Talk:Hipster (contemporary subculture)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Most confuding wiki article EVAR

This article is so useless. I basically learned: 1) Hipster is a name that has been reappropriated to describe young people 2) No one would ever call themselves a hipster because everyone hates them 3) Hipsters are superficial and none of them believe in anything

Maybe the article should move away from trying to describe what hipsters AREN'T and at least attempt to describe what they ARE.

And if they aren't anything, then why are they listed at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.0.32.190 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stereotypes

I think the article is biased and mostly based on stereotypes. I think it should be changed. --Juju 15:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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

What the hell did you do to this page?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add Pictures?

If anyone has any relevant pictures they could upload for this article, that would be marvelous. I'm asking someone else to upload it not because I'm lazy, but rather because I'm horribly inept at uploading pictures. Grazi, Demosthenes 1 03:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

"Hipster" is more of a word that can describe a group of people than it is a notable, discrete group of people with enough published about them to write a properly sourced wikipedia article. Wikitionary is sufficient. So, why shouldn't this article be nominated for deletion?66.41.66.213 01:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This article refers only to cities in the United States. Is it worth mentioning that this is mainly US-oriented subculture? - Sklatch 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IF that were true it would be notable, but the word hipster is used outside of the US. I am still not convinced that there IS a hipster subculture, as much as hipster is a word used for any subculture of young people almost regardless of its character. 66.41.66.213 15:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

It seems to me as well that there is no actual "Hipster subculture". "Hipster" is an insult if anything. The article should be framed appropriately or not exist at all.--Ymirfrostgiant (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

Hipsters are people who participate in things enjoyed by the hipster subculture. That pretty much says it all. Surely some references might be found to rewrite this article? I am tempted to put a complete rewrite tag on it...-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Locations

I cut this article down substantially because it had been so full of original research and biased claims that it was unworkable. In doing so, I pared down the list of hipster-oriented communities to include two significant examples, Williamsburg and Wicker Park. Sure enough, in the days since, editors flocked to the page to add more examples. I think the solution is to just eliminate the list entirely. If someone wants to create a new article called "List of Hipster Communities" and back each one up with sources, that would be fine, I guess, but this article shouldn't be the place for everyone to score a mention for their neighborhood.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Dude, University city is IN WEST PHILLY. Whether they want to admit it or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.171.97 (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

   AND why can't hipsters be black or live in a black neighborhood? I find little evidence of the modern use of the term hipster OUTSIDE of the US Urban youth culture. 1960s Hippies, punks, goths can be defined irrespective of race, country of residence etc. There are of course contemporary groups that have regional aspects and names e.g. Chavs in the UK. But Hipster here does not seem to be anything more than just what is in younger people's cultural milieu. Even the foreign language versions of wikipedia do not show any use in Japan, Europe, Canada or South America, where if its a genuine phenomenon you would expect to see evidence and use of the term. It seems to be a synonym for fashionable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.214.22 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) 

Weasle worded original research

" Hipsters can be found in most urban communities, and can usually be distinguished by their ironic attire. Hipsters generally have a counterculture mindset, and resist commercialism and major corporations. Many times these individuals are musicians, artists, and writers. Many argue that the term "hipster" itself has become derisive, and it is seldom used as a label for self-identification, except in an ironic or self-deprecating way. "

These claims might make more sense if they were properly cited, so that we could say "so and so argues" instead of the questionable notability of "many argue."

Opinion editorials treat "hipsters" as a label as though they are a discrete group. Who else does? I would argue that we should not attempt to describe hipsters in anything but quotes from a given source, because the definition of a hipster is a matter of opinion. A wikipedia editor says that they resist commercialism but the review of The Life Aquatic in our external links says the opposite. I don't think that my assertion that "Hipster" does not describe a discrete movement or group should be included in the article, but I also don't think that it should be contradicted without a published source supporting that claim. Remember that it is a wikipedia policy that everything must be capable of being supported by outside published sources. In our references so far, there's nothing that much separates the term "hipster" from the term "the cool kids."66.41.66.213 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this page is a lot shorter now...

There was a lot of weasel-worded original research, but hipsters don't seem to care about verifiability, either. I mean, if it was written by one, they'd more than likely use this as a vehicle for their own personal expressions and views. --h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It would only be written ironically so I doubt that is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.254.49 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Subculture?

To say that the hipsters are a part of a subculture is ridiculous. They self designated mass-consumers. the whole silly notion of hipsterism is focused on acquiring (status, ideas [OOPS I BRIEFLY BECAME AN IDIOT A HYPOCRITE AND INSANE], music, etc.) through buying everyday things that supposedly speak to their amazing classless/ironic state of mind. If this is subculture then so it buying a Volkswagen or an iPod. appropriating mass marketed things--buying stuff--and then declaring by fiat that the context has changed is laughable. Just because you choose to say that you are part of something doesn't make it a reality. Hipsters make fashion statements about meaningless things. They are consumers, like the rest of us, there is no hipster sub-culture because the only thing that groups them together is the fact that they all buy the same stuff. It just so happens that everyone is (has been)stuff to, but most people choose not to invest their self image in a can of beer. Reddoor 11:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Is this even a real phenomenon?

