Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Elusive hipster photo[edit]

There have been debates about whether previous photos of people truly were hipsters, leading to deletion of the photos, but the new photo is a self portrait of a man claiming he illustrates the hipster look. Seems like we might be able to have an argument to keep this pic. OnBeyondZebrax

I removed that image because it is still not relevant. His self-serving claim that he is a hipster is irrelevant, as is the claim that hipsters wear flannel, therefore this guy wearing flannel must be a hipster. It is circular logic. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 02:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It continues to be impossible to get a photo which people can agree demonstrates a hipster look. Surely this should be possible, as the references give a number of fashion characteristics, such as the ironic wearing of a trucker cap.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
It is still not possible to get agreement on a photo of a hipster. The most recent pic was called Original Research. How is it that Punk subculture and Heavy metal subculture and Goth subculture have photos of punks, a metal fan, and a goth, respectively, but we cannot agree on a hipster photo? Is the hipster look just impossible to define?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that "hipster" can be pejorative - articles like chav and redneck don't have any "here's a guy I saw on the street who I think belongs to this group" photos either. Somebody provably self-identifying as a hipster who also matches a description given in the article would be okay, though, I think. --McGeddon (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the request for a photo at the top of the talk page, it's clear that TheOldJacobite won't find any picture acceptable, so no need to maintain the argument as long as they are policing the page. Dstanfor (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've added it back, an image which TheOldJacobite rejects can be added if there is otherwise a consensus. File:Hipster_wifebeater_shirt.jpg, suggested last October, might be inappropriate as WP:OI, but can be discussed. --McGeddon (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion that pic does not have enough distinguishing hipster charactaristics to make it the only picture here. If I were to be shown that picture out-of-context and asked to charactarize the subject, I might have chosen "Good Ol' Boy" just as easily as "Hipster". Better to have nothing than a so-so selection. Marteau (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen older photos, but can somebody find a full-length photo of a "hipster"? If a flannel shirt by itself is insufficient, then perhaps including, say, skinny jeans would help. Talu42 (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Other languages have photos. The German Wikipedia has two photos of female hipsters and the Russian Wikipedia has a photo from a male and a female hipster. Unfortunately none of the photos is a typical hipster with glasses and undercut, only female hipsters with buns, and a male hipster posing as homeless.--62.227.192.66 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a suitable hipster photo now available on Commons of a guy with a checked shirt, beard, glasses and undercut. Unfortunately it doesn't show whether he's wearing skinny jeans, carrying a record bag, or riding a bicycle.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 19:25, 12 February 2016‎

We still need to be careful about describing someone as looking like a pejorative stereotype; "man wearing typical hipster things" is better than "man who is a hipster", but it's still insulting to make someone the poster boy. The image's heritage seems a little dubious, also - it's lifted from a Pixabay account with a single upload, and Google Images turns it up on a professional photographer's website as "Brian Cameron, businessman". I'm flagging it for a deletion discussion on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What about these photos, Mac? The first one features many aspects of 2010s hipster culture, including beards, checked shirt, knit cap, Hitler youth haircuts, vintage interior decor, and self identification with the indie rock scene.

Or perhaps this one as an alternative with (again) the beard, charity shop clothing, glasses, and blue collar attire mixed with business wear?

Image 2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 01:03, 13 February 2016‎

Frustratingly Commons have deleted the bloody picture again. Therefore I suggest using this one as a replacement:

Bon vivant

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 18 February 2016‎

Good find, much better than the Swedish guy with the craft beer (who just looks like a guy holding a beer, to be honest). What are your thoughts on illustrating a pejorative at all, though? Is this different to having a found Flickr photo on the chav or redneck article captioned as "here we see a man whose clothes and accessories represent several classic stereotypical aspects of a redneck", without knowing whether the subject would appreciate being described in that way? --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not that bothered because many of us don't mind being called hipsters. Readers unfamiliar with the subculture need to know exactly what a hipster, chav or redneck looks like, and that is why there are photos of every notable subculture in the articles on 2000s fashion and 2010s fashion. Earlier youth subcultures e.g. punks, greasers or scene kids have illustrative photos when these are publicly available and, incidentally, the names themselves were originally derogatory e.g. punk meant young delinquent, scene queen/kid meant poser, and greaser meant working class Mexican or Italian American. For the sake of those who find the term a perjorative, I thought the changes you made were sufficient e.g. "man wearing beard and checked shirt associated with the hipster subculture" rather than "hipster with beard and checked shirt".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 11:41, 18 February 2016‎
I really can't see any great difference between saying to someone "you are a hipster" and "with that beard and checked shirt, you look like the dictionary definition of a hipster", though.
We should be using pictures of people who have explicitly said that they aren't bothered by the label, rather than photos of identifiable people who we (or a Flickr user, or a Commons uploader) think look like hipsters. Perhaps it's worth reaching out to some of the Flickr accounts these are drawn from?
WP:MUG says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." and we don't know the contexts here. I've cut the images for now. --McGeddon (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Woman with vintage bike.jpg
If you want to remove the photo of the bearded guy, fair enough, but over at wiki commons the girl who took this photo seems to identify as a hipster in addition to looking like one. She has a scarf with an ironic message about hipsters, nerd glasses, bike, and various items of thrift store clothing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 2 March 2016‎
The entirety of that identification appears to be the cryptic statement that "I designed and printed the bandanna, which says "I DENY BEING A HIPSTER WHO DENIES BEING A HIPSTER" when unfolded", which doesn't sound enough to satisfy WP:MUG. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If these people have a problem with these images being used in this article, let them comment below and request that their photograph be deleted. If the picture is public domain, I say we use it as long as the caption in the article is not disparaging. "Man with a beard, tattoos and plaid shirt associated with the indie lifestyle" should be fine.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 02:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:MUG is clear; we should not be using photos of people in ways which might be "disparaging" to them, and "this guy's appearance is the dictionary definition of a hipster" is potentially disparaging to him even if we don't call him a hipster directly. We shouldn't take the fact that he hasn't yet found this Wikipedia article and talk page as tacit acceptance that he would be okay with this. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
"Potentially disparaging" isn't the same as "disparaging". Some people might take it as a compliment to be chosen for this article, and many others simply wouldn't care. We can't delete images on the grounds that they "might offend somebody" otherwise there will be no photos of people left on Commons. Besides, the creator has released the photo into the public domain, for us to share and adapt as we see fit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Any photo "used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light" could potentially be shrugged off or embraced by the subject if we were to ask them - that's no reason to ignore WP:MUG. WP:MUG doesn't include an exception about disparaging the subjects of public domain images. --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bohemians?[edit]

ROFL. What pretentious nonsense. Affluent posers are not 'Bohemians'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

True. UTNE source uses the term, but does not say hipsters are, or primarily are, bohemian. Removed. Marteau (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed modern hipsters vs. Fifties hipsters[edit]

There are no connections drawn in this article that support the connection between modern hipsters and the hipsters in the 1950s. While you can trace the Hipster culture to the hippie culture going any further seems to be a dead end. For the 1950s hipster sections be relevant to the article there need to be citations that demonstrate this connection. I see none and therefore suggest that this section be deleted or modified to bridge this Gap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B163:5A5C:D732:C4EA:F076:3FAF (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The hipsters of the 50s were known as beatniks, and gradually morphed into the hippie subculture during the late 60s.

Gentrification[edit]

Two articles alone does not provide sufficient evidence to say that hipsters' main activity is gentrifying. Hipsters, artists and creative people are referred to under the same category; artists move in to a cheap area (because of the typical suffering artist notion) and property developers follow the creativity because creativity keeps the wheels of capitalism turning. Hipsters do not actively gentrify neighbourhoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.67.198 (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hipster[edit]

A hipster is someone from Brooklyn with a beard and thick, black glasses. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if we ask nicely, the creator of this pic of two Brooklyn hipsters will release it into the public domain. Marteau (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely Pathetic[edit]

I have no idea how this article has remained as it is for so long, but it is clearly kept afloat by the will of a very embittered collective set of persistent individuals with a personal grudge. So, are Hipsters 'upwardly mobile' people who move into gentrified areas that were previously bankrupt and happen to have a penchant for collecting vinyl or wear clothing the 'caretaker editors' of this page don't happen to like? Or are they poor youth occupying a more student demographic that would more than likely have to live in deprived areas of a city to make ends meet? Nobody seems to know. It's all very sad. Hope to hear from you soon, R.J 92.25.117.87 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)