Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)/Archive 2

Austin as a hipster town
I removed the claim, and the reference used to support it, that Austin is a hipster town. The reference, TV-a-go-go: rock on TV from American Bandstand to American Idol, is adequate to source topics relating to rock on television, but is not adequate for the claim made in this article. I started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard if anyone wants to take part. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 02:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Whether biased and poorly sourced or the reverse, this article is a useful example of how inclusiveness can make a reference work less useful. Wikipedia's "notability" criterion should be robust enough to exclude an article about "hipster," an article to which it is hard to imagine anybody coming in search of information. ("Is this rock a piece of quartz? Is this guy's view an instance of idealism? Is my sister a hipster? Just a minute while I consult Wikipedia on 'quartz,' 'idealism' and 'hipster' in order to find out.") The fact that a great deal has been written, and can be cited in-line, about a word for an alleged concept, does not mean that there is any genuine subject matter lurking out there behind the word to be written about. It's as if, instead of explaining what is known about ants, somebody had summarized a lot of things that have been written about pissants. It would be a waste of time to delete somebody's article on "pissant." Nevertheless, it shouldn't exist. Mstarli (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Critical analysis"
This section is ridiculous; it's written like an essay on hipsters and the popular opinion of them. How is this encyclopedic in any way? Hell, the first paragraph contains more Lorentzen quotes than it does original text. Also, why do we need a critical analysis of hipsterism? What is special about this article that requires that such a section exist, unlike articles on the rest of Wikipedia? I've added an Unencylcopedic tag to the article, in reference to this section. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know why. Otherwise, can we fix this? 129.2.129.88 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * of course it is the place for encyclopedia articles to place context around the subjects they cover. Active Banana    (bananaphone  11:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hipster "locations"
I removed this from the article and bring it here for discussion.


 * In the UK, Hoxton and Shoreditch are known as hipster areas, and hipsters are referred to pejoratively as "Shoreditch twats." In the US, areas associated with hipsters include Williamsburg, Brooklyn;   Echo Park in Los Angeles; the Mission District in San Francisco;  and Oak Cliff, Dallas. In Canada, notable districts include Vancouver's Commercial Drive and Main Street,  Toronto's Queen Street West and Parkdale,  and Montreal's Plateau Mont-Royal and Mile End  . In Australia, the corresponding areas would be St Kilda in Melbourne; Garema Place in Canberra, Newtown, and Erskineville in Sydney.

These claims about locations where "hipsters" congregate is inherently problematic. First, some of these sources are questionable, and the definition of "hipster" from one source to another may differ. In addition to this is the fact that urban demographics change quickly and these neighborhoods might change more dramatically than the article can. Given these factors, I suggest this section be left out entirely. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 21:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are probably quite a few real estate brokers / estate agents out there that would prefer the location section to be left in... ; ) 86.181.156.47 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Middle class youth subcultures tend to move about as low rent areas get gentrified. Putting in suburbs would not be a good idea. Unless we also include the year that it was identified as such by reliable sources who establish the notability of it. Ashmoo (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. phrase
"Hipster" in its contemporary sense is really a U.S.or Canadian term (or problem?). For example, nobody in the U.K. uses it. Perhaps this is due to the fact that invariably what people in Hoxton or Shoreditch are doing seems to filter over to the States around 3 years later ; ) Article should reflect predominately American useage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.152.71 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a picture of those hipster glasses in this article
I think the glasses have become the symbol/icon when people refer to hipsters, at least on the web. For example, http://hipsterhitler.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.66.105 (talk) 05:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure about the glasses, but it is surprising that there are no pictures of hipsters in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it's an unwelcomed pejorative label, it'd be about as appropriate as putting pictures of random black people into the Nigger article. So i'd recommend against it. Roidroid (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's considered "pejorative" any more, except by their "opponents". At least not in the "Nigger" sense. see also section above. -- megA (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hipster - Indie kid comparison?
I think there should be a section outlining the differences between "indie kids" and hipsters. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Australia, the term "Indie" to refer to a group of people (as opposed to the music and film genre) was far more dominant than "hipster" until maybe recently. 115.69.17.4 (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The term "indie kid" means nothing, since one of the identifying factors of a hipster is the fact that they are highly into indie music and pretty much are no real identifiers to set them apart. Similar music taste, similar styles, similar attitudes. And plus, that's pretty irrelevant to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.129.194 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Do hipsters call themselves hipsters?
Without getting back into last year's whole neutrality debate, here's a simple question: Is it common for hipsters to call themselves hipsters? I've only heard the term as a label others apply to people, usually as a derogatory term. If that is the main usage, the article should at least mention it. --Baumi (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, adding Category:Pejorative_terms_for_people Roidroid (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From my personal experience, self-aware hipsters frequently adapt the term ironically. Remember that a great deal of hipster culture is ironically using terms and symbols to acquire authenticity through insincerity. Ironically embracing hipsterism itself is a perfectly valid expression, and there are many hipsters who go out of their way to embrace the stereotypical hipster look as a meta-joke, myself included. Of course, this runs the risk of being called a try-hard, but what can you do. --99.224.174.102 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no basis in the article for that categorization. "Hipster" is not the equivalent of "faggot," "nigger," "kike," etc. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't hipsters despised because they are "tryhards"? They're the new-wave preppy kids of the 90's. If you try to be cool (or ironic in being "uncool"), you're still just uncool and unoriginal... and furthermore, a tryhard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.138.249 (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 5 October 2011
This article is good overall, but there are a few references that suggest to me it has been compiled largely by people who are not speaking from first-hand experience within the hipster subculture and thus are not aware of recent changes in trends.