This article seems to be a laughable list of anyone creative under the age of 35 and some tennous, vague stereotypes. It is a bit cringe-inducing

What's funny is that it is a real phenomena -- in the sense that there are people out there saying there's a group called "hipsters", and they are bad. Whether there actually is a group of beings actually known as hipsters is debatable. Wikipedia finds itself stuck in the middle. What to do? Write an article with reference to people referring to "hipsters" and hope for the best. It's also funny to note that the article says hispters read Adbusters, when Adbusters recently ran an article that put down hipsters. We all agree, hipsters suck! How strange that we cannot find any.  ;-) --Nik (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I added a cleanup-rewrite template to the top of the article, as there's very little here that's salvageable. The intro is a mess; the sections "New Philosophies of Racial Diversity" and "Exploring New Forms of Sexuality" are simply irrelevant, and I question whether the word "blipster" is even notable. I'll try to rewrite this if I get a chance, but it's a tricky subject. I claim that a small stub would still be better than the mess we have here. →smably 17:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that a near-exact copy of the "mess" has now been posted replacing the article Hipster (1940s subculture), so the issue is even grander than this. I'm therefore going to change the rewrite to {{Rewrite-talk}}, post it at the top of each disputed page, and have the discussion occur at Hipster, currently a disambiguation page. -- $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 14:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

i am all for clean up, as i wrote this "mess" but...i dont think the current article is anything more then unsubstantiated and unverified stereotypes. i am reverting it to the 'mess' because wikipidea is more then just a list... --Juju 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

also i think...yes...some of my phrases were awkward...but if the word hipster derives from hip...meaning 'to see' then what do both of those ppl see? if you read norman mailer's essay on the white negro or any other comparitive works of the time, you would have to agree with me. being that smably is just a computer science major...i dont think he has any credibility on this topic whatsoever. --Juju 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

what are you talking about? fortunatley wikipidea is more then just a list of random stereotypes. if you are going to write an article about a cultural phenomen, atleast write it from an academic standpoint. 'hipsters' are not a tribe of people, it is just a label applied onto someone rather then, a label someone takes on theirselves. for you to just list out what cigarrettes, they generally smoke, or other nonsense like that, is unsubstantiated by anything other then probably the 'urban dictionary', and using that as a reference is silly. --Juju 12:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether that was directed at me (I haven't edited the page since before my first comment here), but I'll reply anyway. I agree that this article shouldn't consist solely of a list of hipster stereotypes, and I am aware that UrbanDictionary is not a suitable reference. What this article needs is good structure, good prose, and good citations, none of which it has right now. (Even a Computer Science major would be able to fix that! Imagine...) →smably 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Hipster (derogatory) definition, derivation from poseur

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

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

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

Your point is incredibly valid. First off, where I live, the 'hipster subculture' is thriving, and I know several people who are self proclaimed hipsters. This article lists hipster as a put-down, yet the people I know who call themselves hipsters are proud of being hipsters. They are also thought of as cool in many circles of people, by many different subcultures, etc. A friend of mine told me, "I wanted to be cool, but I was a huge dork. So I went out and bought american apparel skinny jeans and told everyone I was cool. The more I told myself and everyone around me I was cool, the more cool I became." The self-proclaimed hipsters that I know are the 'coolest' kids my age in the city. So even though being a hipster is generally thought of as a put-down, by embracing it it can be cool? I don't know, I just felt it was relevant. If I had any real sources, I'd add that into the article. Sboobs (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Necessary changes to this article

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

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

I envision the article as follows:

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

No lists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't hipsterdom dying on its own in New York City? Last time we went to the Lower East Side, it was overrun by smart-casual Coldplay fans wearing jeans and blazers and buying eight dollar Amstel Lights for their anchorwomen-wannabe girlfriends. Or maybe looking like a Hedge-Funder from Connecticut is what passes for hip now in New York.

You ask, 'Should hipster culture be defended?' My book The Hipster Handbook was an attempt to call bullshit on this fauxhemian movement nearly five years ago. In the satirical book I claimed that 'hipsters understand that cultural trends become fin the moment they hit the mainstream.' The hipster thing hit the mainstream years ago, so by my own definition it hasn't been cool for a while now.

And let's be honest, hipsters are getting harder to defend now that they're all sporting beards. Williamsburg is beginning to look like a tailgate party at a jam band concert."

—Robert Lanham, founder, FREEwilliamsburg author, The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right, Food Court Druids, and The Hipster Handbook

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

Recent Reversions

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

1) lists 2) not wikified

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

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

What this page should be

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

This article is fine

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

Or not

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

Bard???

