're right that the picture represents one person's idea of what "hipster" can look like, the decision is up to the editors of this page to determine whether or not said photo adequately illustrates the subject. I think it does. Do you disagree? -- Irn (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, disagree. There are far, far better examples out there. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The picture is cool, and has a unique view point. However the page could use more pictures, can someone more famillair with the culture add pics to make the article more encompassing?Meatsgains (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A picture does not have a viewpoint, an editor might have one, and may add a picture to express that viewpoint, but the image is simply an image. In this case, it is self-serving. If a person can claim to be "x", take a picture of himself dressed in the manner that he thinks "x" dresses, post the picture on Wikipedia with the argument that this is how "x" dresses, and the picture is then added to the article about "x" as being legitimate, we have a problem. It is not simply up to the editors to decide that "said photo adequately illustrates the subject," it cannot be. The source and provenance of the image must be determined to be legitimate. In this case, I do not believe it is.

If one of the numerous sources used in the article had images, that would be a different story. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Bloodofox, I agree that we could do better, but I think this is better than no picture, and I think that the ironic mustache and flannel shirt illustrate part of the hipster aesthetic. But maybe would you prefer any of the other photos at the Norwegian entry?

RJ, how do you know this is self-serving? What makes you believe that the subject of the photo is the one trying to insert it into Wikipedia, and why do you believe that is self-serving? You state, "If a person can claim to be "x", take a picture of himself dressed in the manner that he thinks "x" dresses, post the picture on Wikipedia with the argument that this is how "x" dresses, and the picture is then added to the article about "x" as being legitimate, we have a problem." Where's the problem? If I dress up as a nurse or a footballer, etc., and post a photo of myself dressed that way to the relevant Wikipedia article, I see no problem with that (as long as I do it well and the other editors agree that my photo adequately represents the subject). Where does the problem come from? Or if I go to a nightclub or a wind farm, take a photo there, and post it to Wikipedia, do you see a problem with that? Why do the source and provenance need to be determined to be legitimate? What would a legitimate source look like? -- Irn (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

A legitimate source would be a third party who, in a reliable source, included a picture which he says accurately illustrates the topic he was discussing. In this case, as I said, one of the sources already quoted in the article. Not a self-portrait by a Wikipedia editor. And I do not like the idea of WP editors using their own judgment on this, it is simply too subjective.

Classic gangster outfits

I have already seen this sort of thing play out in really idiotic ways. The image at right was used to illustrate the gangster article, and this is the sort of thing I would like to avoid. These are not gangsters, these are douchebags. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Have been following this, and would not be comfortable with any of the pics offered so far. My objection could be summed up as, "says who?". A pic for the sake of a pic is not ideal. Irn's argument is weak and self serving and basically amounts to "if I see as so, then is it not so"? eh, No. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

RJ, I can see why you'd like a legitimate source like that for a photo for the same reason that we require information be verified by RSs in the text. However, the problem I'm seeing is that it strikes me as simply not feasible. If a photo appears from a reliable source, that photo is going to be copyrighted by that reliable source. There's no way we could claim fair use in that situation. In my experience, almost all non-fair use images are either user-generated, taken from a Flickr (or something similar), or have had their copyright expire. If we limit images to those from reliable sources, we pretty much limit ourselves to only fair use images and images of historical subjects. I think that is simply unreasonable. User-generated images and images released under a free license have a role to play on Wikipedia. I think it is up to us as editors to determine that role. In the examples I gave above, do you find it inappropriate that the articles use images with unclear provenance and/or that are not reliably sourced? If not, why not? My point here is that the question "Says who?" could be asked of pretty much any user-generated image or image taken from Flickr, and I don't see why this article is being held to a different standard.

And I haven't tried very hard to argue for its inclusion because I don't think it's that great of a picture. I just disagree with the grounds on which it is being excluded, namely that we need some form of legitimization for the image. I agree that we should have some method to determine whether or not this photo (or any) accurately represents the subject. I don't think we need to get the photo from an RS to do that because I think that places far too high a burden. I think it is up to us, the editors, to determine whether an image adequately represents the subject. Do I think relying on someone else to say, "Hey this is me being a hipster" is sufficient? Of course not. I, personally, judge the photo based on my own knowledge of hipster aesthetic, and the ironic mustache and flannel shirt are enough for me. While neither of those elements is mentioned in the article, I don't think it should be too hard to find an RS or two that mentions them in connection with hipsters. -- Irn (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Which all very nice but basically amounts to otherstuff exists. To side step, a fundemental prob with the article is that is lacks context - mentioning the beat generation off hand is not context, and at root the page is no more than a series of bitter vingets by baby boomers and disillusioned x generationers. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean up of the Critical Analysis section

I think that the content of this section is excellent: a great synthesis of many different, significant critiques. However, there is much cleanup to be done in terms of grammar and, for lack of a better word or phrase, general professionalism (eg. the last paragraph has in-sentence comments like "this last phrase is author X's best known phrase"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.56.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

I would like to edit the hipster page because I believe I have more information that you havn't shown on your page.

Jeffisabillygoat (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed--Jac16888 ^Talk 10:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)