In particular, the top summary paragraph is a bit lazy compared to the rest of the article. In one example, it seems to suggest that hipsterism is rooted strictly in 1990s musical tastes - while there are clear roots there, this is a gross oversimplification that deserves to be expanded upon briefly, even in a summary.

Swag.

StefanoBlack (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests aren't for general rewrites, but specific changes and additions that already have consensus or are unlikely to be controversial. Also, nothing in the article should indicate it was compiled by people who are speaking from first-hand experience, as all information should be sourced to third-party references. — Bility (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Getting a good article requires sources and first hand experience. Sourced and detailed suggestion will be surely added if you provide some. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 04:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article info should be sourced to third party references, however being written from a person with first hand experience should help with the validity of the page.Meatsgains (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture
Mr. Walling, I am not holding up progress, or whatever you said. You said the article "needs" a picture, and I disagreed, and then gave clear reasons why the pictures you have chosen seem inappropriate. And please do not tell me to "stop" unless you can point out how my edits are against policy. If you are so adamant that we need a picture, find one that is appropriate, and make a case for it here on the talk page. But self-identified "hipster" pictures are not, to my mind, appropriate. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 20:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While you're right that the picture represents one person's idea of what "hipster" can look like, the decision is up to the editors of this page to determine whether or not said photo adequately illustrates the subject. I think it does. Do you disagree? -- Irn (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, disagree. There are far, far better examples out there. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture is cool, and has a unique view point. However the page could use more pictures, can someone more famillair with the culture add pics to make the article more encompassing?Meatsgains (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A picture does not have a viewpoint, an editor might have one, and may add a picture to express that viewpoint, but the image is simply an image. In this case, it is self-serving.  If a person can claim to be "x", take a picture of himself dressed in the manner that he thinks "x" dresses, post the picture on Wikipedia with the argument that this is how "x" dresses, and the picture is then added to the article about "x" as being legitimate, we have a problem.  It is not simply up to the editors to decide that "said photo adequately illustrates the subject," it cannot be.  The source and provenance of the image must be determined to be legitimate.  In this case, I do not believe it is.


 * If one of the numerous sources used in the article had images, that would be a different story. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 23:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloodofox, I agree that we could do better, but I think this is better than no picture, and I think that the ironic mustache and flannel shirt illustrate part of the hipster aesthetic. But maybe would you prefer any of the other photos at the Norwegian entry?
 * RJ, how do you know this is self-serving? What makes you believe that the subject of the photo is the one trying to insert it into Wikipedia, and why do you believe that is self-serving? You state, "If a person can claim to be "x", take a picture of himself dressed in the manner that he thinks "x" dresses, post the picture on Wikipedia with the argument that this is how "x" dresses, and the picture is then added to the article about "x" as being legitimate, we have a problem." Where's the problem? If I dress up as a nurse or a footballer, etc., and post a photo of myself dressed that way to the relevant Wikipedia article, I see no problem with that (as long as I do it well and the other editors agree that my photo adequately represents the subject). Where does the problem come from? Or if I go to a nightclub or a wind farm, take a photo there, and post it to Wikipedia, do you see a problem with that? Why do the source and provenance need to be determined to be legitimate? What would a legitimate source look like? -- Irn (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A legitimate source would be a third party who, in a reliable source, included a picture which he says accurately illustrates the topic he was discussing. In this case, as I said, one of the sources already quoted in the article.  Not a self-portrait by a Wikipedia editor.  And I do not like the idea of WP editors using their own judgment on this, it is simply too subjective.


 * I have already seen this sort of thing play out in really idiotic ways. The image at right was used to illustrate the gangster article, and this is the sort of thing I would like to avoid.  These are not gangsters, these are douchebags. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  04:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have been following this, and would not be comfortable with any of the pics offered so far. My objection could be summed up as, "says who?". A pic for the sake of a pic is not ideal. Irn's argument is weak and self serving and basically amounts to "if I see as so, then is it not so"? eh, No. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * RJ, I can see why you'd like a legitimate source like that for a photo for the same reason that we require information be verified by RSs in the text. However, the problem I'm seeing is that it strikes me as simply not feasible. If a photo appears from a reliable source, that photo is going to be copyrighted by that reliable source. There's no way we could claim fair use in that situation. In my experience, almost all non-fair use images are either user-generated, taken from a Flickr (or something similar), or have had their copyright expire. If we limit images to those from reliable sources, we pretty much limit ourselves to only fair use images and images of historical subjects. I think that is simply unreasonable. User-generated images and images released under a free license have a role to play on Wikipedia. I think it is up to us as editors to determine that role. In the examples I gave above, do you find it inappropriate that the articles use images with unclear provenance and/or that are not reliably sourced? If not, why not? My point here is that the question "Says who?" could be asked of pretty much any user-generated image or image taken from Flickr, and I don't see why this article is being held to a different standard.
 * And I haven't tried very hard to argue for its inclusion because I don't think it's that great of a picture. I just disagree with the grounds on which it is being excluded, namely that we need some form of legitimization for the image. I agree that we should have some method to determine whether or not this photo (or any) accurately represents the subject. I don't think we need to get the photo from an RS to do that because I think that places far too high a burden. I think it is up to us, the editors, to determine whether an image adequately represents the subject. Do I think relying on someone else to say, "Hey this is me being a hipster" is sufficient? Of course not. I, personally, judge the photo based on my own knowledge of hipster aesthetic, and the ironic mustache and flannel shirt are enough for me. While neither of those elements is mentioned in the article, I don't think it should be too hard to find an RS or two that mentions them in connection with hipsters. -- Irn (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which all very nice but basically amounts to otherstuff exists. To side step, a fundemental prob with the article is that is lacks context - mentioning the beat generation off hand is not context, and at root the page is no more than a series of bitter vingets by baby boomers and disillusioned x generationers. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Clean up of the Critical Analysis section
I think that the content of this section is excellent: a great synthesis of many different, significant critiques. However, there is much cleanup to be done in terms of grammar and, for lack of a better word or phrase, general professionalism (eg. the last paragraph has in-sentence comments like "this last phrase is author X's best known phrase"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.56.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011
I would like to edit the hipster page because I believe I have more information that you havn't shown on your page.