I object to this list of places. Bard??? Really? Slugokramer (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Is it just me...

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

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

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

Class issues section

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

Class issues

-

-

See also: Petty bourgeoisie

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

Young white guys with dredlocks are called "trustafarians" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have not added the template, and I am not making a "formal" merge proposal, but it seems to me that this article should be merged (remerged?) with the article on the '40s subculture. Once all of the OR and POV nonsense (i.e., the "philosophy" section) is removed, there is not enough here to sustain an article. We are better served by one good, well-researched article on the term, and its use across several decades, than two articles which are not up to snuff, so to speak. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This article, in its one- or two-headed manifestation, has been a problem child from day 1, when I didn't really understand about referencing, and essentially wrote an Urban Dictionary entry. This article is a magnet for that sort of thing (namely, original research).

I haven't been online much lately, but I'll try to look at these articles soon. Like I said, though, my initial inclination is to slash and burn the original research, find a lot of sources for what remains, and get the article into a state that we can at least use as a benchmark. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it for another minute, I think we'd want to clean up each article before merging the two - does that make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, both articles definitely need cleaning up. I am going to create a subpage and do some tinkering on my own. The '40s subculture article is, in my opinion, in better condition than the '90s article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the article should be merged with Poseur, not 1940s Hipster. Reasons in "a Defense of Hipster" below. Sluggoster (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Article badly needs pictures

Article badly needs pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.27.112 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be cool - any ideas on how to get free ones that illustrate the subject of the article? Does one just wander around and take photos of hipsters? What other sources might exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Look for pictures of hipsters riding fixed gear/single speed bicycles. That is HUGE in hipster culture. They employ outrageous color schemes, spoke cards, all on single speed or fixed gear bikes. Seriously, if you want to see what modern hipster culture looks like google "fixed gear bikes". Here is a sample:

http://gothamist.com/attachments/nyc_daveh/fixed.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2043/2072834732_f49c46f094.jpg http://www.complex.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/49x16.jpg

ALL hipsters riding fixed gear bikes. VERY trendy stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

here is an article on hipsters from the very trendy adbusters (talk about pot calling the kettle black) anyhow, you'll see where they discuss the significance of the single speed/fixed gear bike is within hipster culture and they also have photos of hipsters. http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Flickr photos

Flickr has 596 photos tagged as "hipster" with Creative Commons licenses which do not prohibit modification or commercial use. Any of them may be used on Wikipedia, if someone cares to choose and upload them at Commons. Skomorokh 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the article needs pictures, nor am I convinced that a picture on flickr which someone has labeled "hipster" is adequate to illustrate the article. What I am getting at is what are the criteria for deciding which picture truly illustrates the subject? I am not certain such standards exist, given the vagueness of the definition of "hipster." ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See especially hipsters on benches, hipster bike, hipster t-shirt, hipster neckscarf. Skomorokh 17:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

get with it man, there are websites devoted to hipsters. You'd think people writing about hipsters at wikipedia would be familiar with the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hipsters are not libertarians

I removed 2 references to hipsters being "leftist, liberal and/or libertarians". Leftists/liberals are anti-business, pro-government while libertarian is anti-government, pro-business. Everything this article says hipsters stand for is the opposite of libertarian. If someone has evidence to the contrary, please provide a source.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ti89hp48gx (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, what you are saying here is not really correct, and in multiple ways. First of all, some hipsters are "leftist, liberal and/or libertarians," but not all of them. Second, some Leftists are "anti-business, pro-government," as you put it, and others are not; there are, after all, Left-wing libertarians. Furthermore, you make the following statement: "Everything this article says hipsters stand for is the opposite of libertarian." What is the basis for this? The problem, both here, and in the article, is blanket statements, assumptions, stereotypes, etc., with a dearth of definition of the terms being used and references to backup said definitions. Any statement about the political beliefs of hipsters would need a reference, and a darn good one, too, because the politics of hipsterism is, I would venture, complex. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not even clear that there is a typical political view that Hipsters share, as a rule. I agree with RepublicanJacobite that any assertion about what hipsters believe should be backed up with a good citation, or deleted as original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some hipsters are libertarians

I strongly disagree that hipsters can't be libertarians. Libertarians are not anti-business. They are anti-corporate. They are anti-centralized organization of any type whether government, religion, or business. Libertarians support free enterprise and free markets. Corporations do NOT support free markets. They are designed to monopolize or form oligopolies and destroy competition. They merge and buy out competitors to achieve this. As a libertarian hipster, I believe if hipsters become more ideologically intensive, they will realize that they are really libertarians. Leftists and liberals are overly dependent on government to solve all our social problems and needs, and a hipster, rooted in Beatnik ideology should realize that government perpetuates social problems and needs to perpetuate its own survival and relevance. Conservatives are even worse by allowing corporations to create new social problems and needs and then turn around and profit by addressing them with short-term fixes. Hipsters reject all things corporate, and this is totally libertarian. I have more liberal and leftist friends who adore corporate consumerism and shop at GAP and Abercrombie and wear Crocs and Nike's and listen to their iPods and use Mac computers. Hipsters are truly libertarians, believing in freedom and liberty from all organized fascists government, religious, corporate or otherwise.

