Talk:Geek/Archive 2

WHAT THE HELL?
Why is there an entire paragraph describing nerds, as well as numerous references to "taped eyeglasses", on the Wikipedia page for geek (not nerd)?
 * Aside from (taped) eyeglasses, it is also debatable as to whether the geek chic fashion actually borrows at all from the stereotypical geek image which is based on lack of fashion sense, or more specifically an overtly studious, academic appearance, hence the so-called "Poindexter" look. Geek chic is not to be confused with preppie fashion which is more widely associated with a conservative image rather than geek culture

~Rayvn 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or dictionary?
I thought Wikipedia was (as its name suggests) supposed to be an encyclopedia, i.e. concerned with knowledge. This article is, however, about the supposed definition of a word: all the discussion below is devoted to arguing about what the word means, distinguishing it from other words etc. Dictionaries treat language, encyclopedias treat knowledge (or what is currently thought to be knowledge) - two totally separate fields. Unless Wikipedia wants to start trying to define every word in the English language, this article should not even exist. 217.154.102.195 (talk) 10:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

At least there is no more racial stereotypes
One Wiki article claimed that a nerd/dork/geek was anyone who "rejected African American culture in any way." Despite that obviously being offensive to blacks, I'm glad it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.156.253 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Geek tattoos
Given the article's broad approach, the phenomenon of "geek tattoos" probably should be mentioned here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.178.168 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then let's just add "Rap Tattoos" and "Feminist Tattoos" to their respective articles too, that'll be totally relevant! Seriously, putting Geek Tattoos in here would be as frivolous as putting in Brands of Emo Mascara. - Comment added by User:Kahou

Telling a geek apart from a nerd.
Check this page out. Nerds and geeks are different.TimHowardII 08:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)TimHowardII

Telling a geek apart from a nerd #2
The difference between a nerd and a geek is that a nerd is focused on overall knowledge, whereas a geek is focused specifically all over one subject. 11:31, 2 August 2007 (EST) Unknown_Interval


 * Not so. The difference comes more towards academics and acheivement.  A nerd is highly concerned with grades - think the teacher's pet - and studies hard.  A geek, OTOH, is generally unconcerned with that, and only cares about their chosen discipline(s).24.150.226.39 (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you are both? I have known Geeks who are obsessed with one thing at a time, but are also focused on overall knowledge. I would not classify them as a hybrid. To me "nerd" is an insult involving looks, affectations and lack of social ability with or without higher intellect. Nerds sometimes group, but often do not get along with other nerds as they often have great social fears. They never find their niche. Geeks group easily by interests, not just looks. Nerds grow up to be the weird guy down the street who has no life and no happiness. Geeks grow up to have a life and are often happy go lucky despite their mild social fears.


 * The difference is that geeks are social and usually have a lot of friends. Many times their friends are other geeks, but they won't be rejected by other non-geeky people.  In addition, they tend to care what they wear, PURPOSELY wearing the geek shirts in order to look cool.  For example, most of the female LARPers in the group I used to hang out with went into exquisite detail on their costumes, and looked equally put-together on non-LARP days.  Many geeks have in interest in hard rock, techno/etc., or video game music, as opposed to a nerd, who may have an interest in video game OSTs, but also probably listens to classical or some obscure...   polka or something, stereotypically.  Geeks do not wear pocket protectors or collard shirts.  Geeks know as much about celebrity statuses as any 15-year-old did in the 90s.   The difference between geeks and nerds is, basically, that teenage - 20s nerds no longer exist (for the most part), and have been replaced by geeks.  The last term is dork.  The dork is the one who isn't good at making friends, not even with nerds and geeks, has poor hygiene and isn't necessarily intelligent.  (Both geeks and nerds are at least mildly intelligent - a geek may not get into MIT, but he can read and isn't interested in 2000-era celebrity gossip.)  Nerds only make friends with other nerds but geeks can make friends with people from a lot of different groups (the only one they dislike being those of low intelligence - and I don't mean the type of "dumb nerd" that existed in the Nerds movies and other nerd movies.  I mean the ones that tyP lyk d1S and don't admit when they're ignorant about the subject their giving their opinion on...   and discuss celebrity gossip and reality shows in a 2000-era like way).  (Not all geeks have friends but most do, and geeks can easily hang out in a group whereas nerds aren't likely to be able to unless it's other nerds).                     ~Rayvn  17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I THINK YOU ARE ALL GEEKS
Just that. Take a minute and pause to think. You are all Geeks, doing all this discussion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.25.207 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A wise image macro once said "NO U" - Signed by Everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahou (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The majority of people editing the Ron Paul article didn't like Ron Paul.                    ~Rayvn  17:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)

What's a geek?
From my own experiance, I would say the term geek is now commonly used for people who are much like nerds. The difference between those two is that nerds are interested in "practical" things, that are usefull to them and geeks are more for "trivial" thinks, they spend time with because it's entertaining to them.
 * I think that in the modern mindset, nerd is a perjorative term, where geek is more neutral. Nerd should be used to refer to one whose intellectual development in one specific area has atrophied his social skills. Revenge of the Nerds typifies this: the nerds were not able to function well in a social environment. A geek, on the other hand, may be extremely interested in one topic, but is still capable of having a life outside that topic. A comic book geek would have a large collection and be able to cite many facts and details about any comic book in his sphere of interest. He probably goes to cons in costume. However, he can be seen in public in the company of members of the opposite sex on a Friday evening. A comic book nerd, on the other hand, spends his weekends alone with his collection of Spider-Man memorabilia. Aside from his Mary Jane action figures and his mom, he doesn't spend any time with the ladies. This is probably due to poor hygeine, poor health, or just plain being unattractive. Having said that, a true comic book nerd would be offended by that comment, since after the movie came out, Spider-Man is "way too commerical", and he only follows the less well-known books. He very likely lives in his mother's basement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
 * This shows the reason Wikipedia avoids original research, since in my experience I've mostly heard the term "geek" as being more pejorative than "nerd," where "geek" places emphasis on a lack of social skills, and "nerd" emphasizes a high amount of intelligence in a specialized area. Also, the stereotype of living in one's mother's basement is ridiculous, since one could conceivably live in one's father's basement, or even grandparents' basement; or, for that matter, in a cardboard box, and still be considered a geek or nerd. V-Man737 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC).