Jeffisabillygoat (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This template is for requesting specific edits to the page, if you want to edit it yourself you need to be autoconfirmed-- Jac 16888 Talk 10:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Gallery
If more photos are added in the future, can we put them in the gallery please? Too many images within the text make the page look cluttered

Osama, Jan 4 2012

Edit request on 13 April 2012
The link to the German version is to the wrong disambiguation. It should actually link to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(21._Jahrhundert). In verbatim: Replace Hipster by Hipster (21. Jahrhundert)


 * Yes check.svg Done thanks! UKWikiGuy (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention something about apple products? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.156.168 (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Make a substantiated claim about Apple products, and maybe UKWikiGuy (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

reverse thesaurus please
What does this mean: A 2011 New York Times article explained that the halcyon of the hipster era was reached in the 2000s -- the zenith? I suppose it's an allusion to "Halcyon Days" but I don't see how kingfishers or tranquility fit into the context.--88.73.31.231 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletition of Apple from MrMagic78
Why this deletition ? The Hipsters' fetish for Apple-Products is obvious. I-Phones are Parts of many sources about the topic Hipster. This seems like Steve Jobs' mercenaries are vandalizing Wikipedia. However, if you watch their Advertisments, it seems that Apple themselves don't have a Problem with beeing the favourite brand of this popular subculture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.47.152 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Stuff White Brits Like
As entertaining as the "analysis" from the blog Stuff White Brits Like is, I don't think it quite matches up to the other sources in terms of scholarliness, so I'm gonna remove it. Sheavsey33 (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Term Hipster in the early 1990s
There was a large use of the term "hipster" for avantgardist techno fans in the early 1990s, they were calling themselves "hipsters" and were writing essays on the "hipster's code" and so on, in fanzines but also in serious cultural magazines. Unfortunetaly, the early 1990s didn't know what a blog is, so material like that is hard to find. If anyone got something like that at home, please cite it and add the information to this article.--JakobvS (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Backlash or progression? citation

 * How to Live Without Irony November 17, 2012 NYT Christy Wampole 99.181.159.214 (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

NYT reference
Contrary to the article, the NYT piece from 2000 does in fact use the term hipster ("But the students, artists and hipsters seeking the cultural edge started their evenings on the subway to the Village and beyond."). Though the paragraph about Williamsburg mentions "bohemian types", the article's statement that the NYT ran profiles of W'burg without mentioning hipsters is somewhat misleading.Avman89 (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What about the Hype therm?
I don't know further research on the relation between hipster and the therm hype, but it looks quite familiar to the hipster culture the usage of what is defined as hype. Would be interesting some material related to it since hipsters are quite mocked for the instant success of independent artists they promote, tough, the therm hype seems to come from hyperbole, it looks strangely derivative from hipster. Even tough, in 2012 is quite related to hipsters. Is beautiful and at same time, disorientating how the hipster therm floats and mutates along the years because the affirmations on cultural appropriations were often used in the past do underline indie kids/culture and much more the emo culture, which stole many values from other cultural movements. Would be interesting to see some relation linking these subcultures since hipsters seem to be easily confused with them, even if they are the big usurpers of everything in the popular believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.25.12 (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, what? Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who knows. Something about a "therm culture", the confusing grammar makes the rest of the message hard to interpret though. Basically I think this person wants know if there is a connection between these sub-cultures. 216.105.80.209 (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The OP seems to have an interesting idea of a connection between the emo, and other such sub-cultures and hipsterism, regardless of whatever "Therm" is. Taintedstreetlight (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "therm" is a misspelling of " term" because it precedes "hype" followed by a discussion of possible etymologies. Apparently "therm" stole all the "H"s because there was not one available for " tHough" in " Even tough, in 2012 is quite related..." Sometimes all that is required to understand is a proofreader's eye.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.9.76 (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutral point of view
a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.236.27 (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the article is too American-centric. In the UK, indie kids wore bright colors and 1960s inspired clothing from 2003 to 2009, when they shifted towards darker tones. European hipsters don't wear vintage clothing to be "ironic" (unless they are posers) but as a political statement protesting against the exploitation of third world workers. Houndstooth and tweed jackets are very popular over here as they are readily available in charity shops. So is the so-called "Hitler Youth haircut" which is long on top but shaved at the back and sides. Many European hipsters have also begun to replace their skinny jeans with drop crotch pants or slim-fitting chinos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

More vandalism
I am not an established user, hence can't edit this. But the names in the critical reception seem to be vandalized. Zeynep Arsle and Khraaigue should be written as Zeynep Arsel and Craig Thompson
 * ✅ Thanks! -- Irn (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Brooklyn Catholic Diocese: Jesus as "Original Hipster"
According to: http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/04/26/was-jesus-the-original-hipster/#ixzz2RtwDV6RE

"Since the beginning of April, the organization has put up ads reading “The Original Hipster,” depicting a robed man wearing red Converse sneakers, throughout the New York City boroughs of Queens and Brooklyn — including the dive bars and coffee shops of Williamsburg, widely considered the Holy Land of East Coast hipsterdom. The blog Animal New York first noticed the campaign plastered on bus stations and phone booths and tweeted a photo."

