Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fashion Portal

This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!

This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Mid

This article is on a subject of mid-importance within fashion.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Centers of Hipster Culture

Come on, lets have some attempt at references. Im going to be bold, and delete any that are just a city name with out any explanation. May as well do this before every city on earth where one hipser lives is listed

[edit] 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)

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

What the hell did you do to this page?

Can someone please explain to me how broadly we're defining "stereotypes"? The fact is that there's a noticeable movement in North American urban centres wherein you people dress a certain way, listen to certain types of music and buy certain types of things. These people are referred to as hipsters. That's just fact. Some people (Juju) may not like it and feel that they are truly creative and ought not be labelled but messing up a wiki page doesn't make it true. The "information" on the page now is random garbage. It's referenced but it's all so irrelevant who cares? User:Jmscstl

whatever, i dont know why you think i'm a hipster. you are just further validating the article, "noticeable movement in North American urban centres wherein you people dress a certain way, listen to certain types of music and buy certain types of things." ie. a marketing ploy which was created

do your own research, cite it, and change the page. i do not care.--Juju 13:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

your "research" is a joke. you cite the "non-expert" section of a local paper, an opinion piece about how some hipsters can be marketed to and a report that doesn't even seem to have the word "hipster" in it (at the very least it leans much more heavily on the term "trendy"). Literally nothing you cite even mildly suggests the idea of what is and isn't a "hipster" is a marketting created stereotype. You insistence of keeping the "Blipster" thing up is equally ridiculous given that your cites are 1. an article claiming it's a term based on the urban dictionary and 2. an article mocking the original one for being so stupid. I suspect your "research" is little more than some poor googling. Stop messing up the page. User:Jmscstl

you seem to be taking this page personal. research consists of different viewpoints, not all the same ones, reading contradictory viewpoints is essential for understanding the topic. you cannot be one-sided, as i am sure you know. i do not care if you don't like a single one of my sources, MIT, Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, and Berkeley, are I'm sure non-valid to you, and that's fine. Norman Mailer to you, might be a silly author to read on the topic, and the word Blipster has nothing to do with you, so it is completly irrelevant. All of your opinions are fine. If you would like to do your own research, and if you would like to change the page in anyway, I am completly fine with that. Have fun. I just did a little research, read a few scholarly journals, and a few books on the topic. So I wrote a little on the topic and I validated it. Do the same, add to the page, change the page, whatever.

And I'll be honest with you, I didnt read much, I didnt re-read what I wrote, and I just worked on it because I like doing things on Wikipedia in between actual assignments. So I would be completly happy if you could do your own research and make it more professional, but that's not why I personally go on wikipideia. I go on it, because I like to read about different topics, and if I find that I might know more information, or realize that a page doesnt have many sources and might need it, I just go on the page, and fill it up with the knowledge that i do have. i know i dont know everything, so i'm happy when people change it, rearrange it, and sharpen it. i love this site. and i'm glad you and evryone on here contributes. --Juju 16:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Juju - can you please stop messing with the page. No one seems to agree with your poorly cited and obvioulsy person take on the subject. You say people can add and work on the page but you seem to be consistently bringing it back to your nonsense. Grow up and leave it alone.User:Jmscstl

what exactly do you feel is nonsense? perhaps we can work together to find a solution. --Juju 14:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"work together"...please. All my complaints are listed clearly above. You haven't addressed any of them. You've simply repasted in your page which no one other than you seems to agree with. My biggest complaint is that there is simply no evidence to suggest that the term or idea of a "hipster" is media created. It doesn't even make any sense. The "media" is a giant mass of people and institutions. The media is simply not something that can "create". Your other ideas (and they are your ideas) are just as useless. And, as above, your cites are a joke. Work with that.User:Jmscstl

lol you are funny. Norman Mailer, MIT, Multi-Ethnic Literature of the United States, and Berkeley, are a "joke". I don't really understand you, I'm just trying to understand why you want a long list of random things, that YOU describe as hipster. These aren't even my ideas, I don't think anything of the word Hipster, this is what other people thought of the word hipster, i'm reverting the page.--Juju 19:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your cites are a joke because all you seem to care about is the title of the source, not what's actually in the source. How is a 1957 article in any way relevant to a discussion of contemporary hipsters? Why do you insist on making this page the same as the page about 1940s hipsters? Your camel cigarette cite is also a joke because it doesn't come anywhere near to supporting your childish point regarding "media created". Stop vandalizing the page with your nonsense.