 * This unhairy ape thinks that most folk who fit badly either term, are either too ignorant to know the difference, too busy to care, or both. Ailahusky 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)ailahusky
 * Living with your parents has little to do with whether or not you have social skills. It DEFINITELY has nothing to do with whether or not you are a geek or a nerd, regardless of the stereotype.  A nerd stereotype is actually going to be working as the head of some department of a computer company (or higher) at some point in his life, so he's obviously not going to be living in a basement or a cardboard box, unless he chooses too.  I think almost everyone would agree with the idea (not the specifics because that's impossible so no nitpicking!) that I put out a few topics above here, because whenever I run into geeks and nerds while in a group of half-geeks or non-geeks non-nerds, and we start this discussion, we ALWAYS agree on this, while trying to explain it to the other person, then exasperatedly look at each other wondering why this person who's never heard of ASCII is so intent on trying to figure this out...   neither the geek/nerd nor the non-geek/nerd are someone I've ever met before (or at least not more then once before), and this happens rather frequently because I am a member of multiple public groups that get together to play board games (this is widely defined and sometimes includes Magic and RPGs-in-a-box), and I don't know most of them.  I am also a member of a very large Pagan meetup group, which results in the same geek/nongeek mix.  No one's ever disagreed with me except the non-'s.


 * Also the number of female nerds hovers around 0 but a female geek is normal.                      ~Rayvn  17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, cant some one be a nerd and a geek? I was just looking at the meanings, and there are many, but it seems to me that I am a geek and a nerd. Any one shed some light on this?
 * You can't really be both, but if you are a nerd under the age of 30 you are going to be hanging out with geeks (meaning you will end up fitting the definition of both, but will only be appropriately referred to as a nerd), because nerds under the age of 30 (mostly) no longer exist. Unless you have no friends (including people you hang out with and talk about geeky stuff with but you don't call them and go out alone or outside of school or whatever), in which case you might fit ONLY the definition for a nerd....   otherwise nerds are all going to fit much of the geek criteria, but they're still appropriately "nerds".  Also if you're an Aspie you might consider giving up on these definitions if you don't already have concrete opinions about them, because if so the definitions will never make sense.


 * Of course you can be both. They are different things, but not mutually exclusive. Depends on what definitions you take though. Personally i take the definitions from what knowledge they hold as both suggest a slight lack of social skills (Which personally i know to be wrong having met people that have been proclaimed both and have social skills far superior to those that i have met proclaiming them to be so) but the main difference is in knowledge base. The nerd hoardes useless knowledge (Sci fi films et all) Where as the geek hoardes useful knowledge (Academia etc). So if you have both, you would indeed be both! Retoanderik88 (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes this is true but it's not what defines it. The geeks can quote Monty Python as well as the nerds can.

An additional factor one might consider is that nerds are always INTERESTED in the pursuit of intellectual knowledge, such as knowing math or history (whether they are successful or not is irrelevant, for now). Geeks, however, may or may not be interested. (There is a difference between being "interested in intellectual pursuits", such as wanting to play chess and learn calculus for the sole purpose of it, and being interested in learning about certain things for a purpose, asking about words you don't know in conversation, or clicking the extra Wikipedia link to the next subject so that you can properly relate it to the one you're currently reading. Like the difference between wanting to learn about history "just because" or wanting to learn about a political and Constitutional history so you can tell which candidate to vote for.                     ~Rayvn  17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