It really doesn't matter what any of us thinks or knows about hipsters, or about Libertarians. The only thing we can use to write the article is what reliable, published secondary sources say about hipsters, and their political leanings. Just talking about hipsters and politics from our own experience is straight up original research. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

From an interview with Robert Lanham author of the Hipster Handbook. Dartmouth Review.

Lanham has this to say about it: "Republican Hipsters are about as silly as Jews for Jesus… More conservative Hipsters are into the Libertarian party." The sense is not that hipsters are adamant policy wonks who have a lot to say about the tax code—it's a matter of style and temperament. To the hipster ear, "Republican" sounds like Mr. Potter from It's a Wonderful Life ("Happy New Year to you! In jail!"), whereas "Libertarian" conjures up a laid-back dude who simply enjoys liberty, i.e. marijuana.

http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/01/09/were_all_hipsters_now.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.15.21 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hipsters are anti-corporate not anti-Capitalist

Hipsters are anti-corporate. Shopping at thrift stores and opening their own vintage boutiques and buying old dive bars and transforming them into hipster joints are Capitalist ventures made possible by a Capitalist entrepreneurial system. They don't hate the free market, rather promote it. It is the corporations that undermine the free market Capitalist system with their mergers and conglomerations and buying out competitors or simply using illegal tactics to under price them or intimidate or cut off their suppliers. Hipsters still charge you for beer at a bar, cover for a band, and for their latest indepedent label CD.

Hipsters are anti-corporate? Did someone forget to tell them that American Apparel, Apple and SABMiller (brewers of PBR) are all corporations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.91.30 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There are also anarchist hipsters. Saying all hipsters are left-wing socialists or liberals or Democrats is misinformed. Hipsters tend to be independent politically and do not all support the Democractic Party which is just as much a lackey of the corporations as the Republicans.

Great. Can you cite a source for that stuff? That would make it useful to us. What source is it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrecked

A long series of edits by anonymous users over the course of the last two or three weeks has wrecked this article, perhaps beyond hope of recovery. The addition of opinions, with no citation whatsoever, and the addition of numerous references to the same Adbusters article, which was not cited correctly, are not helpful. If you cannot cite a source and/or cannot cite a source correctly, please do not contribute to the article at all. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that every past version of the page is saved, how can it be damaged "beyond hope of recovery"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I may have overstated the issue. My larger point, though, is that the article is a mess, and recent edits have not been an improvement, overall. It is time to take the pruning shears to this article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you there. If I had more time just now (or something important enough to procrastinate by editing Wikipedia), I'd get to work on it myself. I will keep checking in, as this page is definitely on my radar. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Added a cite to an editorial from The Independent (U.K. newspaper) which suggests implicitly that the terms hipster and scenester are regional variants of the same term, thereby expanding the scope of this article beyond North America to include at least the U.K. Additionally, I propose creating an entry for scenester and redirecting it to this article. If presented with one photo of a hipster and one photo of a scenester and asked to identify which is which, I doubt the differences (if any) would be readily apparent. Unfortunately, as this article currently has no photos of hipsters the point is moot. Obesa (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

50% Criticism

Okay I agree User:RepublicanJacobite my talk contribution was very polemic and not constructive. I still wonder why you didn't delete other contributions then. Seems one-sided.

But I will rephrase: 50% of this article consists of criticism. It is extremely obvious that this article was mainly created by people who are critical of hipster culture.

I just came to this article because I overheard the word and wanted too look up it's meaning and noticed that as it stands: You get a loose definition of the term and the rest that follows is criticism. I don't know if that's what this article should be aiming for. Just sayin'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.166.55 (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's only right that the criticism goes under the criticism heading. Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyackmanimal (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is only hipsters can stand hipsters, so the only people neutral or sympathetic to hipsters are their fellow hipsters. They're quite insufferable if you know any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.253 (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

reference

take a look at this [1]. It might have something of use. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"indie"

Dont know whether in America, Indie means Hipster or what but Indie is a totally different "class/group" of people than the descriptions made here, however it makes a redirect somehow. Unless anyone says anything in the next 2 weeks ill remove the re-direct and i cite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie - not even a link to this page and also if you want a bit background herehttp://current.com/items/89266188/in_defense_of_hipsters.htm(not a source i know), maybe check this discussion, again us Brits may class something different so do advise me before i change it.--CorrectlyContentious 17:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Working in the bowels of Billyburg, NYC, I was so overwhelmed by the loser hipster movement that I had to remove myself altogether from day to day contact with this mass of egomaniacal droids of "counterculture" that I took to driving to work versus using the L train. These people think they have individuality but rather they all talk, walk, dress, eat and look exactly the same. What a friggin' joke of society. People wonder how this country is so on its ass. This vaccum of lost individuality says it all. Wow- I think I need to move to an island off of northern Canada to escape this dreadfully ridiculous movement of waste people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.253.165 (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Too Much Bias?

