Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

Stereotypes

I think the article is biased and mostly based on stereotypes. I think it should be changed. --Juju 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also there are no references whatsoever --Juju 15:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell did you do to this page?

Another Discussion

... it would be good to have a picture of a hipster on this page ... any takers? 66.75.250.175 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any basis for ANY of the current hipsters other than someone's personal favorite celebrities? This might be among the worst articles I've seen on the whole of Wikipedia.

I think Echo Park and Siver Lake in Los Angeles needed to be included... while NY may be the capitol of this dredful subculture, these two warrant mention as Westcoast outposts of hipster-dom.

Maybe the title should be Hipster (Modern) instead of Hipster (1990s Subculture)? What do you all think?

OK, but this is still one of the most craptastically-written articles I've ever seen on WP. --JD79 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture of a bunch of hipsters in NYC. And the article on Hipsters is very poorly written, agreed.

This article needs to be re-written at a higher level of analysis dealing with the cultural phenomenon of hipsterism, rather than specifying the specific characteristics and neighborhoods of the current crop of "hipsters" -- since those things change relatively quickly, over the span of years and decades. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? gohlkus 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article puts hipsters in a benign light based on stereotypes of fashion, music and portraying them as modern day hippies as Mod-Revivals. Should post-Mod-Revivals be included as hipsters? They're almost parallel to each other or may be an inclusion of a modern hipster. noble experiment 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That list of hipsters should be re-added.

In my experience the word "hipster" is rarely used in the UK (or outside the US generally?). What is its range of use? What are some equivalents used in other regions (if they exist)?

"Modern day hipsters can be found in most urban communities. Hipsters also frequent ... the Angelika Theatre". That is, hipsters can be found thousands of miles away from the Angelika Theatre, but still manage to frequent it?

Invisible Capybara 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Capybara 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add Pictures?

If anyone has any relevant pictures they could upload for this article, that would be marvelous. I'm asking someone else to upload it not because I'm lazy, but rather because I'm horribly inept at uploading pictures. Grazi, Demosthenes 1 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

"Hipster" is more of a word that can describe a group of people than it is a notable, discrete group of people with enough published about them to write a properly sourced wikipedia article. Wikitionary is sufficient. So, why shouldn't this article be nominated for deletion?66.41.66.213 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article refers only to cities in the United States. Is it worth mentioning that this is mainly US-oriented subculture? - Sklatch 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF that were true it would be notable, but the word hipster is used outside of the US. I am still not convinced that there IS a hipster subculture, as much as hipster is a word used for any subculture of young people almost regardless of its character. 66.41.66.213 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Hipsters are people who participate in things enjoyed by the hipster subculture. That pretty much says it all. Surely some references might be found to rewrite this article? I am tempted to put a complete rewrite tag on it...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

I cut this article down substantially because it had been so full of original research and biased claims that it was unworkable. In doing so, I pared down the list of hipster-oriented communities to include two significant examples, Williamsburg and Wicker Park. Sure enough, in the days since, editors flocked to the page to add more examples. I think the solution is to just eliminate the list entirely. If someone wants to create a new article called "List of Hipster Communities" and back each one up with sources, that would be fine, I guess, but this article shouldn't be the place for everyone to score a mention for their neighborhood.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasle worded original research

" Hipsters can be found in most urban communities, and can usually be distinguished by their ironic attire. Hipsters generally have a counterculture mindset, and resist commercialism and major corporations. Many times these individuals are musicians, artists, and writers. Many argue that the term "hipster" itself has become derisive, and it is seldom used as a label for self-identification, except in an ironic or self-deprecating way. "

These claims might make more sense if they were properly cited, so that we could say "so and so argues" instead of the questionable notability of "many argue."

Opinion editorials treat "hipsters" as a label as though they are a discrete group. Who else does? I would argue that we should not attempt to describe hipsters in anything but quotes from a given source, because the definition of a hipster is a matter of opinion. A wikipedia editor says that they resist commercialism but the review of The Life Aquatic in our external links says the opposite. I don't think that my assertion that "Hipster" does not describe a discrete movement or group should be included in the article, but I also don't think that it should be contradicted without a published source supporting that claim. Remember that it is a wikipedia policy that everything must be capable of being supported by outside published sources. In our references so far, there's nothing that much separates the term "hipster" from the term "the cool kids."66.41.66.213 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this page is a lot shorter now...

There was a lot of weasel-worded original research, but hipsters don't seem to care about verifiability, either. I mean, if it was written by one, they'd more than likely use this as a vehicle for their own personal expressions and views. --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subculture????

Subculture?

To say that the hipsters are a part of a subculture is ridiculous. They self designated mass-consumers. the whole silly notion of hipsterism is focused on acquiring (status, ideas, music, etc.) through buying everyday things that supposedly speak to their amazing classless/ironic state of mind. If this is subculture then so it buying a Volkswagen or an iPod. appropriating mass marketed things--buying stuff--and then declaring by fiat that the context has changed is laughable. Just because you choose to say that you are part of something doesn't make it a reality. Hipsters make fashion statements about meaningless things. They are consumers, like the rest of us, there is no hipster sub-culture because the only thing that groups them together is the fact that they all buy the same stuff. It just so happens that everyone is (has been)stuff to, but most people choose not to invest their self image in a can of beer. Reddoor 11:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a real phenomenon?

This article seems to be a laughable list of anyone creative under the age of 35 and some tennous, vague stereotypes. It is a bit cringe-inducing

This article is a mess

I added a cleanup-rewrite template to the top of the article, as there's very little here that's salvageable. The intro is a mess; the sections "New Philosophies of Racial Diversity" and "Exploring New Forms of Sexuality" are simply irrelevant, and I question whether the word "blipster" is even notable. I'll try to rewrite this if I get a chance, but it's a tricky subject. I claim that a small stub would still be better than the mess we have here. →smably 17:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that a near-exact copy of the "mess" has now been posted replacing the article Hipster (1940s subculture), so the issue is even grander than this. I'm therefore going to change the rewrite to {{Rewrite-talk}}, post it at the top of each disputed page, and have the discussion occur at Hipster, currently a disambiguation page. --

\sim

Lenoxus " * " 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i am all for clean up, as i wrote this "mess" but...i dont think the current article is anything more then unsubstantiated and unverified stereotypes. i am reverting it to the 'mess' because wikipidea is more then just a list... --Juju 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also i think...yes...some of my phrases were awkward...but if the word hipster derives from hip...meaning 'to see' then what do both of those ppl see? if you read norman mailer's essay on the white negro or any other comparitive works of the time, you would have to agree with me. being that smably is just a computer science major...i dont think he has any credibility on this topic whatsoever. --Juju 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Wikipedia does not judge its editors based on their indie cred. ;) →smably 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about? fortunatley wikipidea is more then just a list of random stereotypes. if you are going to write an article about a cultural phenomen, atleast write it from an academic standpoint. 'hipsters' are not a tribe of people, it is just a label applied onto someone rather then, a label someone takes on theirselves. for you to just list out what cigarrettes, they generally smoke, or other nonsense like that, is unsubstantiated by anything other then probably the 'urban dictionary', and using that as a reference is silly. --Juju 12:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether that was directed at me (I haven't edited the page since before my first comment here), but I'll reply anyway. I agree that this article shouldn't consist solely of a list of hipster stereotypes, and I am aware that UrbanDictionary is not a suitable reference. What this article needs is good structure, good prose, and good citations, none of which it has right now. (Even a Computer Science major would be able to fix that! Imagine...) →smably 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]