Talk:Cottagecore

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cottagecore article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alt-right association

Could a section be added on it's connection with alt-right and/or far-right associations? Potentially also links to misogynistic and patriarchal ideas of family structure and organisation?

Finton the magical salmon (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Finton the magical salmon Are you aware of any reliable sources that make that connection? Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 19:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the best source i could easily find:

- https://gnet-research.org/2023/05/19/co-opting-cottagecore-pastoral-aesthetics-in-reactionary-and-extremist-movements/

News articles:

- https://honisoit.com/2020/09/cottagecore-colonialism-and-the-far-right/

- https://medium.com/@hullabaloo2/the-other-side-of-cottagecore-ad9420901c8

I've really only it seen it mentioned in passing as well as worrying trends i've observed online. However, looking at this stuff I found in 5 mins of looking around, it seems to be a relevant topic to be discussed in the article. I don't really have time at the moment, but I think someone could easily make an addition to the article. Sources appear to be abundant, so it should be an easy task.

Finton the magical salmon (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should every article be written from a woke leftist point of view? This article already contains critiques about "misogyny" and "gender roles" and "white women", which are typical far-left talking points and imo don't belong next to valid criticism such as the unrealistic picture of rural life. To a far-leftist, everything seems to be far-right. Btw, people are allowed to adopt any lifestyle they like, and if it includes traditional gender roles, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Maybe some people should try to remember what the world "liberalism" means. We have gotten to a point where people on the left just assume that their worldview is universally accepted as correct and that everything outside of it is by default wrong. 87.116.163.198 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a Wikipedia article is to capture scholarly and journalistic consensus on a subject. This article does so. Using these sources does not approach bias, nor should we talk of the sources as 'wrong'. As you state, it is your opinion that these sources are invalid. Your opinion is not fact. I have already clarified via the Third Opinion page that the sources used are the best and most appropriate sources to use for the 'critiques' section, and it is not our role as editors to fall on either side of this fence. Becsh (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]