SEEING THE CONCEPT-GEEK- IN ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE
Several writers mention a connection of Asberger's with being a Geek trait but never address the issue of where or when the Asbergers wave began. Prior to addition of Thiomerosol (mercury compound) whuch causes neurological anomalies in susceptible populations, definitely proven by overwhelming majority of diagnosed cases being masculine, start around WW1 when mass scale immunization became cost effective and mandatory, before these mass immunizations incidence of Asbergers variant of Autism was unknown until Asberger detected this himself. On the college scene the fraternity houses on campus were portals into many venues on campus, most notably the social aspect. There are the obvious Mensa-like frat-sorority like Phi Beta Kappa to accomodate the intellectually endowed. These fraternity-sorority clusters after WW2 got the nickname the GREEKS due to their utilization of greek letters. Remember the song 'The Greeks Don't Want No Freaks* that came out after film 'Animal House' which was a low-brow level fraternity, but accepted its token 'GEEK* into the fraternity for the sole purpose of writing term papers for the frat brothers. These ultra-bright persons with low esteem were not usually invited into joining the rest of the frats during 'rush week' because of their lack of social spontaneity..how do I know this you may ask..I was there in the middle of it in the 50's when it all began. The common expression heard on campi( plural form of campus) from coast to coast was these ultra bright folk were not frat greeks, but frat geeks..a way of separating your average college student from a Stephen Hawkings-type genius who were only appreciated by those frats who manipulated them, for their prodigidous talent of memorizing all the questions on the GRE (graduate record exam) which enabled mediocre frat students to get into a master's program, or various final exams in all disciplines. Every frat house had a file cabinet full of these exams for frat brothers to cram with. Since there were 1,000s of these ultra bright students, think Bill Gates, who never themselves graduate college went on to other careers, due to non-intellectual stimuli found on the vast majority of campi, perhaps MIT and CAL TECH were exceptions to this phenomena, terms like nerd and geek were bandied about amongst these ultra bright students without any negative connotation, since these ultra bright were sought out by a myriad of think tanks that created todays' high-tech society. The world as we know it today could never evolve without these genii( plural of genius), perhaps having Asbergers can be seen as blessing in disguise for the planet as whole, but not for those like my own children who are plagued by it and daddy Bush when President made it known no legal challenge involving Connaugh Industries, makers of vaccines, will ever enter a court of law. I love my nerdy, geeky kids and admire their ability to cope with the social pressures to conform and fit in and yet their ability to come up with a new wrinkle on how to solve problems due to their unique insight into how things function so-called normal folk never copmprehend is in itself my take on the phenomenon of nerd and geek. I only see the positive side to being a geek, nerd, wunder-kind, etc they have enriched the world a trillion fold over their Bubba mentality co-inhabitants on the planet. To me a Bubba/Redneck is everybody who is not a nerd or geek, and these folks don't hide their lifestyle one bit. The above is my appraisal of the rise of the nerd and geek to their proper place in society. If someone can expand on the positive side in a manner I haven't covered, by all means be my guest. Jaako 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Jaako
 * Sorry but in addition to your paragraph's incomphrehensibility and your "racist" pronouncement that "everyone who isn't a geek or a nerd is a redneck", I can't put any stock into anything someone says based on the ideas of Asperger's Syndrome if they can't even spell "Asperger".                    ~Rayvn  18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Protected
Why is this page protected?

Minor Tweak 02:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was the subject of an intense bout of vandalism a few days ago. I'd bet the perps are disinterested by now and we can unprotect it... V-Man737 02:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Something to ponder
One automatically assumes that geeks are unstylish and perhaps uninterested in their appearance. So, can you have a geek for whom fashion in his obsession? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.238.2 (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
 * No. Because if something like fashion is his obsession, he would not be a geek anymore. He would be conforming to the mainstream.Mr. ATOZ 17:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt that. Perhaps you wouldn't call the fashion geek a "Geek", but style alone doesn't serve everything you need to be accepted by mainstream: There are stylish people with "lack of social skills", if you want to call it that way, still making them somewhat geeky - although that might be (more common) with female persons. I also don't think geeks essentially need to be unstylish/uninterested in their appearance. I don't know about majority, style might often show if you are mainstream, but not always. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.141.154.154 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Being unstylish alone may not make one a geek. A lot of frumpy women and men have the potential to be handsome or beautiful with a makeover. They can be taken under someones wing to learn some social skills. Geeks on the other hand, would generally not be given a benefit of the doubt. Especially with some of the stereotypical ones. They often don't seem like they would be any more attractive if they were to be given a makeover; if only because they would feel like they were wearing another skin that doesn't quite fit them. What I really mean is the aforementioned frumpy men and women with potential may simply be somewhat uneducated of how to be stylish due to upbringing; maybe they were raised in a small town or conservative family where they didn't have a lot of access to the info on fashion that's available in large cities. A lot of geeks on the other hand simply choose to ignore the information out there on how to be fashionable. They are ignorant due to their lack of interest and in some cases, deliberate eschewing of mainstream fashion. Now we are talking about geeks who (as opposed to your small town farmboy/farmgirl) have access to information moreso than your average citizen.Mr. ATOZ 15:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say you couldn't. But i'd argue that not all geeks have flagrant disregard for their appearance. Lots of us, I mean, them do care they just dont obsess.Retoanderik88 (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Geek canon merge
I have no particular interest in geek culture as a topic, but ended up semi-guarding Geek canon against becoming TOO much of a cesspit some time ago. Unfortunately, it never really evolved much beyond an unreferenced "everyone list your favorite fandoms!!!!1!" After multiple people pointed out on the talk page that the article was completely awful, I decided to redirect it here. Anyway, there is some semi-valuable material there in the history if someone ever wants to have a stab at making that spinoff article with references, or perhaps integrating some of it here. I'd suggest moving it to "geek culture" instead, though, which would be a bit more general and less likely to attract "let me add my favorite" edits. SnowFire 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting us know. 8-B V-Man737 02:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Effectively deleting the page seems a bit rash. After perusing guidelines on deletion (yes, I realize this is not the case exactly here), redirection, merging etc. (being a newbie and careful not to blab without knowing the etiquette :-) I can't see it justified. Yes, the page had much to improve, but most of it was quite valid and informative... Again, being a newbie, I dare not do anything about this, but I would like to see the article a) simply brought back, maybe renamed as suggested, b) tagged for proposed deletion or c) merged to geek and then redirected. Anything but making the thing vanish without warning. Educate me if I'm missing something crucial here. Srjskam 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see the original Geek canon article brought back. It was informative, and especially entertaining. Perhaps SnowFire or someone with access to the original text could post elsewhere and link to it as an external reference from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.92.38 (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current photo should be replaced
I just think that a picture of a male geek would be more appropriate as the term is more associated with males than females.Mr. ATOZ 21:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not.