In reading the article, I felt (and I stand from a neutral standpoint) that the article had definite and noticible leanings against hipsters. It feels more like an anti-hipster article, really... -D33PPURPLE (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)D33PPURPLE

• This may be because the term is used more as a derogatory label than as a self-identifier. In contemporary usage, the term “hipster” evokes the idea of shallowness and false individualism. It seems there are few who celebrate hipsterism (except, of course, ironically).-Boston (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Globalize

Is there any such thing as a recognizably "hipster" subculture outside the U.S.? If there isn't, the article should say so; otherwise there should be examples from other countries and cultures. I've added the globalize template accordingly. Elliotreed (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a US-only term, as far as I can tell. I have never seen any source indicating this has spread internationally. If there are any sources or examples, I do not know of them. Hence, the globalize template is not appropriate. Furthermore, why should the article say this is US only? That simply makes no sense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Discussion

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

... it would be good to have a picture of a hipster on this page ... any takers? 66.75.250.175 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any basis for ANY of the current hipsters other than someone's personal favorite celebrities? This might be among the worst articles I've seen on the whole of Wikipedia.

I think Echo Park and Siver Lake in Los Angeles needed to be included... while NY may be the capitol of this dredful subculture, these two warrant mention as Westcoast outposts of hipster-dom.

Maybe the title should be Hipster (Modern) instead of Hipster (1990s Subculture)? What do you all think?

OK, but this is still one of the most craptastically-written articles I've ever seen on WP. --JD79 21:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a picture of a bunch of hipsters in NYC. And the article on Hipsters is very poorly written, agreed.

This article needs to be re-written at a higher level of analysis dealing with the cultural phenomenon of hipsterism, rather than specifying the specific characteristics and neighborhoods of the current crop of "hipsters" -- since those things change relatively quickly, over the span of years and decades. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? gohlkus 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Could it be possible that 'hipsterism' is too new of a subculture to have an accurate (and not confusing) article written about it? While it has been around for years at this point, it's relatively new in several (smaller) cities and the definition certainly changes depending on where you are. I think it might be too broad at this point in time to really be defined as much as anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sboobs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this this and I feel part of the reason why its hard to define it as subculture is how disjointed it is. From personal experience, different circles or cliques of "hipster" friends, even from within the same region, have vastly different tastes in music, fashion, ideology. There are constants coming from popular hispter culture, but there is much that is different. The problem is, then, that the definition of hipster is different who you ask.

From personal experience, controversially, I'd say there are two main driving forces for hipsterism: to be cool or to escape mainstream pop culture. What this article really misses, however, is the influence of the internet has on the subculture. The hipster subculture is, I feel, a byproduct of the internet. Rapid propigation of indepentant music and fashion via blogs and social networking have been crutial to its development. Kids discover something they find to be cool, its shared, and other kids find it and incorporate it into their own style. (216.246.242.228 (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

---

This article puts hipsters in a benign light based on stereotypes of fashion, music and portraying them as modern day hippies as Mod-Revivals. Should post-Mod-Revivals be included as hipsters? They're almost parallel to each other or may be an inclusion of a modern hipster. noble experiment 06:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That list of hipsters should be re-added.

---

In my experience the word "hipster" is rarely used in the UK (or outside the US generally?). What is its range of use? What are some equivalents used in other regions (if they exist)?

"Modern day hipsters can be found in most urban communities. Hipsters also frequent ... the Angelika Theatre". That is, hipsters can be found thousands of miles away from the Angelika Theatre, but still manage to frequent it?Invisible Capybara 22:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Irony, indeed.

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

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

I find it kinda offencive actually. I'd be, and most of my friend would, as well, be considered hipsters, and I think the opposite is true, style is intentional. Irony is for mocking, and we don't exist of the sake of being mocked or a laughing stock. At the same time however, style is still a personal expression, its not faked or just for show. (216.246.242.228 (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

The internet

I just want to add my two cents:

From personal experience, I feel the internet is a big big influence on hipsters. And it part of the reason why it seems to change so fast. Fashion and music is propogated across the internet. Examples (not sources): [2] [3] [4] [5] The apparent "inconsistancy" of hipsters is simply a testament to the affect the internet now has on our lives. (216.246.242.228 (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Possible image

There's a image for upload that may be of some interest. Any thoughts? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A defense of hipsters

Why is it that I don't see anywhere on this page a defense of hipsters? Is it because no one will step up to defend them because no one self-identifies as a hipster? I've never, ever heard someone describe themselves as a hipster. Which raises the question: is the term even well-defined enough to even identify a real group of people? This article just reads like one long straw man argument, railing against something that may not even exist (at least not the way the detractors of hipsters define them).