This may be worth a mention in the article. Scott Bowden (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Another potentially useful article
I don't have time to edit right now, but this could be useful: http://jacobinmag.com/2013/05/the-fucking-hipster-show/ -- Irn (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

This Article is a Complete Mess
The structure of this article is meandering and disorganized with no semblance of a consistent, encyclopedic perspective. Many of the sources are perfectly usable but the article requires a complete rewrite and should use articles like Hippie as a model. Other than WP: NPOV, there are too many issues here to even count. I know this is a contentious subject, but there are enough sources to cobble together a somewhat accurate impression of what a hipster is.--Aeranis (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You are quick to criticize. Why don't you blank the article and start over? Let's see how good your article on "hipster" is? A lot of work and research has gone into creating the humble article you see. As editors, we are mostly using free resources available on the internet, which makes it harder to do research. You might want to be more constructive in your criticism.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with OBZ. A lot of editors have put a lot of time into this article, using the resources available on the internet.  Certainly, the article is imperfect, but we can only use the resourced available to us, and there is no consistent definition of a "hipster".  I am particularly interested in your NPOV claim.  Where in this article do you find such a violation? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The purported NPOV is the inclusion of a lot of critiques of hipsters, which is purportedly showing POV. No, sorry, that's just what's available online and in magazines. No one seems to have anything positive to say about hipsters. As well, I haven't been able to find an "insider" perspective, in which a confirmed hipster (an impossibility!!) explains why they wear retro clothes and funky glasses, and converse shoes.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no "confirmed hipsters" because it's nothing but a stupid media LABEL being resurrected from decades ago by outsiders who are busy bodies or high faluting and need "labels" for people, and put as an exonym onto others who would just as soon these people buggered off and got a life. Nobody has self identified as a hipster since 1964. So obviously if you try to write an encyclopedia article about these "hipsters" you are going to be chasing phantoms and windmills. 71.246.157.65 (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "chasing phantoms and windmills", that is awesome language! It makes our efforts sound very dramatic. Mostly I type the word "hipster" into Google and screen the results looking for reasonably credible commentators and publications.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Atheism
The use of "atheism/agnosticism" in this article is meaningless. Please look up the meaning of the words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 9 July 2013‎
 * How so? Looks rather appropriate to me, and makes sense considering general nihilistic notions associated with hipster culture.Cosainsé (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced and the article body makes no mention of belief systems, so I see no reason to claim that the movement is associated with "alternative spirituality or atheism/agnosticism" in the lede. I've cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article shows an incredible lack of neutrality. It seems that instead of mentioning in passing the criticisms of the hipster culture in the main section of the article, the opinion of a disapproving author comes through everywhere. Can we please keep the criticisms of "hipsterdom" to the "criticism" section? As simple evidence, the first and most vehement post in the "criticism" appears in the article twice, the second time in the body. Finally, the article needs more to it, it seems to lack any sort of insider perspective. See Due and undue weight. Taintedstreetlight (talk) 23:07, 4 I agree. This doesen't mention the negative stereotype that many people have placed on this subculture. For example, one stereotype is that they wear square glasses with the frame colored black, and they wear tight pants. Also, many people believe they are oblivious to how people label them, or they simply 'don't care', so therefore they believe that there's no problem with labeling the subculture negatively. That should be mentioned, so this article won't violate the neutral point of view Wikipedia policy.
 * I worked a lot on this article and I tried to include any sources I could find. Sorry, I couldn't find an insider perspective. The reason there is a lot of criticism is because that is what is out there on the web and in magazines.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not clear that there *is* an "insider's" perspective, since it seems like "hipster" is used only almost exclusively as a pejorative term.  Some have gone further and said that "hipster" is purely a straw man figure (e.g. here: a "straw man in tight jeans"; or here: "The hipster archetype is at best a broad generalization and at worst a straw man for people to direct their own insecurities about being “cool.”").  It would be good to include this perspective in the article. 50.136.2.148 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Add this information to page
Hipsters 2010 to 2013

The hipster culture has been growing more and more popular throughout the 2010s. It has been spreading to cities such as Seattle, WA, Los Angeles, CA, Brooklyn NY, and Austin, TX. Common traits of a typical Hipster today are that they not like to admit that they are hipsters and they have a reputation of self-loathing. They reject mainstream trends and attempt to be as different as possible. Individuality is a very big goal of theirs and they feel if they give in to mainstream brands, they are losing their individuality.

Hipster Attire

Most women wear a variety of clothing. The most popular clothing women wear are big round glasses, a flannel shirt, comfortable sandals and some skinny jeans. Men usually wear the same thing, rolled up skinny jeans, a sweater from a thrift shop and comfortable sandals as well. Some men also have very long beards that reflect the image of a lumberjack. Popular stores for hipsters are Urban Outfitters and any kind of thrift or resale store.