Geek - Cornish Dialect word
A geek is a nosy person, who is interested in other people's business, current in 1950s Cornwall, U.K.. === Vernon White (talk)  14:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Got a reference for that? Would love to see it!  Ocicat 23:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Only oral report.  One of the speakers was a Bard, however!  I see OED hasn't this sense of the word. === Vernon White  (talk)  07:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * SOURCE: Oall rite, me ansum! a salute to Cornish Dialect by Les Merton (2003). Newbury, Berkshire; Countryside Books ISBN 1-85306-814-4. Page 19: Geek: to look.''Gyky is Kernewek for "to peep". === Vernon White (talk)  08:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ANOTHER SOURCE: A glossary of the Cornish dialect by K.C. Phillips;Padstow, Tabb House, 1993; page 32: gake, geek - to look, to peer: 'Close those curtains, we don't want anybody gaking in'. ===Vernon White (talk)  17:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Recent usage example: Cornish World issue 52 (july 2007), Page 82: Culture/Dialect section

'Ello My Andsome. Ee's some lovely to see ee. Commost on in an I'll put on a nice dish of tay and we can have a sit down. Some warm this week idn uh? Nice te have this drop of sunshine id'n uh? I been out and about this week, havin' a geek round and stretch in, me legs. You wouldn't believe how many flowers there is out now. from ===Vernon White - T A L K . . . to me. 20:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Geek"..
Is "geek" not a pejorative slur? --Remi 07:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some consider it to be one. I'm very much faithless in this article's neutral point-of-view and it requires more citations. Earthere 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Earthere

Citations of original research on this topic will be hard to come by, as very few academics are actually doing it. I'm currently working on a doctoral dissertation on geeks and nerds, but I haven't been contributing to the relevant entries on Wikipedia because I don't want to violate any wiki ethics, as it were. As far as the lack of citations is concerned, however: My lit review includes peer-reviewed research by Lori Kendall (1999a, 1999b, 2000), Bishop et al (2004, free pdf), and Bucholtz (1999), plus brief but relevant pieces from a book by Bailey (2005). Between these, it is evident that kids still fling 'geek' and 'nerd' around as insults, and 'nerd' may be particularly insulting even as it has come to connote intelligence/skill (Kendall), but by high school and adulthood, some people come to proudly identify with the terms. A handful of other articles mention terms like 'geek' and 'nerd' in passing, but most don't actually discuss how or whether people self-identify with these terms. Market research commissioned by the SciFi channel reports that 6.9 million people in the UK self-identify as geeks (over 10% of the population), and the editors of the recent essay anthology "She's Such a Geek!" stated in a recent interview that they wanted to call their book "Female Nerds" but contributors said they found 'geek' less offensive. When the dissertation is done in a year, I hope to have provided something more comprehensive and worth citing, but hopefully this gives something to start with. GeekStudies 17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fred Blassie popularizing pencil neck geek
Didn't this page used to talk about the origins of the term? I was going to add this to that section:

Blassie came up with his famous "pencil-neck geek" catchphrase early in his career to describe a fellow carnival performer known as "The Geek", who bit the heads off chickens and snakes. Blassie said that this geek had a neck like a stack of dimes, and that he was a real pencil-neck geek.

Mathiastck

Sideshow Geeks
Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page specifically for sideshow geeks, which have a much longer and more involved history?


 * Maybe, but the geek show page, is still pretty small. If it gets bigger, we should probably put in a disambig.  For now, I'll at least put some links to it from this page.  Ocicat 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Geek Userbox
Add Geek to your userpage to add:

-Connor Carey 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's cool. Vicco Lizcano (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)

Definition of GEEK
The current page lists only the first and third of the dictionary definitions which its source has. The complete list is below. To only show the first and third it prejorative and offensive.

Dictionary: Geek. Dictionary.com-Merriam-Webster entry. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/geek

1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual. 2. a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.) 3. a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Certavi (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

geek stuff
For some reason people automacticaly think of a geek unfit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.170.71 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Driven by passion my a**
I'm not going to change the article, because I know there's a billion geeks out there who will change it back and maybe give my computer a nasty virus, but the article is obviously written by a biased self-proclaimed geek. To say that a geek is defined by pursuing passion over finance or social acceptance is TOTAL BS. Everyone is driven by passion or fear. That's the definition of a human. Someone driven to make loads of money or be popular is driven by a passion of wealth or fame, of attention that they don't get from their parents. It's still a passion that drives them. And by this lamo definition then, a jock is a geek, and that's absurd. Jocks are driven by a passion for sports and athletics.

The defining characteristic of a geek is a lack of social aptitude and interest. Instead of going to parties and spending their free time hanging out and just building relationships with their peers, they focus on other things whether it is music, art, science, drama, band, etc. While geeks may claim that they don't buy into the social order at school because they're real, and they don't submit their personality or behavior to the social order, they're total hypocrites. They reject it, because they're not on top. Instead, they have their own social order, where they look up to the best in their field of interest whether top physicists or musicians, or artists or whatever. The popular kids in school on the other hand would go crazy to meet Paris Hilton or the top celebrity.

Lastly, any self-proclaimed geek is a hypocrite by definition. How can you embrace a label that reinforced the very social order you claim to reject as valid? That's like blacks calling themselves the 'n' word and thinking it's a cool, ironic statement against the very label that has mocked them throughout history only to realize they're just reinforcing the very racist order they're trying to mock.

And if you're into science and math, you're a nerd, and geek is the umbrella term so you can be a band geek but not a band nerd, although if you're into both science and band, you're a nerd and a band geek. If you don't buy into the whole stupid high school label thing, then you're just a smart person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot--


 * I spend ALL of my time building relationships. You're BS :D.
 * Or perhaps angry athiests should write the article about "Jesus Christ"? (It would start out like this: Jesus Christ is a mythical character from the novel, "Holy Bible"... ~


 * What would you expect from an article about geeks, written by geeks? The chicken-and-egg issue is a valid one: do they reject the social order because they're not on top, or are they not on top because they reject the social order?  Both could easily be true.