I'm sure I'm just repeating what many before me have said, so I'll keep this short. BTW... I'm not arguing that this page shouldn't exist or anything like that. It's obviously a culturally relevant idea, even if it may not be an identifiable group of people.

Anyway, I think this article sorely needs a defense of hipsters, preferably by someone who actually identifies as one. But, given that the article is not even clear on what a hipster is, this could be a real feat.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We do NOT want a "defense of hipsters, preferably by someone who actually identifies as one." If, on the other hand, we can find something positive about hipsters in a reliable source, THAT would be welcome. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I emphatically agree with both points of SummerPhD's statement. --Boston (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see that my wording was vague, SummerPhD (and you went with the reading that assumes I don't know how Wikipedia works), so let me clarify: I meant a reliable source, not just any old user getting on here to defend hipsters. Now that we're over the stupid procedural talk, does anyone have anything of substance to say about my suggestion? This article makes some good points, but I'm not familiar with the publication, so I'd like to get a read on how "reliable" people think it is before I would bother putting any quotes from it into the article.--Hraefen ^Talk 17:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of these comments miss the point. Hipster = poseur. Die-hard subculture fans (whether punks or ravers or hippies or anything else) follow their subculture for years whether it's popular or not. Hipsters follow whatever's popular because it's popular. That is what drives persistent members of the subculture up the wall because it feels like exploitation. There is no "hipster culture" or "hipster style" by definition, because the style is whatever's in fashion. There are no self-proclaimed hipsters because the term is intrinsically derogatory. That doesn't mean the concept is useless or undeserving of a Wikipedia article, though maybe it should be merged into poseur. (Except the 1940s hipster section, which was a different phenomenon.) Sluggoster (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

To defend hipsters, look at the 1960s British mods. They consciously followed whatever was popular (and changed clothing styles every year as a sign of conspicuous consumption). This is what self-proclaimed hipsters would look like if there were any. Maybe there will be someday, just as "hippie" was originally a derogatory term but was later embraced by the hippies. Sluggoster (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe Sluggoster wins this argument by a landslide. Myrkkyhammas (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture isn't the exactly stable either. (216.246.242.228 (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

If so, then a defense of fashion as a phenomenon would be a defense of hipsters. Another defense might be that hipsters bring fringe ideas and subculture to the limelight, making them palatable and popular, and at the same time enrich mainstream culture with ideas and influences from outside. Does that sound vaguely correct? -Pgan002 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that a "defense" of hipsters is needed necessarily, just a substantial amount of research that does not defame the subculture and the individuals belonging to it. Nearly all of this article consists of the manipulation of bitter writings for derogatory purposes. It needs to be made neutral. 70.181.184.237 (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It needs to say what the sources say. Period. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I second using the Dave Monaghan piece, as it puts hipsters into the greater context of youth movements and the bohemianism of the past. It was a direct response to the Douglas Haddow piece "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization" already widely quoted on the page. His point of view is probably the one previous posters have been saying is missing from the page. I think it is also important to point out that Christian Lorentzen recanted much of what he said in "The Hipster Must Die" at the n+1-sponsored panel discussion at the New School “What Was the Hipster?” covered in This piece from The New York Observer last April----breakfastanytime 1:28, 2 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Citation not presented neutrally

The Time article cited in the Critical Reception section uses verbatim quotes from the original article without quotation marks, and it not presented as WP:NPOV. Some people may think that "Hipsters manage to attract a loathing unique in its intensity," but that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic fact. The critical reception section (which is a strange name--it seems like a critical reception is more appropriate to Hipsters: The Movie, than hipsters the people) should be revised to restate the "reception" using NPOV and sections that are literal quotes from the Time article need to be indicated as such. RG (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the quotes so that they are clearly marked as such. But, obviously, you could have done so yourself. As for the rest of your argument, it makes no sense to me. There is nothing NPOV about quoting what critics say. Nowhere is that criticism presented as fact. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry for removing that picture with no discussion, but the current caption makes much more sense than the previous. Even so, is that picture really necessary, or even helpful, to the article? Also, the entire critical reception section seems to be biased, and seems to have way to many brackets. Is there no positive reception for hipsters?Catrolean (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of. If you can find some, in a notable and reliable source, please inform us. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hipstertarianism

I think this is either a deface or joke. No sources are cited, and the information sounds dubious. I will proceed with deletion if it stays up in its current form.--71.238.148.243 (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this section as utter nonsense, added by a new editor whose intention seems to be disruption. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Hipster article quintessentially Hipster

This is from the oft-cited adbusters article:

"So… this is a hipster party?" I ask the girl sitting next to me. She’s wearing big dangling earrings, an American Apparel V-neck tee, non-prescription eyeglasses and an inappropriately warm wool coat

Yeah, just look around you, 99 percent of the people here are total hipsters!" "Are you a hipster?" "Fuck no," she says, laughing back the last of her glass before she hops off to the dance floor.