Popular Hipster Music

Some bands that are popular amongst the Hipster Culture are Vampire Weekend, Arcade Fire, MGMT, Mumford and Sons, Of Monsters and Men, Alt-J, Bon Iver, Best Coast, and many others. Most of these bands consist of Alternative Rock, Indie rock/pop, and folk rock.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/hipster-neighborhoods-us-top-10-photos_n_1901884.html#slide=1550534

http://talknerdy2me.org/how-to-dress-like-a-hipster

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201009/the-sad-science-hipsterism

http://www.ranker.com/list/most-hipster-bands/utcbest

http://www.complex.com/style/2012/11/10-signs-you-dress-like-a-hipster/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkvalusek (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How can that possibly be a "neutral point of view", if the individuals designated as "hipsters" themselves deny that they should be called this? These are also living people, covered by BLP and obviously have their own pov.  Instead of "Common traits of a hipster today" it should be "Reputed traits of the popular image of the hipster" or something like that. It sounds like 'hipster' ought be called an exonym, maybe even perceived as disparaging. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Per our article, the book which popularized the term "hipster" for the modern subculture was The Hipster Handbook, which was itself a satire. I am not sure if the term is universally perceived as pejorative, but I have yet to hear anyone call himself/herself a hipster. If it is actually an exonym, is there an alternative endonym? Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hipster Beard Transplants
Apparently the newest thing now is for wannabe male hipsters is to obtain pricey hair transplants to fill out their otherwise deficient facial growth. Not sure in what context I should include this in the article, so I'll leave that to other editors with more experience (and time). Here's some helpful links to start you off:


 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-beard-transplant-idUSBREA1P23Z20140226
 * http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/hipster-beard-envy-sparks-interest-facial-hair-transplants-n39156
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hipster-beard-trend-sees-rise-in-7000-hair-transplants-9157858.html
 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/02/28/gullible_hipsters_drive_beard_transpant_craze/
 * http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/are-pricey-beard-transplants-the-latest-hipster-trend-1.1704864