 * However, calling a self-proclaimed geek a hypocrite for identifying with a derogatory term is less than insightful. The term "Yankee" was originally a derogatory term invented by the British against the colonists, which the colonists then adopted for themselves.  The word "Hebrew" is said to have come from a word meaning "dusty," used by non-Israelites to describe them in a less than flattering way, yet they adopted the term for themselves.  One might argue that the best way to kill the derisiveness of a term is to identify with it.


 * Over-all, though, this article does vaguely seem to lack the feel of a certain professional objectivity.
 * Nonaeroterraqueous (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like this article got a major well needed cleaning up. Both of you are right in certain areas but the thing I noticed about the reclaiming of the term geek, it was reclaimed by a lot of people who did not bear the burden of being labelled geeks previously. All of a sudden, in the 90s, people simply came to the mistaken realization that being smart could possibly make you wealthy or powerful. Besides, who doesn't want to be thought of as intelligent? However, people didn't and still don't realize that a geek that understands string theory is not the same as an ambitious buisnessman that cleverly, ruthlessly, and agressively "plays the game" to get to the top. I doubt that Trump even knows what string theory is. Bill Gates didn't become a billionare because he was a geek, he became a billionare because he played the same agressive, ruthless game that other tycoons play. He screwed a lot of smarter people (people who wrote the code that he stole) and took credit for their work.


 * Also, one should not confuse geeks with literati, pseudo-intellectuals, artsy-fartsy and "I've read Proust, I've read Shaw, I've read Aristotle, ect". In fact, these make up the majority of self-styled geeks. Now when asked if they've read "Darwin, Newton, Sagan, or Hawking" watch their mouths drop to the floor.


 * To clear up one final thing, those who are passionate about music, band, art, or drama are not generally considered geeks, even if they are introverted. Unlike science, average mainstream people can identify with music and the performing arts and they actively nurture an interest in them. Genius in the performing arts is more highly valued by the mainstream than scientific genius. They cannot identify with quantum physics or microsingularities. Besides, drama and band are still social activities unless you're a one man show.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

social geeks
I'd also like to introduce a new category called "social geeks." These are people who lack social aptitude, but they aspire to be popular or hang with the popular people or celebrities. They spend a lot of their free time talking about the popular kids in school or celebrities. They reinforce the social order and arguably popularize and validate it. Without these social geeks, the popular kids would just be another clique, but the social geeks elevate them to the status of gods and help mock and deride other geeks. They also help attack other social posers who try to hang out with the popular kids. Sometimes the popular kids will even throw them a social bone by inviting them to a party here and there in a political move to consolidate their popularity or undermine a social contender. As adults, social geeks spend all their time reading celebrity magazines and buying expensive fashion items to look like their favorite celebrities. While popular kids can be mean, they actually spend most of their time focusing on other popular kids and not tormenting non-popular kids. It is in fact the social geeks who are usually most guilty of the most cruel and aggressive harassment of other geeks to help reinforce the social order which not only includes idolatry of those on top but persecution of those on bottom. By making those on bottom appear even more geekish and inferior, they try to elevate themselves in the social order. Popular kids do not need to do this as much, as they are already on top by virtue of social aptitude, wealth, or looks. Social geeks, obsessed with the social order in high school, as tend to make all the high school movies which propagate and reinforce their biased perspective of school as a strict social order where to them, it is nothing but a struggle to ascend the social order, and in the climax, they ascend it only to realize it's not as great as they thought, but of course, that's just sour grapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, why should these people be Geeks? The person you describe here is the mainstreamer, making the majority of each classroom. 195.46.247.43 (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

GEEK DEFINITION IS WRONG!!!!!!!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MATH GEEK!!!!! That is a mistake! A so-called "math geek" is a NERD!!!!! Geeks are people who like video games, computers, other TECHNOLOGY, Comics, and Horror!!!! While nerds are people who like math, reading anything NOT Comics or Horror, and do their homework everyday!! I myself am a Geek!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.23.89 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I FORGOT WHAT WE ARE YELLING ABOUT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kahou (talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Time Article on Geek
I know there is one (or a few) written out there. It basically described the changing trends of "geekdom" from the 1980's till today -- and paralleling it to the advent of the Internet. I do not remember what year, let alone issue, that article was. So, I merely point it out. KyuuA4 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary
That is policy, and since this is a magnet for original research... I'd like to hear some thoughts on a possible deletion.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 02:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That or merge with nerd. They're essentially the same thing. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose said deletion. The article is much more than a definition, and many would say that geeks are not equal to nerds. -- Aseld  talk  09:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Geeks and nerds are not the same thing. Kingturtle (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While true, differences between the two terms exist per Dictionary.com - geek and nerd. The differences in word etymology is obvious.  Yet in terms of modern usage, both evolved to describe the socially inept person with intellectual interests.  Therefore, there has to be a way to merge the two together because of similar word usage.  After all, can the two terms be considered synonyms? KyuuA4 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OR


 * If the differences between "geek" and "nerd" are significant, then let's begin discussing "how" and "why" in order to justify Keeping or Deleting this article. Though, if this article were to be deleted, I'm willing to expect a redirect to "nerd" anyways. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "both evolved to describe the socially inept person with intellectual interests."?? au contraire! As this article quotes The Colbert Report, the difference between nerds and geeks is "geeks get it done". Kingturtle (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. We'll go along this line.  Come to think of it, not every geek is socially inept. Therefore, that misconception needs to be made clear here. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Geek and Nerd are not the same thing.Vicco Lizcano (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) (Hey! Listen!)