I use this quote to demonstrate how this article is not non-POV. It is one of the most POV articles I have read on Wikipedia. It rails against hipsters, as phonies and conformists who are doing some sort of disservice to modern culture, (interestingly, it mentions nothing of the products of hipster culture as reflecting the same sort of degeneracy. The Regina Spektor, or Dirty Projector, or Yeah Yeah Yeahs articles for instance make no mention of how their music "regurgitates [cultural stores] with a winking inauthenticity".)

Now this is just speculation, but I think the article was written to some extent by hipsters , who do not self-identify as such (by the way, my definition = bohemians living in Williamsburg). I think that perhaps this aversion to self-identification, and loathing of prototypicality is intrinsic to hipster culture. In other words, there is a serious POV problem here. The mainstream of society has a different view of hipsters from how hipsters view hipsters.

Allow me to demonstrate (original research I know, i apologize), from this hipster argument from a YYY forum:

"you don't know shit aside from what you've heard on the radio. go back to listening to blink 182 (OMG SO PUNK!) green day and sum 41 you hipster pieces of shit."

"Hipster eh. Firstly grow up and get a life from pretending to be all underground when you claim to listen to YYY's which are hardly a non radio underground band these days. They broke through long ago and we are proud of what they have achieved."

"And let me entertain this hipster acusation for myself. I started out music wise on the pop charts and bits of rock and punk like anyone does until i was old enough to discover my own music and nowadays i am mostly into post punk,industrial and electro. I could name a ton of bands but i shall give examples, Skinny Puppy,Rosetta Stone,The Mission,Xymox,The Cruxshadows and so on i could name a million actual underground bands that you have never heard of but then i'm also a fan of YYY's,Kasabian,Placebo,Crystal Castles and i could go on about my musical depth. It's kinda cute how you try to be a musical snob and bitch about "mainstream" bands like oh no it's terrible they have lots of fans and sell records"

http://www.yeahyeahyeahs.com/forum/default.aspx?cid=83&tid=370417&cmid=2363001

Amazing. Now I, (as well as the mainstream of society) would consider listening to Blink 182 as mainstream and listening to Crystal Castles as 'hipster', apparently in contradiction to what the above quotation seems to reveal.

Thus, the term is intrinsically flawed, being a hipster is synonymous with being a poseur (especially by hipsters), but it is also used roughly to refer to bohemians living in Williamsburg. How many people living in Williamsburg would say 'I am a hipster' --probably none or very few, yet most outsiders would identify them as such.

In sum, there are two competing definitions based on two different worldviews for what a hipster actually is. That is perhaps why the article is so unremittingly derisive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.82.216 (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

--->I feel as if the economic displacement acpect of the hipster tends to be ignored, they infest a working class area, local shops close and up pops cafe for the people(che/revolution/organic theme).Locals hate them for spoiling what they loved about their communities and forcing them to leave the place they call home.A Hipster is a variation of the yuppie<---

---

>adv joe<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.164.156 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Centers of Hipster Culture

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

Hipster

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

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

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

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

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

The Section Entitled "Critical Reception"

The title of this section makes it sound like we're reviewing a movie, book, or a video game, which is not the case. Or is this title okay? I just was curious if I was the only person that felt as though the title of this particular section sounds a little silly. Thoughts, people? 98.202.38.225 (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Might want to add something about hipster as expression of aestheticism - material at exoskeleton-johannes.blogspot.com (I'm not the blogger there btw). would do it myself, but not enough time (is there ever?)

122.57.106.107 (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

reference 13

Says pitchfork was "developed in 2004". Not true, it goes back to the 90s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.75.235 (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pics

Can we get some pictures of what a hipster looks like or is it some type of enigmatic creature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.76.73 (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've added a template, and hopefully someone will get around to it eventually. elektrikSHOOS 08:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple photos, but it took quite some searching on the Commons. Feel free to replace if you can find some better ones. --Whoosit ^(stalk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, who says that girl is a hipster? And the picture of Kerouac is not appropriate, because the first hipsters predated the Beats by at least 10 years. Kerouac was not a hipster, he was influenced by them. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your concern. That's why in the caption I said she's wearing accessories "associated" with hipster fashion. Regarding Kerouac, you're right. I'll correct the caption. --Whoosit ^(stalk) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Discrimination