although i kept a few of the references of the books and journalist opinions, and the hipster doofus thing.--Juju 19:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Discussion

This is an entirely viable and different subculture than the hipster entry for the '40s. There are "Hipster Handbooks" in bookstores playing to and mocking this niche, so, yes it exists. I'm not sure the word "stereotype" is fitting here. This is a movement, however benign to some, that has come to define much of pop culture as we know - be it bands like Bloc Party and Bright Eyes to anti-sweat shop labor and free-trade coffee to the fashion of skinny jeans and American Apparel to magazines like Vice and the Fader that cater to hipsters.

... 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

I'd argue that the term, as I've heard it used, has no definition that can be pinned down. As someone else here points out, the current article is vague enough to describe many typical middle-class urban people ages 21-25 in the United States. I think that "hipster" is a put down, or a term of dismissal, like "trendy", not a movement or subculture. Even the Time Out New York article on hipsters "Why The Hipster Must Die" fails to actually define the term. Nachlin 14:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree that the definition of the term is hard to "pin down," but it doesn't follow that the article should be deleted. If you can find any reliable, well-sourced material that undermines what's already here, please contribute! I am by no means an expert on the topic. --Kangaru99 00:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the definition is hard to pin down is actually a reason to have an encyclopedia article, versus a dictionary definition. Ideally, people writing the article would collect references to "hipsters", and compare the different defining characteristics, showing what consensus there is, or pointing out where there isn't any. That would help people like me, who have heard the term "hipster" used in conversation, and have come to Wikipedia wondering "what the hell do they mean, anyway?" -- 18:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)~

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Hipsters do not live in West Philadelphia. West Philly is a historically black neighborhood. All of the hipsters live down by U Penn in University City.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Subculture????

[edit] 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)

So the implicit assumption is that a type of consumption is not a mode of self-identification? What is the basis of self-identification with some group then? Specific ritual? Tradition? Religion? Skin color? Does someone descended from blackamericans who happens to be albino suddenly have to identify with white america? When it gets down to it, self-identification is an artificial thing. As far as identity with a group goes if you accept it, and the group accepts it and enough of the people around you call you what you want to be called, you might as well be that thing. Who cares if the concept originated in a marketing campaign? That's just as good a place as any to get the definition of a group. So hipsters seem to cultivate an aesthetic identity and that means you can partially define them as a group of people by what they wear and what they have. Believe it or not this isn't the first time in history that this has occured! At certain times in certain cultures the sort of clothing you wore was literally correlated to your place in society. Why can't what you consume define you? Why can't that be a part of your identity? It's a demonstration of your will, just like dancing for rain, setting off fire crackers, or kneeling in prayer. Sure, it's artificial. Sure, it's a construction, and it's good to remember that, but a building is a construction and you can still walk into it. Njahromi

