Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

Neutrality

This article is atrocious, it is extremely anti-hipster. The section "1990s and 2000s" as well as "Theories and Analysis" section could easily be collapsed under the critical reception section of this article. Subtle examples of bias at work are when terms like "inauthentic" and "pretense" are used in sections clearly meant for neutral analysis. Quoting someone does not magically transform the bias statement into unbiased truth - me quoting conservative Catholics in a section about the Reformation does not mean that I am writing neutrally. Furthermore, the section devoted to describing the "hipster" merely restates common stereotypes, and does not acknowledge these "facts" as such. The first section "history" acts as if it's giving a sociological account of what a "hipster" is and chooses to rely on satires as a form of evidence. The first two sections of the article must be rewritten from a more NPOV. DeconstructedSign (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hipster is at least in part a derogatory term. Doesn't that mean that describing what is meant by the term is necessarily negative? For example the article on Chav 92.238.128.101 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about it being a "derogatory term." However, the article does not state nor admit in any other fashion that sense, other than declaring "hipster" to be slang. The matter is further complicated by the overall tone of the article, the article describes "hipsters" in a sociological/anthropological fashion. If the term is derogatory, then isn't the sociological/anthropological interpretation of the "hipster" just mere pseudoscience? For example, an article on the (forgive my language) "dyke"/"dike" should merit nothing other than an analysis of the stereotype and an explanation of what the term means. Describing the "dyke"/"dike" in the same manner of this article would be incredibly offensive. This article confuses its priorities and turns prejudice into "fact." Significant rewriting is needed to correct this mistake. DeconstructedSign (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These complaints of "lack of neutrality" fall completely flat when you see that the article is very well-referenced. There are a wide number of sources, and yes all of them are critical of hipsters. If you are aware of sources that say positive things, you are free to add them. But, this is not an article in which a bunch of editors who hate hipsters filled the article with criticism. No, there is simply a lot of criticism out there, and this article reflects that. There is no neutrality issue here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. Obviously one can cite (please excuse the examples) a thousand articles on "why Jews are evil Zionist pigs" (I use this as an example of extreme bigotry, I mean no offense) or other articles on "beaners." It is quite easy to cover up bigotry with sources, humans have been doing this for years. "Hipster" is a prejudicial term. That should go without saying. No one describes themselves as a "hipster." Likewise I would refuse to label myself a "honky." The fact that there aren't articles out there defending "the hipster" is more evident of it being recognized as a pejorative term. The neutrality issue hasn't fallen flat, the debate has just been slow. Significant rewriting has to be done to this article. If not, then the neutrality of this article has to be contested like all other articles. Stereotyping and prejudice, as shown by this article, are not what wikipedia aims for. DeconstructedSign (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is utterly without merit, and the examples you provide are off-point and offensive. There is no neutrality issue with this article. The article is well-referenced and balanced. So far, you and the other critics have failed to find a single source that argues in favor of hipsters. If you find said article, and it is from a notable and verifiable source, it can be added. Otherwise, this is just you pissin' and moanin'. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This website is way too mainstream. It uses to many labels and definitions. I used to go on this site before anyone ever even heard of it. I go on Pikiwedia now, but I'm sure you haven't heard of itn and if you have, I probably heard of it before you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.136.3 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, this is not simple "pissin' and moanin'" this is about scholarly merit. For a group to exist there has to be some conscious recognition from within that group. No one is a self-proclaimed "hipster" nor would anyone want to be one because every attribute of said "hipster" is negative and offensive. There is no solid definition of hipster, as it is varied off of other perceived attributes. This article is more spawned from simple bigotry/hatred of this so-called group. It's not scholarly and needs to be revised. Who would ever wanted to be described as: ""... mop-top haircuts, swinging retro pocketbooks, talking on cell phones, smoking European cigarettes... strutting in platform shoes with a biography of Che Guevara sticking out of their bags."[7] Lanham further describes hipsters thus: "You graduated from a liberal arts school whose football team hasn't won a game since the Reagan administration" and "you have one Republican friend who you always describe as being your 'one Republican friend.'" Or what about this: "Time notes how instead of creating a culture of their own, hipsters proved content to borrow from trends long past, stating: "take your grandmother's sweater and Bob Dylan's Wayfarers, add jean shorts, Converse All-Stars and a can of Pabst and bam — hipster."" Again, despite the source and the moderate tone, it's meant to be a mocking statement. There is no critical attitude towards any of the statements within this article. There is no way around it, the term is offensive, it's a pejorative term and this article fails to recognize that - which is a result of a poor use of the critical faculty.DeconstructedSign (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I say again, the article is well-referenced. The POV template is only justified if the article has opinions in it which were introduced by editors without references. That is not the case here. Your dislike of the what the sources have to say is irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, it is my humble opinion that you yourself are biased against hipsters, and are disinterested in hearing anybody else's opinions. I believe it would be in the best interest of this Wiki page if you would stop un-doing any changes to this page, and stop taking it upon yourself to edit the page. Once again, I believe you aren't allowing a fair discussion of the word, and it is a fairly one-sided article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymaster111 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as this is an encyclopedia, your opinion does not count for much. What counts are facts, verified by reliable sources, which this article has. Therefore, your claims of bias are without merit. So, I am going to continue editing this article, removing vandalism, and uncited opinions, because I have improved this article considerably. You, on the other hand, have not, by all available evidence, done anything constructive whatsoever. So, come back when you have some reliable sources to balance what you claim is the article's bias. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article totally lacks neutrality. It reads like an exercise in kicking the undefended. The fact that major media outlets generally mock hipsters is hardly a surprize, but should Wikipedia be a mouthpiece for corporate purveyors of American normality like Time magazine?? (And many of the citations appear to have been originally derived from the Dan Fletcher piece in Time, Jul. 29, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.124.4 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have offered no adequate reason or explanation for your removal of referenced information. Nor have you offered any basis for the claim that the article is not neutral. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Democracy is the worst thing imaginable and I have quotes from the CCP to prove it. In fact I have many quotes. The fact that you have references does not make something balanced, and since wikipedia hopes to be balanced, your argument of it being well referenced falls flat on its face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you live in a democratic government doesn't mean that Democracy is better than any other form of government There are, in fact a LOT if valid arguments as to why democracy fails. Democracy is the worst possible form of government we can live in. I say this in the sense that is we lived in a lesser form of government (take lesser to mean whatever form of government has proved to be inferior to democracy) then the system would collapse, thus making democracy the worst, as anything worse would be impossible. So be careful of what analogies and examples you use as counter-arguments. When you're talking about a social group or sub-culture, different concepts and forms of analysis that must be applied than those that would be applied to analysis of political systems. So while you statement was meant to be sarcastic (your first sentence, I mean), it is in fact, completely up for debate, since the strength of a political system is subjective. Thus, your argument is deemed completely invalid based solely on the example that you used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.136.3 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article named "In Defense of Hipsters". It makes a lot of valid points; perhaps someone more ambitious would be willing to suggest some changes. http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1404/1/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.223 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a fat stinky political science major who lost my girlfriend to some guy in skinny jeans and a cardigan, sorry guys I now realize I have some issues to sort out before I contribute to the encyclopedia. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this clearly has a problem with hipsters. This is not neutral... Bordering on offensive. This needs to be redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.245.150 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether biased and poorly sourced or the reverse, this article is a useful example of how inclusiveness can make a reference work less useful. Wikipedia's "notability" criterion should be robust enough to exclude an article about "hipster," an article to which it is hard to imagine anybody coming in search of information. ("Is this rock a piece of quartz? Is this guy's view an instance of idealism? Is my sister a hipster? Just a minute while I consult Wikipedia on 'quartz,' 'idealism' and 'hipster' in order to find out.") The fact that a great deal has been written, and can be cited in-line, about a word for an alleged concept, does not mean that there is any genuine subject matter lurking out there behind the word to be written about. It's as if, instead of explaining what is known about ants, somebody had summarized a lot of things that have been written about pissants. It would be a waste of time to delete somebody's article on "pissant." Nevertheless, it shouldn't exist. Mstarli (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Progressive Rock