 * Oppose Merge I agree, Geeks and Nerds differ undeniably in several key areas. One I would suggest is taken forward is that Geeks use their knowledge for something, Nerds have knowledge of things which are completely useless in most walks of life. For example, Geeks may well excell academically and study hard, but this will come in useful, however, a nerd would know the entire script of all the starwars films and I cant see how this would really aid their getting a job. Retoanderik88 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
& Problems with current 'Geek' article

There are a lot of problems with how the word geek is defined in this article, especially in the 'Definitions' section, which contains arbitrary and unsourced interpretations of the word. An example is given of "using multivariate calculus to determine how [- to -] correctly optimize the dimensions of a pan to bake a cake". Is there any evidence that any person has ever done this in real life? I find it unlikely. & I think that using exaggerated made-up examples to illustrate a point is unencyclopedic circular logic.

I suggest that 'Geek' be merged with 'Nerd', since the words are more or less synonymous (or at least have a heavy overlap). The merged article could contain a section explaining perceived differences between nerds and geeks (where these distinctions are supported with a citation & not just editorial opinion). The etymologies of both words could be addressed separately within the article, but most other content (of what is already in the two separate articles) applies to both terms.

If a merge is not supported, I think the 'Geek' article needs some attention to bring it up to quality standards. Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose Personally, having spent a fair amount of time cleaning up the nerd page, I would by far prefer to see Geek clened up, rather than being merged. The two words at times have fairly similar meanings or usages, but really are separate with their own usages, both pejorative and self-ascribed. Cleaning it up will be a lot of work, and I don't envy you. But nerd is now moderately stable, and I'd really rather not go through all that again. Brons (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't yet seen any fully explained & verified explanation of the difference between the two terms. In terms of clean-up, yes, some work is needed on this article before it is fit to be merged.  But if it is merged, it will be easier to maintain the one article in good condition than two separate articles which are likely to overlap heavily in subject & content.  Weasel Fetlocks (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My preference is to not merge the two articles as they have different etymologies and somewhat different meanings. If the consensus is to merge, however, perhaps they should be placed under a more general name as there are similar perjoratives, namely dweeb, dork, wonk, spaz and so forth.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I oppose merger. While geek and nerd may be synonymous they are two distinct words with differing origins and meanings (wiktionary has two articles).  Weasel, geek comes with a connotation of being knowledgeable in a technical field while nerd is boarder implying an obsession with all manners of intellectual activities (and even obscure interests).  Next your going to tell me to merge fanboy and Otaku. Lets begin cleanup.--88wolfmaster (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per 88wolfmaster, the two words have different shadings of meanings according to some dictionaries, including Wiktionary: nerd and geek.  JGHowes  talk  -  20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose different words with slightly different meaning and background Ijanderson (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose to give you a visual a nerd would the kind of prototypical "Dexter"-Like character favoring the pursuit of higher knowledge to a high social standing, while a geek is the type of guy that camps out in front of an establishment for some coveted device (A movie premier, a comic, a computer, ect.) because they have obsessed themselves with it. It is possible (and often likely) for one to be both, but they are too frequently grouped together do the the fact that both groups are ostracized by peers who just see them as being weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.19.60 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) OpposeNerds and Geeks are two diffent species in the genus known as 'smart kid'and wanna be smart kids who may or may not be as dumb as a bag of bug infested potatos. with horseshit at the bottom. For more information, please go the American Classification Assosiation website at: www.nerdorgeek.edu
 * 6) Oppose Nerds and Geeks are diffrent in many ways. Nerds in my opinion are not as obsessed with a certain thing. However, geeks are obsessed with that one thing, and are usally in flocks.Usually.Allen Kinser (talk) 7:15, 12 September 2008
 * 7) Oppose A geek is a carnival performer who does disgusting acts. The term has been robbed of it's meaning and has for some reason, in popular culture, taken on the meaning of nerd.  Research into when and why this happened would be useful. ref:  http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=geek  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.176.138 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Collective of Geeks
Just wondering, a group of Geeks, what have you heard it reffered to?

The one ive heard most is a "Mosh" of Geeks. Because of the music most "Geeks" now listen to.

Retoanderik88 (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nerds are totally different from geeks... You're a nerd. Your mom is a geek. GET it? Oh and a group of geeks is refered to as a flock

spelling error
section : Definitions; last bullet point. "discription" should be "description".

"Neccesity" is spelled incorrectly in the section entitled "Reclamation and Self-identification-- second paragraph-- it should be "necessity."Fridaygrrl (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The great chopping of '07
Hi all. I have removed a lot of unsourced material from the article and rewritten much of the rest. It appears that anyone who ever wore glasses or a cardigan is on the list of examples. I have removed all those without references. If you can find a ref where they or someone else uses the term, put 'em back in (and include the ref). I think there may be some confusion between geek chic and hipster irony here. Not everyone wearing an ALF shirt is actually a fan of ALF. Thanks, Wachholder0 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all these examples of geek chic...
are perfect examples that support the statements made under the revisionism section. These examples are entertainers or people who work in the arts and entertainment industry, not the sciences. Not a single person I recognize from the fields of science, computers, math, or engineering. A word on the female examples (including fictional ones like Daria): Like the majority of self-styled girl geeks, most of them, just going on appearances alone, more closely fit the image of boho-chic than geek chic.Mr. ATOZ 20:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism
The "revisionism" section needs revised, as it seems to be composed entirely of subjective analysis and omits references for the bulk of statements made. Whether or not us geeks would agree with the section, the fact remains that Wiki is not a place for opinions and relies on writers to uphold its good name 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Viola
 * This tells me that you totally fail to understand the basic definition of geek chic. That section is telling us that it was NOT scientitsts, engineers, or computer people (the traditional "geek" population) who came up with "geek chic". They are not the ones who revised the geek image to be cool. They are too busy with their science, math, and computers to even bother. It was those others that the revisionism section mentioned (celebrities, hipsters, MTV people) and solely as a superficial fashion statement! Just look at the list of celebrities considered geek chic. Any scientists, engineers, or computer people on there? What about the girl in this article's photo (see the talk page in the geek article for everyone's thoughts on her)? Subjective? No! But a bold faced fact that is staring us all in the face!Mr. ATOZ 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack Black
The Jack Black link in the article leads to a disambiguation. Since I can't tell which one is meant, could somebody help? -- Mkill 19:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be Jack Black (actor). Done. --Doug (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Examples of Geek Chic
In the examples of geek chic, I find some questionable celebrities which include:
 * Conan O'Brien - I'm unsure of any visual evidence to prove he has a geek chic look.
 * Tina Fey - Just seems to wear thick glasses, other than that she dresses in average-looking clothes.
 * Stephen Colbert - I think he dresses more like a pompous news guy than a geek.