Well, yeah, essentially, it's not really that much different from the hippy movement... it's just that the ideas that drive the hipster movement are different so that they suit the needs of groups of young individuals living in the 2000s, instead of in the 1960s.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that initially there WAS a subculture of people who believed that mass consumerism was aghast, and that they despised the way their government was running their country, and that he music being played on the radio was following a formula they didn't agree with. They sought out a way to live against that, openly. They were cultured, and knew about good music that their peers did not. They chose to not eat meat because of how major corporations treated the animals, and they chose not to shop at malls because of the stores within practiced outside of the realms of proper labor. They had good intentions. After time, as with all good things, it became the opposite of what they intended. It turned on them and rather than being the minority they became the majority. I don't believe a "hipster" would ever refer to themselves as such. The term "hipster" has been redefined and coined by the masses to explain this "type" of person. However, just like in the punk rock movement of the mid to late 70's, all good things will eventually implode. It is no longer a subculture. It has become modern day culture for the masses. You can hear Radiohead on a Clear Channel owned radio station. You can go to Urban Outfitters and buy the tight jeans, or The Gap, or even Abercrombie and Fitch. Juno became an "Indie Film" that even your Grandmother knew about. You can go to Burger King and buy a veggie burger. The rest of the world finally caught on and ruined it for the people who had great intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.100.115.115 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Crises of authenticity are actually a hallmark of many subcultures, and this is especially true of the "independent" movements begun in the 1990s. So really, it's funny that you say that, since it totally fits in with that hipster crisis in the first place. It's anachronistic to say that a subculture has to be entirely unmarketable to wider society during its entire lifespan, anyway. Aspects of punk, the "original" subculture that everyone wrote about in the 1970s and 1980s is now available for commodified sale at your local Hot Topic. That doesn't mean that punk is not a subculture in the past or present, it's just that it's changed. A chain to your wallet still carries the weight of post-industrial rebellion, even if you got it on sale at the mall. I would argue that subculture is about discursive breaks from the mainstream, which (unfortunately or fortunately) have often been picked up by capitalism to be distributed through mass media, not about simplistic models of how many people participate and how excluded it is from the rest of society. As I first wrote below, I'm writing my thesis on hipsters, and I hope I can get it published, if only so that this damned article can have some citations from articles saying something other than "Hipsters Must Die," etc.YouMustBeLion (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

i agree. if you find time please do that. wikipidia isnt about one person writing the article. change whatever you want. i think my citations are good though, MIT, businessweek, new yorktimes, etc seem more than suitable.--Juju 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hipster (derogatory) definition, derivation from poseur

There seems to be a disconnect in this article when discussing the definition of the 1940's 'subculture' Hipster vs. the modern, more derogatory use of the word. Based on the people I've seen called Hipsters in a bad sense, the Hipster insult is a subclass of the insult poseur, i.e. someone who has artificially acquired a set of items and personality traits, like a cargo cult, in the hopes that they too will be rewarded with friends and fortune. The poser bases themselves on a shallow copy of traits from someone they idolize. Of course, the person who actually exhibits those traits naturally had a lot more going on underneath, and it was the underneath stuff that was earning the idol their rewards. The poser either doesn't understand this, or chooses to ignore it. They will vehemently deny their ruse, no matter how conflicting their statements may be.

The Hipster as an insult seems to refer to a poser that copies a specific set of fashion and personality traits. I don't know how to label the source myself, but compare to i.e. an gangster-rapper poser. This insult refers to a person who copies their favorite gangster-rapper's looks and "stage tough" personality, even though they have no connections to urban culture besides what appears on cable television.Fine Arts 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. This concept of "going on underneath" is exactly what the category hipster rejects. Your self-representation is a maleable thing. And this thing which you call "the source" that lies "underneath" is just as maleable. Read Shakespeare's Hamlet; just by posing as a mad person he himself goes mad and so do others around him. Read Rousseau's Origin of Inequality; human society and language lead to the self-concious awareness of the precarious difference between self and the representation of self. Aristotle believed that by practicing virtuous gestures one could become virtuous. The relationship between interiority (source, that which goes on underneath, self, whatever) and exteriority (representation, gesture, that which goes on above?, whatever) is fluid and dynamic. The reason you can't "label the source" is because it's inaccesible and always changing. What is "false" today is "genuine" tomorrow. So people play with their appearance and with their gestures. They try on new hats for size and see how they fit. We are haunted by a notion that the interior is somehow static and revealable. The most resistance to a sort of change of appearance seems to originate from 1) the energy that it takes to leave the comfort of habit. 2) the expectance of your community for your gestures, reactions and so forth to remain static or to change very slowly or for some sort of traumatic reason instead of at your whim. The second point is Declaration of Indepence Logic: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." Yeah, experience hath shown that for quite a while, but that doesn't mean that that's the way it has to be. Njahromi

[edit] Necessary changes to this article

Juju, thanks for your help in patching up this article. I think it still needs a lot of work, and I have some specific ideas on how we can make it better. In no particular order:

1) The "Obscure Hipster Terms" section should be integrated into the rest of the article -- probably into "Term Revisited." Each term should not have its own subsection. 2) The Role Reversal Philosophy does not consistently pertain to the contemporary subculture. The section should probably be deleted altogether, with relevant items being integrated into the rest of the article -- probably into "History" and elsewhere. 3) The History section should be very brief, and redirect users to Hipster(1940s), which, hopefully, will eventually come to be a good explanation of the history of the term. 4) The introductory paragraph is particularly poor and seems to focus mainly on how the term was created by the media. Fair enough, but that information doesn't belong in the overview. That the term is "derogatory" and a "stereotype" is not necessarily true. The content here should be redirected to Term Revisited.