-- 24.212.139.102 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

John Cooper Clarke song
The John Cooper Clarke song appended to the end of 1940s section is utterly irrelevant to the content of that subsection. In addition, it is unreferenced and trivial. It should have been deleted as soon as it was added, as it adds nothing substantive to that section or to the article as a whole. The word "hipster" probably appears in a lot of songs, movies, books, etc., but we would not add everyone of those examples unless they added something substantive to the article. That one sentence does not do that, it is simply a stray appearance of the word, hence my repeated deletion and my repeated statement that it is irrelevant. Would someone care to prove me wrong? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  02:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Any literary appearances of the term are notable to the usage history, to give an idea how the significance of the term developed over time a la the OED, so it would be better to expand it with further instances than to delete them. Knowing the story of a word's usage, what it meant or implied and how it was used at various times is key to really grasping any concept and how it came to mean what it does now. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 06:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But quoting a single line from a song tells the reader nothing about "what it meant or implied and how it was used at various times". If Clarke spoke about the line or a writer has put it into context, then perhaps there's something there, but with no context this floating quote could mean absolutely anything from "the word remained in common usage throughout Britain through to the 1980s" to "Clarke used the consciously archaic 1940s term in a poem once". Or it could even be obscure Manchester slang for an entirely unrelated type of person. If we can't explain the quote, we shouldn't leave it to the reader to guess at its significance. --McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It may not tell you anything about 'how it was used at various times' - and likewise there may be others who always have to be told what they have just read and told how to interpret it, because they have been mentally trained to become accustomed to this and they begin to panic when confronted with raw quotes and no explanation to tell them what they are supposed to think, thus forcing them to draw their own conclusions. This is an unfortunate consequence of presenting information but I cannot think of any solution; at any rate "relevance" like I said is an objective and empirical quality - it either is relevant or it isn't, and this can be shown empirically - rather than a "subjective" quality such as "Well, this is relevant because I think it is relevant" kind of thing. This is the correct meaning of "relevance".  There is also a slang meaning of "relevance" such a when Miss Piggy tells Kermit "You're not relevant", this slang meaning is totally subjective and I think that is the sense of "relevant" that you understand. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That was a whole lot of gibberish that did not address McGeddon's point: any quote needs context. A random line from a song is not helpful without some indication of what it meant.  That line should be deleted. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I responded perfectly on point to the question of "Does a 1980 quote tell us anything about how the term was used at various times?" and the obvious, what should be self-evident answer. Rather than address one word of my response or attempt to refute my central point, you merely brushed it off as "gibberish" and repeated your initial assertion. I think I see where this is going. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Even speaking as a minor fan of Clarke, I have no idea what this lyric is specifically about, or what it implies about historical use of the word "hipster" in 1980s Manchester. From the rest of the song it seems just to be "poet uses 1940s slang for effect", which isn't a significant part of the word's history. If you feel there's more to it than that, the solution is simple enough: you write down what you think the significance is, and like you say "it either is relevant or it isn't, and this can be shown empirically" - by seeing if this analysis of it has ever been published. --McGeddon (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're asking me to go out on a limb so you can criticise me for going out on a limb? That's a new approach.  I would avoid projecting any additional analysis of it beyond the obvious common sense significance being "This shows that the term was not unheard between the 1940s and 1990s but made appearances in popular culture, viz song lyrics, as of 1980" and that is so axiomatic I wouldn't even bother to add that text. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just asking you to state what you thought the significance was, because you'd only said that the implication of your interpretation was "key" and that some people might have been mentally trained not to work it out for themselves, not what it actually was.
 * The appearance of a word in a song doesn't axiomatically tell us anything about that word, beyond the fact that the singer sang it. We can't support a statement like "the term was not unheard in Britain during the subsequent 50 year period, and made multiple appearances in pop culture" simply from Clarke having used it once. The solution isn't to present the quote unexplained and leave the reader to jump to the (possibly wrong) conclusion about it - we should look for a source that talks about the term's usage between 1940 and 1990. Clarke's lyrics may well be a useful starting point - perhaps the term was being used in Manchester in the early 1980s - but it offers nothing by itself. --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is as if your mind rebels at just being presented with raw data relevant to the article topic, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions from it, instead of having that little voice telling you what you just read and how you are to interpret or analyze it. When that voice is missing, you don't know what to think; you cannot see any relevance; what is 'relevant' by definition of 'relevant' become 'irrelevant' to you, because it lacks the voice you seek to interpret it for you. I really don't care about this song or artist, in fact I have never heard it that I know of.  But I know the correct definition of "relevant", and any usage of the term is relevant in its own right without the need for accompanying exegesis.  Have you ever seen an OED?  I know wikipedia is not a dictionary, but the OED is much more than a dictionary and in many ways gives an encyclopedic and neutral, factual history of the usage of a word with as little added "steering" commentary as possible.  So this neutral and thorough technique and approach utilized by the OED is generally seen as very admirable and useful for encyclopedias as well. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/
 * You have to prove that it is relevant, and not only have you failed to do so, you have not even attempted it. Simply mentioning the word hipster does not make it relevant. ---  The Old Jacobite   The '45  17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, "relevant" is empirically defined. If a reference were "irrelevant", then it means it makes no mention whatsoever of the topic.  You need to explain what kind of subjective or iffy definition of "relevant" you are using. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread again. The rest of the "Origins in the 1940s" section puts the word's usage into context for that decade, and quoting a poem without commentary adds nothing to that; at worst, we risk actively misleading the reader by implying that the word "hipster" was still in use forty years later. If two editors are opposed and the other is asking them to explain what they mean by "relevant", I think this can go. --McGeddon (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How is it misleading the reader to imply that the word "hipster" was still in use forty years later? Obviously you are misleading by implying that it was NOT in use then, in the face of this empirical evidence that it was (plus anyone who was old enough to talk then can certainly tell you it was) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Common use. If the word was in common use in the 1980s (contradicting the existing article claim that "One author dates the initial phase of the revival of the term from 1999 to 2003"), then this should absolutely be corrected. But mentioning obliquely that "John Cooper Clarke used the word in a song in 1980" with no further context is not the way to do this. --McGeddon (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it "the way to do this"? It makes sense by illustrating perfectly that the word was indeed in usage at that time; what is your problem with seeing this? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the reader cannot tell whether Clarke's lyric is reflecting a contemporary revival of the term, or just referencing its historical usage. If we know it was the former, we should say that. If we know it was the latter, it'd seem trivial to mention it in a potted history of the term's rise and fall. If we don't know which it was, then we should err on the side of caution and omit it. --McGeddon (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The actual situation is neither of those two alternatives you gave, but that the word never disappeared from anyone's vocabulary at all during the intervening time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion (that the word was in use and never disappeared from anyone's vocabulary) is not supported by the evidence you offer (its use in this one song). The fact that a word appears in a song does not mean that it was in use at the time, only that it appeared in one song. (By way of example, the word "pompatus" was not in use in 1973.) Perhaps the songwriter chose the word precisely because it was antiquated, no longer in use, and had disappeared from everyone's vocabulary. Maybe not. We don't know because we don't have sufficient context. -- Irn (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This can't be too perplexing since it can't be that hard to find people (like me) who lived through those years and can tell you if they forgot the word during those years or if it had no meaning... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know how to use googlebooks search tools, you can easily turn up several hundred literary references for any single year between 1959 and 2000 by all kinds of authors proving that the word never dropped out of common speech and was readily understood by readers of English during all these years. I think this song quote (although I have not heard the song) is representative of the mental image most people had - if you asked them what 'hipster' means during much of that time they might well have said 'something like a hippie who is wearing a hat'... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It'd certainly be useful to chart the decline of the 1940s subculture and maybe even put an endpoint on it, but the simple fact that people didn't forget the word doesn't tell us anything about that. If by the 1980s the word had faded to mean "a hippy wearing a hat" to most people, then that'd make a good conclusion to the section, but we'd need a source verifying this, instead of just a Wikipedia editor thinking it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This conversation is becoming less productive, because you are accusing me of OR when the only content in question was a straight up quoatation with no appended commentary whatsoever, and you are the one who keeps insisting we come up with some kind of an analysis of the raw information to "tell us what we're supposed to think about it" instead of merely presenting it without comment and neutrally for the reader to draw their own conclusions. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 11:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ghost World
"In Daniel Clowes's graphic novel Ghost World, serialized from 1993 to 1997, the main characters, who pride themselves on their ironic enjoyment of pop culture and feel superior to everyone they meet, refer to themselves as hipsters." - any secondary sources for this, confirming the context? I haven't read it, but Clowes' 2001 screenplay is online and only uses the word "hipster" for unspoken character names. A 1993/97 comic using "hipster" in this way sits oddly when the next two paragraphs describe the subculture under different names from 2000 onwards, until finally being re-christened "hipster" in 2009. --McGeddon (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this as needing a citation a couple of times, and been reverted by an IP who sees no need for a citation because the graphic novel itself is the source. Wikipedia must "avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" and look for secondary sources. If no secondary source has ever found it remarkable that Ghost World was using the word "hipster" to mean "superiority and ironic enjoyment of pop culture" over a decade before the word returned to mainstream usage, it may be that the editor who wrote that paragraph is reading one line of dialogue alongside the general tone of the work, and seeing a correlation that wasn't intended and has no great significance to the history of the word "hipster". --McGeddon (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Areas known for hipster presence
These claims are unsourced and not NPOV. I nominate this section for removal. --Aeranis (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Such a list would be useful, but without sources it's against Wikipedia policy. Marteau (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2015
I thought this were "the free collaborative encyclopedia"? I guess it's more hierarchical that you let on. Fascists race-baiters!

