Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

Paradoxically notably?

Cambial Yellowing, what is the point of retaining these words? What meaning do they impart? I can't discern any. Sandstein 19:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Ostensibly ADVERB "As appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so" [OED]. This version does not make sense, because saying "x emphasizes trait y, while lacking trait y" is nonsensical. I will add a comma to improve clarity of the second predicate. Cambial foliage❧ 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Huh? It's not a contradiction to want or like something and not have it. That seems even to be the point of this description of hipsterism: they want to be cool, but aren't really. And what does "paradoxically notably" even mean? Sandstein 20:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What? It doesn't say want or like. It also doesn't include a contextless "paradoxically notably". The meaning of the second predicate "notably lacking authenticity" is what the adverb preceding it modifies, as with any English adverb. What is difficult about this? Cambial foliage❧ 20:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, we're talking past one another. I'll request input at WP:3O. Sandstein 20:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The suggested wording is unhelpful to readers - almost incomprehensible, in fact - and, more importantly, appears to be an unsourced personal opinion not summarising article text. I've removed it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I have taken a third opinion request for this page. After reading your discussion, I am asking Cambial Yellowing to quote the text from the sources cited at the end of the article's first sentence that verifies their edit. Please also explain me why do you think your edit improves the article. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

As a third party intervened, my third opinion is unnecessary. I also assumed that the text was unverified. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In this comment, Ghmyrtle implies that they have read the journal and periodical cited. Whether a subculture or its members can make such a claim, literally or metaphorically, is for reliable sources to decide, not the hot take of one careless editor. Maly 2016 states exactly this multiple times, which an editor would know if they had read the article, or even merely read the article's abstract (in which it appears in the 3rd sentence) or read one of the quotes that a previous editor added to the inline citation. The author uses the words claim authenticity or analogues of the same at least five times, usually mentioning how this is a defining feature of the subject. Additional quotes have now been added to the citation. Similarly, the periodical explicitly states that the inauthenticity is "Under the guise of irony", which someone who had read the article would surely know. Cambial foliage❧ 12:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As requested by Borsoka, some quotes, not exhaustive: As a result, a picture of hipster culture emerges as a translocal and layered phenomenon with contextually specific claims to authenticity.

What is absolutely crucial – and global – in defining a hipster is the claim to authenticity, uniqueness and individuality

...distinction and claims to authenticity (and not being ‘like everybody else’) lie at the core of the hipster culture

This can be characterised as the classic hipster discourse, centring around authentic individuality. Timing is of crucial importance in the hipster authenticity claim

The reason this sentence was written in this way is because that's what the source absolutely clearly states: that it is the claim to authenticity and uniqueness which is the defining feature. Originally worded as "ostensibly", which Sandstein has objected to for reasons they have not bothered to explain. I am not tied to any particular wording, so have changed it to reflect the exact words used by the source cited. Cambial foliage❧ 12:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Can we just clarify that you are not the author of the piece quoted? The style of language appears to be curiously similar. My fundamental point is that the lead as now worded does not clearly summarise the article text - rather, it introduces different ideas not covered in the main article, contrary to WP:LEAD. It also appears to place undue weight on one single article, representing one single point of view. I do not need to have read the cited source to make that comment, and never implied that I had. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't make baseless accusations of bad faith COI edits. Not only am I not the author, I am not even the editor who added the source to the article. The phrase appears to be an unsourced personal opinion implies that you have read the source cited and found it to be wanting. If it was used without bothering to look at the citation that explains it. The version you sought to push is much less supported by the article text than the status quo. The status quo and current version sum up the Critical Analysis section, and in fact the second part of the quote I mention above "Under the guise of irony" is even used verbatim in the section, along with others of similar tenor. Cambial foliage❧ 13:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The "Critical analysis" section is simply one part of a longer article and should not be given undue weight in the lead. The fact that a personal opinion has been written in a critical analysis still makes it a personal opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: OK, I'm prepared to admit that the crappiness of this article's lead appears to pre-date your involvement in it. However, Sandstein's point still applies, and you are still attempting to impose a wording that is contrary to the views of other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