Hipsters are also fond of Prog Rock, but do not hype about it openly. They are more likely to listen to bands like King Crimson, Van der Graaf Generator, Soft Machine, etc. than bands like Rush or Yes, since the latter are less obscure.

Just a point.

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

Some pictures

Imported some pictures from flickr that illustrate the text well, such as fixed gear bicycle, indie clothes, glasses and borrowing "authenticity". Since this can be a derogatory term, all pictures added are either of models posing as hipsters or self-portraits by self-described hipsters. Contrary to the expectations one may have from this article, many people literally tag themselves as hipsters, if only ironically. EverGreg (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Images simply grabbed from flickr are not adequate. Someone says this is a hipster, or hipster clothes? That is not a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I wasn't entirely clear on what I meant. That the persons in the picture self-identify as hipsters was a requirement, but only to avoid shaming anyone by putting their face in a wikipedia article about a potentially derogatory term.

The choice of pictures rely on the wikipedia article and its sources for identifying key features of hipster style. For example: The fixed gear bicycle and the glasses in the pictures are directly illustrating the text, while the facial hair in the last photo relies on the psychology today external link. Our hipster article list several other visual features of hipsters such as mop-top haircuts, platform shoes, converse shoes and old sweaters and a close read of the article's many sources would undoubtedly yield many other identifiers. Probably ones contradicting each other (platform or converse?) but this is in line with how the article describe the vague concept of hipsterness.

In short, as long as this article's sources are reliable and authorative and they are represented faithfully in the article text, it is fairly straightforward to find fitting illustrations. EverGreg (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blublocker

Isn't this a blatant advertisement? Why not use a picture of glasses rather than a link to a store? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.58.153 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This has now been removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Austin as a hipster town

I removed the claim, and the reference used to support it, that Austin is a hipster town. The reference, TV-a-go-go: rock on TV from American Bandstand to American Idol, is adequate to source topics relating to rock on television, but is not adequate for the claim made in this article. I started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard if anyone wants to take part. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)