148.88.244.100 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

❌

You fundamentally misunderstand how contributing to the encyclopedia works. Should you wish to learn about how the encyclopedia actually works, I recommend reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia  Marteau (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Lumbersexual
Removing the inclusion of "lumbersexual" from the article, as better sources make a distinction between the lumbersexual and the hipster.
 * "Well, technically, it’s nothing like a hipster" http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/07/bearded-hipster-modern-tribe
 * "Similar to hipster masculinity" http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/lumbersexuals-and-white-heteromasculine-pageantry

WikkanWitch (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hipster (contemporary subculture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081107052429/http://archive.tc:80/kerouac/beat.html to http://archive.tc/kerouac/beat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

Hipster
A hipster is someone from Brooklyn with a beard and thick, black glasses. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we ask nicely, the creator of this pic of two Brooklyn hipsters will release it into the public domain. Marteau (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

There's a suitable hipster photo now available on Commons of a guy with a checked shirt, beard, glasses and undercut. Unfortunately it doesn't show whether he's wearing skinny jeans, carrying a record bag, or riding a bicycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 12 February 2016‎
 * We still need to be careful about describing someone as looking like a pejorative stereotype; "man wearing typical hipster things" is better than "man who is a hipster", but it's still insulting to make someone the poster boy. The image's heritage seems a little dubious, also - it's lifted from a Pixabay account with a single upload, and Google Images turns it up on a professional photographer's website as "Brian Cameron, businessman". I'm flagging it for a deletion discussion on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What about these photos, Mac? The first one features many aspects of 2010s hipster culture, including beards, checked shirt, knit cap, Hitler youth haircuts, vintage interior decor, and self identification with the indie rock scene. Or perhaps this one as an alternative with (again) the beard, charity shop clothing, glasses, and blue collar attire mixed with business wear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 February 2016‎

Frustratingly Commons have deleted the bloody picture again. Therefore I suggest using this one as a replacement: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 18 February 2016‎


 * Good find, much better than the Swedish guy with the craft beer (who just looks like a guy holding a beer, to be honest). What are your thoughts on illustrating a pejorative at all, though? Is this different to having a found Flickr photo on the chav or redneck article captioned as "here we see a man whose clothes and accessories represent several classic stereotypical aspects of a redneck", without knowing whether the subject would appreciate being described in that way? --McGeddon (talk) 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm not that bothered because many of us don't mind being called hipsters. Readers unfamiliar with the subculture need to know exactly what a hipster, chav or redneck looks like, and that is why there are photos of every notable subculture in the articles on 2000s fashion and 2010s fashion. Earlier youth subcultures e.g. punks, greasers or scene kids have illustrative photos when these are publicly available and, incidentally, the names themselves were originally derogatory e.g. punk meant young delinquent, scene queen/kid meant poser, and greaser meant working class Mexican or Italian American. For the sake of those who find the term a perjorative, I thought the changes you made were sufficient e.g. "man wearing beard and checked shirt associated with the hipster subculture" rather than "hipster with beard and checked shirt". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 February 2016‎


 * I really can't see any great difference between saying to someone "you are a hipster" and "with that beard and checked shirt, you look like the dictionary definition of a hipster", though.
 * We should be using pictures of people who have explicitly said that they aren't bothered by the label, rather than photos of identifiable people who we (or a Flickr user, or a Commons uploader) think look like hipsters. Perhaps it's worth reaching out to some of the Flickr accounts these are drawn from?
 * WP:MUG says "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." and we don't know the contexts here. I've cut the images for now. --McGeddon (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to remove the photo of the bearded guy, fair enough, but over at wiki commons the girl who took this photo seems to identify as a hipster in addition to looking like one. She has a scarf with an ironic message about hipsters, nerd glasses, bike, and various items of thrift store clothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 March 2016‎
 * The entirety of that identification appears to be the cryptic statement that "I designed and printed the bandanna, which says "I DENY BEING A HIPSTER WHO DENIES BEING A HIPSTER" when unfolded", which doesn't sound enough to satisfy WP:MUG. --McGeddon (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If these people have a problem with these images being used in this article, let them comment below and request that their photograph be deleted. If the picture is public domain, I say we use it as long as the caption in the article is not disparaging. "Man with a beard, tattoos and plaid shirt associated with the indie lifestyle" should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MUG is clear; we should not be using photos of people in ways which might be "disparaging" to them, and "this guy's appearance is the dictionary definition of a hipster" is potentially disparaging to him even if we don't call him a hipster directly. We shouldn't take the fact that he hasn't yet found this Wikipedia article and talk page as tacit acceptance that he would be okay with this. --McGeddon (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Potentially disparaging" isn't the same as "disparaging". Some people might take it as a compliment to be chosen for this article, and many others simply wouldn't care. We can't delete images on the grounds that they "might offend somebody" otherwise there will be no photos of people left on Commons. Besides, the creator has released the photo into the public domain, for us to share and adapt as we see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama57 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Any photo "used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light" could potentially be shrugged off or embraced by the subject if we were to ask them - that's no reason to ignore WP:MUG. WP:MUG doesn't include an exception about disparaging the subjects of public domain images. --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hipster (contemporary subculture). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908024157/http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html to http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306054749/http://laist.com/2008/02/20/why_does_everyo.php to http://laist.com/2008/02/20/why_does_everyo.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Beards and Glasses
Why do they all have beards and thick, black glasses? 24.51.217.35 (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * All their glasses look like some 1950's Shawshank Redemption prison warden glasses. 24.51.217.35 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