You are resorting to sophistry. Why do you believe your proposed version of the lead is a more accurate summation of the article text? Your version doesn't accurately follow any source currently cited. It's true that Maly should be referenced in the body as well, as one of very few peer-reviewed academic articles on the subject, no doubt a small oversight of the editor who added it which I had also overlooked. It's true that the Critical Analysis, and "History", sections are two of the five sections of the article: other sections are summarised, perhaps inadequately, further in the lead. If they are inadequately summarised, deleting crucial adjectives used in the source summarising another section will not address that. Finally, trying to reframe all peer-reviewed scholarship in cultural studies as only personal opinion is a bold take, I'll grant you that, but not one supported by the way we treat scholarship. Cambial foliage❧ 13:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The lead does not need to align with any specific source - in fact, it should not do so. Rather, it should give an overview of the whole article. It's hardly a "small oversight" to omit any mention of your preferred source from the main article. Editing the opening sentence without tackling the substantive text is the sort of mistake we see from novice editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your proposed version makes it neither an overview nor verifiable. Linking to LEAD to try to justify it is counterproductive. The academic article cited summarises forty or so academic and book sources which touch upon the subject, expressing similar lines of thought to those articles cited in the History and Critical Analysis sections, citing some of the same authors. That said, even without the citation, the sentence discusses exactly the elements which are discussed in the Critical Analysis section – Authenticity, Style, etc – and in similar terms. This shouldn't surprise us – that is what a literature review is for.

Perhaps the editor who added the source originally was a novice. What of it? Cambial foliage❧ 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a "proposed version". Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

removal of "ironically, is notably lacking in authenticity and conforms to a collective style"

this does not appear to be supported by the sources; it also seems to violate NPOV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone. The phrase "claims to" in the previous sentence already indicates that whether or not it is original or conformist can't really be proven (and crucially can't be disproven).

122.211.145.154 (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fully supported by the cited literature review in the European journal of cultural studies, along with the other supporting citations. Care to expand on how you think it does not maintain npov, which doesn't mean "says something you don't like"? Your comments on what can or can't be said on the subject are fine for original research, but have no bearing on what is appropriate content. Cambial foliage❧ 16:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you give an example of where it has been supported by the literature? Citizen Premier (talk) 02:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

See the multiple extracts in the preceding section, or read the literature review cited by editor Tharkur. Cambial foliage❧ 03:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Very negative.

The article reads as a concerted attack, unnecessarily negative. The accusations of racism and sexism are baseless conjecture. The personal prejudices of obscure radical feminists do not contribute to understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:9800:BC13:9CF:4D6B:6B82:37F:B3BA (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is ridiculous. Today I reminded myself 2009-2013 music I loved to listen. Very positive electronic music, sometimes nostalgic, with clips made form old VHS pictures. I reminded myself my friends who used to create things for fun. We were for sure hipsters. I personally define a hipster (from these years) as students who love culture of all kind, who love art but are driven by arising importance of IT, especially YouTube (if you think who created first valuable content - for free, for fun... yeah they were hipsters) and other upcoming social media. Probably most of web designers were hipsters these years.

Meaning of hipster was codified after all, as someone who rides a fixie bike or a longboard, uses MacBook, and Instagram. Maybe we did it... yeah, some of us did it.

Anyway. These were good times, we were very friendly to everyone, we loved art and culture, we loved to spend time on discovering it and wasting our time together. Riding bicycles for fun, going for trips the cheap way. No politics. No concerns.

If someone really wants to define hipster, I think he (or she) should start with music. Boards of Canada, Chrome Sparks, Mikhael Paskalev, Nils Frahm, La Femme, Tame Impala... it's not as easy to define as rock, blues or hip hop. The only common thing is... that it always refers to the past. To the culture of the whole XX century. It praises the past in a digital way. It loves the past, yet it has to go forward and create the modern world.

Be thankful to hipsters, for all these cafes, barbers (I don't visit them lmao), bike lanes, design, web design, and many other things

The end of hipsters arrived with a trap music. The name is very accurate. Maciej Ciemborowicz (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Lede changes