I envision the article as follows:

A) Simple, unbiased overview B) Brief History section redirecting users to other hipster page C) "Term Revisited" section explaining media resurrection of term D) Well-Sourced but very broad explanation of "common hipster behavior"

No lists.

I'd like to hear what people think about this. I'll make changes when I can. Kangaru99 23:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've started to restructure. Note that I'm removing a lot of content. Most of it is recycled from the other page and doesn't apply to contemporary subculture. Other stuff :is non-notable or marginally notable. I'll try to integrate more content as well as I can, but I think we should try and work with my structure.--Kangaru99 01:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see that the lists clutter the page itself, but I'm sure journalistic and editorial articles could be found in widely-read periodicals that refer to, for example, certain neighborhoods in which hipsters can be found. Is this enough to establish a substantial or relevant fact about what a hipster is (habitat and condition being an important attribute of any being)? Perhaps, there could be a seperate page for such lists as there are for many other articles. --Njahromi

I think you're right to say that mentioning some neighborhoods is a good idea. But I would :propose integrating that content into the article. For example, without creating a new section, :you could add to the "philosophy behavior" section, "Several neighborhoods are known as :contemporary hipster hangouts. These include..." or however you want to word it. I'm strongly :opposed to lists when they could easily be written in ordinary prose. And wikipedia policy is :basically to avoid lists whenever possible. The fact that a bunch of articles are just lists is a :sign that wikipedia has a long way to go. My other concern about mentioning neighborhoods is that :people will be inclined to expand the number of neighborhoods until it's out of control. This :happened before in the history of this article. So if you'd like to mention some neighborhoods, :I'd just ask that you have a source for each one. Any unsourced neighborhood really ought to be :deleted. Kangaru99 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: the current version of the article seems to rely heavily on The Hipster Handbook, which A) was positioned as a humor volume, not anything authoritative, B) was specifically mocking some bohemian stereotypes in a VERY localized area (Williamsburg, Brooklyn, NYC), and C) was not embraced by any subculture at all (though I have to admit to owning a copy). I mean, did you ever actually KNOW anyone who said that things were "deck"? That seems to have been an inside joke either made up for the book itself, or only said among the writer's personal circle. Most of the book isn't true of hipsters at large.

Whereas Everybody Hurts, the emo book, sometimes has a really difficult time distinguishing between "indie" and "emo," but overall seems to depict the current run of hipsters pretty well. I'd argue that the whole hipster question needs to have its answers heavily predicated on the wikipedia pages for "Indie" and "Bohemian." And we need to stop basing Wikipedia articles on books that were intended as humor publications, overall... this is a problem in a lot of subcultural articles, because most subcultures just don't accrue authoritative publications. 4.224.228.207 06:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, this is what I was just saying. This is from the Time Out NY "Why the Hipster Must Die" series. It's the author of The Hipster Handbook discussing his creation, at the following URL - http://www.timeout.com/newyork/Details.do?page=1&xyurl=xyl://TONYWebArticles1/609/features/why_the_hipster_must_die_the_hipsterati_talks_back.xml

Isn't hipsterdom dying on its own in New York City? Last time we went to the Lower East Side, it was overrun by smart-casual Coldplay fans wearing jeans and blazers and buying eight dollar Amstel Lights for their anchorwomen-wannabe girlfriends. Or maybe looking like a Hedge-Funder from Connecticut is what passes for hip now in New York. You ask, 'Should hipster culture be defended?' My book The Hipster Handbook was an attempt to call bullshit on this fauxhemian movement nearly five years ago. In the satirical book I claimed that 'hipsters understand that cultural trends become fin the moment they hit the mainstream.' The hipster thing hit the mainstream years ago, so by my own definition it hasn't been cool for a while now. And let's be honest, hipsters are getting harder to defend now that they're all sporting beards. Williamsburg is beginning to look like a tailgate party at a jam band concert." —Robert Lanham, founder, FREEwilliamsburg author, The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right, Food Court Druids, and The Hipster Handbook

