Talk:Bro culture

isn't the total lack of perspective here itself a distortion?
What I'm referring to is the almost comically straight faux-sociological tone on a phenomenon that is perhaps more often evoked by others as a term of disrespect, even contempt. It's one of those terms - like "yuppie," or "hipster" - that almost no one applies to themselves but only to others they look somewhat down upon... 2fs (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , WP relies on secondary source coverage for just this reason. Do you have a source that verifies your claim? The current sources would say otherwise. czar ♔   01:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as a matter of fact, merely by Googling the term, and taking results from the first couple of pages, here are three sources: from Vice, which nicely illustrates a common attitude toward the bro subculture; an NPR piece that explores racial aspects of the term (and, again, tends to characterize "bros" rather dismissively, using words like "fratty" and noting that the concept is often parodies; and the Know Your Meme page, many of whose usages have a parodic if not contemptuous flavor regarding the term. 2fs (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The NPR piece is already in the article. We might be able to salvage parts of the Vice article, but it would require lots of interpretation, which is generally frowned upon in sources. As I understand it, Know Your Meme is user-contributed and therefore not a reliable source. czar ♔   03:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good article yet
As I'm sure you're aware Czar, you reverted six of my edits and then gave an edit summary that only contained a reason for reverting four of them. (This is an improvement over many editors who revert with no summary). In any case, I have restored my edits that did not have to do with the lede.

I do not buy your claim that the lede is supposed to repeat exact sentences given in the article. It is supposed to summarize in a way that still involves good prose writing. I thought my summary did that but feel free to tell me what you think was specifically wrong with it. In particular, the article from last year in College Magazine is quite appropriate. It mentions the association with surfing in California which speaks to the regional dependence of what "bro" means. Connor Behan (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I said the lede summarizes the article. It doesn't "repeat exact sentences". No need to be inflammatory. Feel free to add back whatever you feel would be appropriate in light of my edit summary, but when at least 2/3 of the edit is no good, burden is on the contributor to justify the change, not the maintainer. czar ⨹   18:29, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok not exact, but one sentence differed only by changing the word "they" to "Oxford Dictionaries". I have split my edit into four pieces this time and tried to retain more of what the original lede was saying. Connor Behan (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?
Bro subculture. Who made this up? This is the kind of anti-knowledge article that dilutes the reputation of Wikipedia. This kind of non-knowledge has been flourishing on this site. There is no such thing as Bro subculture as soemthing to be studied except in the imagination of those who choose to subscribe to such vague generalized nonsense. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlkeprta (talk • contribs) 05:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP is a tertiary source that reports reliable, secondary sources. If your question isn't facetious, look to the sources. czar  04:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bro (subculture) → Bro culture – Per WP:NATURAL. "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." While it is technically a subculture, its WP:COMMONNAME by the general public is "bro culture". A simple Google search will show many instances of this turn of phrase. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy support - we can do that. Red   Slash  21:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flickr Copyright Inquiry
The images used in the following article are pulled from private photographers who have posted their work on Flickr. To clarify, are these photos covered by copyright? Or are they public domain? Tmelior (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Tanner

Variations
Variations

Modern variation of "Bro" include bruh, and brudda. These were mostly used by African-American communities.

Bruh

'Bruh' was first used in the late 80s and the early 90s. It was used to address people example: Bruh John, Bruh Michael. It was mostly used by African-American communities. During the times of the internet 'bruh' became an internet meme.

Brudda

Brudda is a slang term for brother. It is widely used as an internet meme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FizzoWasHere (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

the 2013 article that is cited several times thru-out is completely unfounded
this article has huge issues and half of the information shouldn't even be here. it needs to be gutted. most citations point back to a 2013 BLOG POST that has no sources, no data, no evidence, nothing empirical, and doesn't even attempt to somehow validate its own claims. It simply presents anecdote and conjecture as fact.

Someone's personal blogpost about what they *think* is happening to language is not fact. It is opinion. This article is purely in the realm of opinion. There are very easy ways to verify claims made about language -- polls would easily produce such evidence. Nothing solid is included. Linguistic claims cannot be made without evidence and this article wouldn't even be tolerated in a highschool writing course. 76.97.93.14 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)