Happy to discuss the changes made to the introduction, but please don't start an edit war. The tone was unprofessional and unfitting to an encyclopaedic entry, and was obviously not neutral. It may be true and interesting analysis but it belongs later in the introduction or probably better placed in the body with a longer discussion. I'm happy to link to the various Wikipedia policies on the tone of introductions and how they should be phrased and structured, as they support this change. But this change is a no-brainer. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is a perfectly neutral representation of the best secondary sources on the topic, specifically a literature review alongside other scholarship. You are confusing neutrality pertaining to the sources with avoidance of saying something you dislike, which is not a factor in determining appropriate content. Your proposed change is not appropriate. In future, refrain from mischaracterising other editor's actions; this is especially important when you are the editor whose edits violate the principle you are accusing others of breaching. Cambial — foliar❧ 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. You are clearly attached to this wording and are gatekeeping. If you feel the moved sentences do not accurately reflect the sources or avoid saying something, which I do not agree they do, then adjust the sentence to suit. Your phrasing is obviously framed to make a specific point and doesn't reflect the encyclopaedic tone appropriate on Wikipedia, this isn't a sociology textbook. Two scholarly views from specific sources that you happen to agree with do not mean they are the settled academic descriptive, it is clearly critical analysis. And please do not personally disparage me for my correct and good-faith edits in line with Wikipedia's policies. I personally agree with the point made, but it obviously shouldn't be the second sentence. A lede should be descriptive and neutral, it shouldn't be pointing out the irony of something nor relaying particular academic analysis and criticism. It is, moreover, overly academically phrased and abstract. If you want to escalate this, go ahead, but I am not going to accept (Personal attack removed) editing on this. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The NPOV policy refers to neutrallly describing what is in the best scholarly sources. You have evidently misunderstood neutral as being simply your own definition of neutrality, a common error of novice editors. This is not what the policy refers to. Refrain from making personal attacks. If by you are clearly attached to this wording you mean that I believe the article should maintain its current neutral representation of the available scholarship; that’s not my "attachment", but simply the content policy of this website. The cited sources represent an overview of the available scholarship, and it’s appropriate to use their definition of the article subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This change by Gracchus250 is appropriate: shifting the irony further down into the lead section. The tone is better. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

My changes are more neutral, your assessment of neutrality here is, in my opinion, incorrect. Given numerous complaints over time and other users have agreed, I think it might just be you who prefers the more emotive wording. I'm happy to wait for more editors to weigh in, but please don't keep reverting until this takes place and please don't (Personal attack removed) my talk page. Gracchus250 (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your preferred version of the lead opening "The 21st-century hipster is a subculture (sometimes called hipsterism). Fashion is one of the major markers of hipster identity." gives the impression that the primary description given by the best available sources is that fashion is the main aspect of the subject. This is absolutely not the case, and making it appear as though it is the main aspect is not neutrally representing the sources. Your MOS:WEASEL passive voice description of the scholarship using th phrase "has been critiqued" is not appropriate. In addition, the parts of the literature review cited are descriptive, not normative. Your personal opinion about Wp:NPOV is not relevant to determining content. Your claim that you make in edit summary here and in this this comment that the sourcing is "overly academic" runs contrary to WP:SOURCES, WP:SOURCETYPES; you might also read WP:ABIAS.

Please observe WP:BRD and make some effort to justify your change or suggest a different one which has support from the sources. The one you are continually reverting to is unsupported as a neutral summary of the sources. Your description of the current neutral following of the scholarship as "emotive" is not grounded in reality. Have you actually read any of the available sources? From your comments and your proposal it looks a lot like you're simply editing from your personal POV - that is not how Wp editing is done. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have explained my changes, the previous wording lacked neutrality according to Wikipedia's policies. It was also non-descriptive, overly academic in its language, constituted criticism and doesn't reflect the tone of an encyclopaedic entry, as many have noted. This is inappropriate as the second sentence in an article. It belongs in the introduction but not as the second sentence. My changes are supported by those wikipedia policies. If you think the second sentence needs more description, feel free to add relevant but neutral descriptive language. Gracchus250 (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You’ve merely repeated yourself. Your assertions about neutrality are incorrect, and evidently based on a misunderstanding of the policy. "Overly academic" is not a reason: no jargon is used in the stable text. Your proposal does not represent the sources. You are welcome to make alternative proposals here on the talk page, but stop your disruptive editing, and, if you wish, engage in substantive discussion about what your problem with the stable lead is - repeating your unsubstantiated claims and repeatedly inserting a proposal unrepresentative of the sources is disruptive. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You asked me to explain my changes again, so I did that. I am not being disruptive, my edits are constructive, non-destructive, maintain the academic perspectives being discussed, and better conform to Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, tone, use of courses and article introductions. The revised wording accurately reflects the sources and introduces the topic neutrally. On the topic of tone, others have discussed how the tone was off in the previous wording, and to highlight this it's important to note that it's not the job of the second sentence introducing a topic to highlight how the topic is ironic, that is critical analysis and an inappropriate tone. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It's never a good idea to include one commentator's opinion as part of a lead/lede - which is supposed to give a balanced overall summary of the entire article content. In principle, I support the removal of that part of the opening section to the "Critical response" section, though the remaining part of the opening paragraph does then need to be rewritten to give a more balanced summary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle: I agree that including one commentator's opinion is not only not a good idea, but in fact contrary to the website's content policies. The status quo does not include one commentator's opinion in the lead.