That's what I'm talking about. 4.224.228.207 06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Reversions

Hi all -- So a few people have been trying to revert the article to eariler versions. Please don't do this. The article needs a rewrite, and I've attempted to start it off. It is definitely lacking in content, and I'd encourage anyone to add to the article. But the problems with previous versions were

1) lists 2) not wikified

If you take a look at some good articles you'll see what made the previous versions so bad. So instead of reverting back to the old stuff, try adding old content to the new structure. --Kangaru99 03:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lacking citations, too. The whole thing was largely OR from what I remember.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What this page should be

Living in New York, it's pretty clear that certain areas are known to have a "hipster" feel and to have "hipsters" living there. The hard part is being able to define this in an intelligent way. However, the page should primarily be a description of the current phenomenon, not a 1940's phenomenon. In addition, the page should be as fair as possible. Griffeyin96 18:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hipster

The current version of this article seems to suggest that hipsters simply "appeared" or that they were somehow an offshoot of the term used to describe earlier bebop aficionados. I think the term sort of stuck around but the connections between the two groups are more spiritual than actual. Here's what I think the article needs to address:

1. Hipster Precedents: Members of the Beat generation, hippies and punks are all well-documented youth subcultures which could be seen as influences on hipsters. However, hipsters don't really have a particular movement and are connected with some of the stereotypes of Generation X (like political apathy and cynicism.)

2. The term: As with almost any term used to describe a large group, the term is going to mean a lot of different things to different people. It is our job to best represent these uses fairly. It is often considered derogatory, but doesn't have to be viewed that way.

Anyway, I'm gonna start looking for some sources about this and start doing some minor editing to make the opening paragraph a bit more unbiased.

I found the article as of September 17th 2007 to be well informed and helpful in coherently organizing ideas my circle of friends and professors had discussed. While the article indeed (as could any documentation on a "current" trend) will step on the toes of those who wish to establish its concrete beginnings first, I feel that task could be endless. I feel that more emphasis should be put on its links to indie music, DIY culture, Generation X, Generation Y etc. User:wattyman22

[edit] This article is fine

This article is one of the best written articles I've encountered on a contemporary subculture. While far from comprehensive, it does not deserve the "in need of an expert" flag. Unless a scholar of contemporary subcultures gets on here and rewrites it, we'll just have self-proclaimed "hipsters" constantly editing the article and changing it to fit their notions. I'm removing the flag, because if any criticism should be made, it should by that it doesn't have an encyclopedic tone, or it lacks sources (although, frankly, sources are hard to come by on topics like this).--Aeranis 08:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Or not

Whoever keeps flagging this has clearly never been to Williamsburg.--69.241.224.22 09:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bard???

I object to this list of places. Bard??? Really?

Slugokramer (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the list of places, because not one of them was referenced to any kind of source. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, however hip it may be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see the list of places before it was deleted, but I'm wondering why, out of sheer curiosity, did Slugokramer object to Bard? My guess would be that there would be a higher incidence of hipsters at small progressive liberal arts colleges (the students there sure seem to fit the hipster demographic: middle/upper middle class, politically left-oriented, pursuing fields of study that will pretty much guarantee them the sole option, post-graduation, of marginal employment in typical hipster occupations) those places may not boast as many hipsters as say most art schools, but they probably have better "bragging rights" than say biz schools, military academies, engineering schools (EE's and CompSci's excepted, of course), and uh... Dartmouth. There was a time when places like Bard, Bennington, Hampshire, Oberlin, Evergreen State were sort of havens for ideologically progressive college-bound kids. But the "hipsters" in those Cold War Reagan days were more likely to be D.C./Boston hardcore/straightedge kids or Crass/Flux crusties. Embarrassingly earnest about what they believed. If "hipster" today means cynical and insincere, I hope those kids aren't "hip"!Bo-Bo Belsinger (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it just me...