They do. The glasses. Unfortunately I’m finding that this is almost all that is available nowadays, so we’re all forced into that look - like it or not. TimmyGato (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

"Bon vivant" image
I removed the "french hipster" photo. Its original caption on Flickr says "bon vivant" ("enjoying life" in french), and it bears no signs that the person identifies, or is identified, as a hipster. There's enough photos of people who do actually identify as "hipsters". Beaumain (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One or two examples of such pictures would be helpful. As far as I can tell no one calls themselves a hipster. It's a third party attribution. --Zinnmann (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WikiCommons has a category with images that were originally captioned as "Hipster" on Flickr; several of them are selfies or were uploaded by the person portrayed. Beaumain (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hipster (contemporary subculture)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hipster (contemporary subculture)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rollingstone": From Frank Sinatra:  From Brooklyn Baby:  From Lana Del Rey:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely Pathetic
I have no idea how this article has remained as it is for so long, but it is clearly kept afloat by the will of a very embittered collective set of persistent individuals with a personal grudge. So, are Hipsters 'upwardly mobile' people who move into gentrified areas that were previously bankrupt and happen to have a penchant for collecting vinyl or wear clothing the 'caretaker editors' of this page don't happen to like? Or are they poor youth occupying a more student demographic that would more than likely have to live in deprived areas of a city to make ends meet? Nobody seems to know. It's all very sad. Hope to hear from you soon, R.J 92.25.117.87 (talk) 07:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, "hipster" seems to be a catch-all term for any white male (usually male) that a person dislikes, rather than a genuine subculture. In my opinion it's used as a more publishable alternative to "wanker". I just removed "snobbery" from the list of attributes, a term added by an anonymous user 15 months ago (they toyed with "sycophancy" at first, which makes even less sense). One may dislike hipsters, whatever one defines them to be, but let's at least avoid name-calling on Wikipedia. Cosmogoblin (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Beards and Glasses
The article mentions beards and glasses as hipster accoutrement, but doesn't explain why this is so? What's the fundamental reason behind the beards and glasses? What does it actually mean? 108.200.234.93 (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Suggesting new introduction
I don't think the current introduction is very helpful or descriptive, so I'd like to suggest this more general introduction:

The 21st century hipster is a subculture that emphasizes style, authenticity and uniqueness. Members of the subculture typically do not self-identify as hipsters, and the word hipster is often used as a pejorative for someone who is pretentious or overly trendy. Stereotypical elements include vintage clothes and other non-mainstream fashion, skinny jeans, an ironic moustache and big glasses.

The subculture is broadly associated with indie and alternative music. In America it typically consists of mostly white young adults living in urban (often gentrified) areas.

The term hipster in this usage first appeared in the 1990s and became particularly prominent in the late 2000s and early 2010s, being derived from the earlier hipster movements of the 1940s.

Academic papers in particular focus on "authenticity".

I removed the following statements as I feel they're just confusing and don't actually explain anything to a reader:



– Thjarkur (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Started in the 1990s?
The article stresses the gap between the 1940s’ hispsters and the current subculture, marking 2000 as its inception, and even so unnamed — yet in a 1993 Seinfeld episode, Elaine calls Kramer a «stupid hipster doofus»… Tuvalkin (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Smashing pumpkins - Cherub rock was recorded in 1992. "Hipsters unite - Come align for the big fight to rock for you" 159.110.132.245 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Corgan calling for something doesn't automatically make it so, though. These things take time to strangely brew. I didn't spot my first till 2004, but I concede that may only reflect the reality on the ground of the contemporary boreal forest scene (where scruffy morose dudes in flannel have been taking opioids, bargling nawdle zouss and staring down the barrel of a gun since April 6, 1694). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He used a phrase that was around in 1992. It must have described something. Liberty5651 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a history that's being ignored here. These hipsters are directly descendent from earlier ones (like in the aforementioned 90s).  Norman Mailer's essay The_White_Negro proves the subculture has been in existence since 1957.  I'll bet some research would turn up similar essays and articles from the 70s and 80s.  Obviously things change, and the stuff hipsters are into is kinda different, but to separate them all, to say the current hipster is something totally new and different, is a bit disingenuous. Liberty5651 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Weezer
With songs such as "buddy holly" and "Beverly hills"(ridiculing Beverly hills "tv" culture), I would say the band weezer is a giant influence on the hipsters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.229.250 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)