In fictional examples I question the inclusion of:
 * Dewey Finn - he dresses more like a slob or stoner)
 * Gordon Freeman - I don't see how he dresses like a geek other than thick glasses

I hope it's agreed for this article that just wearing thick glasses doesn't necessarily make one "geek chic."

Moved comment from article space
"I think that this summary is not good and well understaning, in needs to be more improved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.222.216 (talk • contribs) -- MarkBuckles 08:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As an example of geek chic, Quentin Tarantino is highly suspect. He is a filmmaker and that places him strictly in the arts and entertainment. Mr. ATOZ 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Social Impact?
I was a geek growing up. I still am, I guess. However, as an adult, its more acceptable. I graduated high school in 1994, when the geek chic trend was just starting. I'd like to know if the trend might have had some impact on the lives of actual geeks. Has geekdom become more socially acceptble? Joshcating 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hasn't done a thing for real geeks, only for the flashy wanna-bees. Real geeks don't sport an image. They are too busy focused on their work or whatever it is that they're obsessed with or passionate about, whether it be producing freeware applications or science teacher.Mr. ATOZ 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To Mr. ATOZ - That's utter crap. As a geek myself I resent the implication that sporting an image or even being in defense of slightly unpopular dress sense means you're not a true geek.  Given that by no means are you an authority to speak on what it is to be a "real geek" I don't think you've got the right to... "eliticize" for lack of a real term, geek culture, who is allowed to do what, etc.  I'm a vehement defender of what I wear, and the way I dress, and the fact that I am a complete geek in almost every sense of the word.  By your logic though that makes me an "untrue geek".  Focus on a single subject or group of subjects does not exclude the desire to sport an image or stand out amongst the crowd.  Please do your research and maybe make a few unbiased and unjudgemental observations before you declare image-sporting geeks as wanna-be's.  Geek IS an image now, more and more people are realizing this, more and more markets are open to it (take for example ThinkGeek) and it's becoming more accepted. 203.14.180.97 07:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a geek is one part brains, one part pains, and a helluva lot of loneliness. Would you even know about the pains and loneliness! I haven't even seen you mention what field you're in. You think it's all about wearing gimmiky t-shirts and glasses like the chick in this article's picture? She is the perfect example of a poseur. She may know something about computers and webdesign, but she's more interested in sporting her ego than producing any serious content on her site which I have visited http://www.stephthegeek.com/about. She obviously uses the geek label as a gimmick to make herself seem more interesting. If she wants to be taken seriously, she would drop the stereotypical geek image (which actually evolved from geeks having poor fashion sense and poor hygiene) and sport a mature image. Yes, Geek is an image now and you are buying into all the lies.Mr. ATOZ 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...easy, all.....I didn't mean to start an argument. Joshcating 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

David Tennant?
The fact that he simply described his character's look as geek chic probably does not belong in the heading. And it doesn't neccesarily mean it is geek chic.Mr. ATOZ 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone in a different Silicon Valley than I am?
I marked "This exaggeration is based on the more casual dress code enforced in many such companies although in reality, this is still mostly limited to business appropriate attire" as uncited, because not only is it, but it's also pretty much wrong.

Having worked at FriendFinder, Yahoo, a small company in the old Xerox campus, and SBC... have friends at Jackster, Apple, Cisco, and Facebook. Sure, some people dress all business-casual. but they do so because they feel like it. Lots more people wear tShirtHell and thinkgeek shorts, jeans, and chucks. Blue hair is commonplace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.20.98 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's consider you and your friends at these companies. What were your titles or positions? Were any of you employees with status of any kind? If not, sure, a lot of places let you dress however you want (within reason), especially call centers or such. I used to work at a call center where we had a few goth types. But would managers, executives, salesmen, and anyone who would publicly represent the company or interact with clients dress in thinkgeek shorts? I'll agree the statement was uncited but how do you know that those who dress more buisness-casual at your workplace don't do it because they are more important than you are and are obligated to look as such in order to be taken seriously?137.198.20.56 (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the focus might be more on the "publicly represent the company" rather than the "status of any kind" or "more important." Many of my Silicon Valley company co-workers have great status and importance in both our company and in the professional/academic world as researchers. But in a research environment, they are under no pressure to dress any way on a day-to-day basis (and can be found in a wide array of dress styles, including flip-flops, sandals, shorts, witty t-shirts, etc.). However, when meeting with other organizations, they usually adopt business casual (or even more formal) attire. So as for the statement "although in reality, this is still mostly limited to business appropriate attire," I would personally need more evidence or better wording, because like 65.87.20.98, I don't see this being true as is. WDavis1911 (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, rephrasing. It's basically a misrepresentation. Customer-facing jobs require customer facing clothes, but there an end. It's nothing at all about "status" within the organisation as 137.198.20.56 claims: it's about responsibilities of role. directors and higherups often violate these anyway, and "business casual" shorts/polo-shirts are way more common than shirt and tie. If you're a lead programmer, and you come to work in your boxers, that's pretty OK, so long as your code is good, and your team respects you. And since they'll be geeks, what you wear won't factor into the latter half as much as whether your variable names are longer than two letters. DewiMorgan (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Geek Chick
I honestly read this as "Geek Chick" not "Geek Chic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.213.11 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking about nerd girl. There's an article for that too.137.198.20.56 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian article
Why is the Russian article on botany listed as a different language version for this article? Leon math (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is men-made and men aren't perfect. -- 201.69.46.4 (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Geek Rock
Somebody should put the people who are considered geek rock on this article.