The cited source, part of a small but not insignificant body of scholarship on the article subject, is a literature review of the current state of scholarship. The authors examine the available published scholarship and other academic commentary that seeks to define what hipster subculture is. Furthermore, while not cited, more recent scholarship reinforces the understanding of the definition of the subculture given by Maly & Varis. I would expect long-time contributors like yourself and Binksternet to recognise the difference between an opinion piece and peer-reviewed academic publications. You should also be able to distinguish between a research article, a literature review, and other types of academic publication. Were the cited source (and others that offer the same definition) merely "opinion pieces", the question would be whether they were sufficiently notable to be included at all, not to move them down the lead and detract from the article's neutral representation of the best available sources that seek to define the subject. Do you understand the difference between journalist "opinion" articles, academic research articles, and academic literature reviews? Cambial — foliar❧ 13:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

You are conflating two academic perspectives with a settled academic consensus or literature review. These sources are valuable academic contributions but should be taken as critical academic cultural analysis, not a representation of a settled academic description of the subculture. It is very important to note that these select sources do not constitute a literature review on the subject. This is also not how the humanities and social sciences traditionally function, rarely is there a settled, universally accepted cultural analysis of a topic. An article should introduce and describe a topic as neutrally as possible, then use critical academic sources to add social, cultural and political context later, which is the way these sources are used in the revised wording. Gracchus250 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, it's hard for me to believe you just called veteran editor Ghmyrtle incompetent. This is obviously getting too emotional for you; you should let it go. Your preferred version is not wanted by others. Binksternet (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Binksternet, it's hard to believe you just called me "veteran"! I'm sure that Cambial Yellowing is still working hard to try to become less patronising to everyone else interested in this article, but clearly has some way to go. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited source is a literature review and content analysis, as is noted in the abstract. So what you think is important, Gracchus250, is contrary to the facts about the sourcing.

@Binksternet: I fail to see what aspect of my querying Ghmyrtle's apparent confusion of an opinion piece with a literature review led you to imagine some emotional content to the comment - perhaps you are projecting your own feelings into the discussion? I'm at a loss for another explanation.

I note that neither you nor Ghmyrtle have made any effort to address the problems with the current opening three sentences, which lack any supporting source as a definition of the subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't address anything except whether it was more appropriate to put "lacking authenticity" in the first sentence or at the end of the second paragraph. I feel that the first sentence was emphasizing that part too much, based on a reading of the sources. Note that the lead section does not need to have supporting citations; it should simply summarize the cited text in the article body, which it does. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Maly and Varis article indeed describes itself as "a critical review of existing literature on hipsters, and an analysis of online data" and presents its own argument and conclusions. This type of review article is common and useful, but as they say in their conclusion it is their own analysis of the literature and subculture, they conduct their own "ethnographic" research and the authors are seeking to make an argument and contribution about "micro-populations". It does not claim to be an exhaustive literature review, just a critical review of literature and an original contribution. It should not be taken as a definitive literature review like the metastudies one would find in science or other disciplines, but as a contribution to the academic studies of the topic within a particular field (in this case cultural studies).

The more direct critique used in the previous wording that "the hipster is defined by a lack of authenticity" comes from the Rob Horning chapter of the n+1 book "What Was the Hipster?". This is not an academic publication, Horning is not an academic he is an editor and the book isn't, nor does it claim to be, a peer reviewed or academic publication (n+1 is not an academic press, they are a press associated with the literary journal). It is a personal, reflective essay.

At any rate, this is all irrelevant, as these critical/analytical perspectives regardless of the quality of the sourcing should not be used as the initial description of a Wikipedia article in the way they were being used. They are important context but not descriptive nor neutral enough for the opening lines, and obviously the language was inappropriate. As noted above, an introduction should primarily reflect what is in the body anyway so this discussion really belongs there (in more detail).Gracchus250 (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Not what it means

Hipster used to mean white people that were into jazz music (which was considered black). It has nothing to do with beards and thick black eye glasses. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Wrong article. The 1940s jazz-related subculture is covered in the article Hipster (1940s subculture). Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)