Or is this article almost purely original research? I mean, all those unsourced sections - are they written from sources or from someone's personal knowledge/opinion? If the content comes from sources, then why aren't the sources cited? If it doesn't come from sources, then how is a reader supposed to verify it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If any one of you can find me a concise, serious sociology of hipster subculture, go for it. In fact, if any one of you can find me a concise sociology of most contemporary subcultures, go for it. What sources exist for this topic? None. Maybe twenty years from now an aging hipster academic will take the topic up, but for now this article is going to be original research and opinion, period. Deleting it would mean that Wikipedia doesn't acknowledge a subculture which clearly exists. Really, for now, you're all going to have to be satisfied with original research unless one of you wants to dedicate a year or two to living in Williamsburg and Portland doing fieldwork and writing a peer-reviewed book (which, coincidentally, would be ridiculous.)--Aeranis (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate. There are independent sources covering various subcultures, and they should be found and cited in this article. Look in the section below, where someone's writing a thesis on hipsters. It's not as if that's the only person to think of it. Sources don't have to be peer reviewed articles in journals; they can be books, or magazine articles, or anything really. Anything would be better than the opinion of some random Internet person. I'll start hunting for sources. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irony, indeed.

That whole section all about philosophy and irony seems to be either a a)ignorant statement from some disenfranchised college student or b)ignorant statement from some bratty teenager attempting to wax philosophy. Do you think maybe we could change that to actually mean something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.72.65.130 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately this particular section is symptomatic of a great deal of the whole article. It's someone's original thesis on hipsters (which personally I think is insightful, and I'd like to know who wrote it originally), and unfortunately doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The fact is this article SHOULD exist, but it needs to be constructed from the bottom up using the opinions of published and peer-reviewed critics rather than the polemics of anonymous internet users. Until someone is willing to do the appropriate research to find these sources (and they do exist, just in very fragmented ways), let's leave it as is (more information, however uncited, is better than none). I'm doing my senior thesis on hipsters (I know, right?) and can tell you that just because something isn't obvious or interesting or threatening to the mainstream doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning here.YouMustBeLion (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Class issues section

Hi, This couple of paragraphs on class issues was taken out on the grounds that it is an unsourced rant. While the section has POV and potential OR issues, I think that if we poke around, we may find that some of these ideas have been discussed by cultural critics in published articles. If we can get sources, some of the content here may be able to be moved back to the article.Nazamo (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Here is the section.................................................

[edit] Class issues

This section does not cite any references or sources. (December 2007)
Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

See also: Petty bourgeoisie

- The conflicts and paradoxes of irony enter the popular perception of the hipster in how that term is related to social and economic class, enhanced by the lack of full college scholarships for liberal arts majors. Since liberal thought, intellectualism, and a deep knowledge of independent music and film--rather than literature, the traditional enabling contaminant of subcapitalist culture--are all defining aspects of being a hipster, the fact that hipsters are seen to espouse such working class aspects of culture appears either ironic or disingenuous. Many who wish to take on the subcultural identity struggle with a sense of disingenuity once they join the middle class. - - Amongst those that have formal degrees and training in the creative arts, which is common amongst this subculture, the obtaining of an official job is less of a cleavage from the mores of their chosen peer group than someone who obtains a job in a technical or well paying enterprise, such as business, engineering or science. Often the choice of a life direction and profession is in no small way partly determined by this fact, and those members of society who represent these professions are rejected out of hand as "sold out." - - The common perception of a hipster who receives minimum wage working as a barista, copy shop employee, music store employee, "hip" restaurant worker, or other job which provides low pay (yet lives in a gentrified "hip" part of town) does exist, but if said hipster indeed has a college education and frequently, an upper middle-class upbringing, there arises a distinct paradox of identity. From this interest conflict of class background vs. perceived current economic class, a well represented stereotype exists of a hipster who receives rent and other financial assistance from their well-to-do parents, sometimes referred to as a "trust fund hipster."

Hidden category: Articles needing additional references from December 2007