How about Geeksta Rap as well? MC Pee Pants, Fett the Vette, both done by MC Chris would be a great example Dexman76 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge of "Geek Chic" with this article
This proposed merge of the Geek Chic article with this one was proposed in February; no one has yet spoken to it. I suggest we give it one more week (until 12:00 noon UTC, April 23, 2008) and then either merge the two or remove the tag. Sunray (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Geek Chic is an interesting development for Geek culture. The merged articles would strengthen the product, IMO. Sunray (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that geek chic should be merged with geek. As of now geek chic is just a small stub article, and while it can have it's own page it would work just as well with a redirect as a small section in the geek page. This would add to the geek page while still keeping the usefelness of the original geek chic page. This would also let us add a Geek in Popular Culture section to the geek article. Which could lead to more additions and a more comprehensive encyclopedia entry.

98.246.92.12 (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge completed. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Geeks
To my beliefs a geek is: A smart person with social skills

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.108.209 (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Misquote?
The dictionary definition that begins this article is misquoted.

The word geek is a slang term, noting individuals as "a peculiar or otherwise odd person, especially one who is perceived to be overly obsessed with one or more things including those of intellectuality, electronics, etc."

The dictionary link provided, however, says:

geek  Slang. Use geek in a Sentence –noun 1. a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.

Perhaps the dictionary changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.100.10 (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please fix: the Towel Day is NOT a Douglas Adams birthday
subj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.32.83 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the hell did you disable the Mouse and Cursor Keys on this page?
Silly really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.65.166 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Geek chic rewrite.
This section had some interesting, but uncited original research about the source of Geek Chic. However, the viewpoints there were those of an outsider: "it doesn't mean geeks are fashionable; after all, the geek chic fashion doesn't stick to the geek stereotype". This logic fails, because subcultures are formed by their members, not by the opinions of outsiders. Geeks are not working under some crazed belief that they are "being like the Silicon Valley people", by wearing perl puns on their shirts: they are celebrating their identity as perl programmers. Geek stuff is marketed *at geeks* (qv ThinkGeek, et al). Just because non-geeks think geeks should have no fashion sense doesn't mean that this is true.

My edits need work - they're based on the original post, I've just edited out the more obvious logical flaws, the geek-hostility, and instead assumed that a subculture is formed by its members. DewiMorgan (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored this section to its original. You can hardly fault the original for being uncited when the replacement is also uncited. But at least the original was objectively written with no hostility seemingly intended. The geek chic image has been promoted mostly by hipsters and entertainment figures, not scientists and engineers (NO Steve Jobs and Bill gates do not count). I'm guessing that most think that geek chic was invented by Madison Avenue and Hollywood. Most of the geek chic marketing is towards videogames, TV shows, music, and other entertainment, not towards boosting an interest in science and engineering. Also, subcultures may be formed by members, but quite often, poseurs, wannabes and scene-whores will outnumber the true members who will eventually move on to something else. For all we know, that's what happened with geek-chic. Your edits are based on your want to see "geek" as a positive thing. But your "want" isn't enough.Mr. ATOZ (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Geek chic
The line "Some[who?] agree that the concept was born sometime during the mid 1990s;" What's with the "who"? It's pretty clear, some, as in not everybody. I myself would be part of that group and would say 96-8 to be more specific. Some is a perfectly reasonable term to use, it's simply not possible or logical to list exactly who this group consists of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PraxisThanatopsis (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's been removedMr. ATOZ (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Towel day
Towel day commemorates the two-week-after-Douglas-Adams'-death anniversary. Douglas Adams was born in march, NOT on the May 25.

83.200.68.209 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'll remove that tidbit. Mind  matrix  15:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of GEEK
geek

"sideshow freak," 1916, U.S. carnival and circus slang, perhaps a variant of geck "a fool, dupe, simpleton" (1515), apparently from Low Ger. geck, from an imitative verb found in North Sea Gmc. and Scand. meaning "to croak, cackle," and also "to mock, cheat." The modern form and the popular use with ref. to circus sideshow "wild men" is from 1946, in William Lindsay Gresham's novel "Nightmare Alley" (made into a film in 1947 starring Tyrone Power).

Ref: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=geek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cradav (talk • contribs) 23:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider major revision
Several sections of this article are unsupported by fact: geek chic, definitions. Most of the definitions are repeated and indistinguishable. Several topics should be considered for a separate page or removal: difference between geeks and nerds, geek chic (?mostly some random geeks opinions?), and the head eating geek thing, this is an encyclopedic article not a dictionary definition..

Here is my proposed revision: Geek (individuality) for circus performer go to Geek (head eating performer) for all uses go to Geek (disambiguation)

geek is slang...

geek started when ... ... ...

Use as a social label, also see nerd, dweeb, Geek vs nerd

self proclamation and pride

also see geek squad, geek this geek that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloooza (talk • contribs) 04:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)