Create42000 just added the discrimination sidebar to this article, and I removed it. My argument is that "hipster" is not a discriminatory word in the same manner as "hillbilly" or "nigger," two other articles in which the same editor placed the sidebar. There is no history of discrimination against hipsters, as there is with blacks and poor whites, nor is this specific term used in the manner those other terms are, i.e., to belittle and denigrate a person. Furthermore, "hipster" is a cultural construct with a meaning that has changed over the years, but "hipsters" are not an ethnic or racial group. My guess is that the sidebar was placed as part of the larger campaign to claim that this article is biased and designed to attack hipsters, despite the fact that every claim made in the article is referenced with a reliable source. Any other editors have any thoughts on this subject? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My only comment is that this talk page is a comedy goldmine and that you, RepublicanJacobite, are doing an excellent job laying down the smack. Keep up the good work.Thendbegins (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See also

I'm not sure I understand the reason the "Stuff White People Like" link is here. The linked article doesn't seem to offer any additional and relevant information regarding this topic. If the intent is to link to the blog site discussed on the linked page, could it not be done directly?15.203.233.79 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the link to the blog would have to go, if relevant, in the ext. links section. I am not really sure why that is in the see also section, to be frank. I believe it has been added and removed a number of times. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

more neighborhoods controversy?

An anonymous IP just changed around the "US areas associated with hipsters," adding the East Village and Northern Liberties in Philly and removing Columbia Heights in DC and two areas of LA (Echo Park and Silverlake). The person might know better than me, but I'm kind of doubtful of some of the changes. So I come here to ask others in the interests of maintaining some objectivity.

Most obviously, it seems silly leaving out LA entirely, though I don't know about specific neighborhoods. Also I don't know about Northern Liberties in Philly so does anyone have info or a reference? And I don't know what the merits are of DC's Columbia Heights compared to the other areas here but I know it's definitely DC's hipster district. The banner for its local blog pretty much sums it up (and The Washington Post agrees). I know DC isn't known for its hipsters but neither is Philly. Oh, and anyone have a reference for Portland? That should definitely stay.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a point.

Check the Arsel & Thompson article (see ref in article) 4L14S (talk), 3:17 EST, Nov 30th.

Pop Culture Appropriations and Parodies

Added a new section, but needs to be improved. Anyone can pitch in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misanthropology (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone fix (I don't know how to edit Wiki so I won't do it)

This link needs to be rewired; it no longer goes to the page for the document.

^ a b c d Lorentzen, Christian (May 30–June 5, 2007). "Kill the hipster: Why the hipster must die: A modest proposal to save New York cool". Time Out New York.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.105.177 (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So who exactly are the people that despise "Hipsters"?

I don't see this mentioned in the page anywhere. You see rabid Facebook pages dedicated to hating them and the rest, but what are the common elements that unites their hatred of them? They all seem to think a hipster is something different judging by their comments. about 7 or 8 years ago it used to be white belts and trucker hats, now it's not liking Coldplay, having interests outside anything mainstream, visiting thrift stores or collecting vinyl? I don't get it, I think they're a myth, what they're really reffering to are common variety trend followers in any social group. Someone jokingly (I think) called me a hipster once for owning a Nikon F5 shocked that I would still use a film camera alongside a digital one. Where is all this stuff coming from? The attitude in the article almost reads like an Uncyclopedia page - a load of bollocks and a bit of a joke really. Time magazine is also responsible for propogating some weird ideas about 'Emo' culture too. 78.150.193.79 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with article improvement? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For one I'd like to know what kind of people supposedly dislike them and secondly knowing exactly what defines hipsterish behaviour such as liking alternative bands or liking independent cinema since that probably describes more than just hipsters, meaning the entire article is nonsense. How many of these activities do you have to perform daily to become a hipster? Is it one or a combination of several during a particular time period? Are there certain activites that are especially offensive and some rather minor meaning they could be perfomred in combination without actually being regarded as a hispter? The article doesn't seem to elaborate upon this for some reason. 78.150.193.79 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article cannot say, or "elaborate upon," anything without references. The article is well-referenced, as I have said many times before. What you are asking for seems rather silly, as though you expect some kind of anthropological study like the kind that used to be done of "primitive" peoples. The article says what the references say. What more do you want? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My objection? The references seem to consist mostly of subjective music magazine journos. Happy bitterness squatting. 78.151.42.212 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion

There is little connection between the modern hipster "movement" and the classic hipster culture of the 40's and 50's. To say there is is just confusing. The modern movement is mostly style. The real hipster movement was mostly substance. And the hippies --a movement that ended, not started, with Woodstock-- rebranded hipsterism in a kind of outing of the subculture. Out into the parks and the open air, rather than the basements and coffee houses. What passes for "hipster" today is a joke. It's not a philosophy. It's not a quest for anything positive or creative or meaningful. It's just a collage of 40 years worth of throwaway commercial culture trend doodaddery, draped over some really bored people. 71.112.33.241 (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Some pictures

Imported some pictures from flickr that illustrate the text well, such as fixed gear bicycle, indie clothes, glasses and borrowing "authenticity". Since this can be a derogatory term, all pictures added are either of models posing as hipsters or self-portraits by self-described hipsters. Contrary to the expectations one may have from this article, many people literally tag themselves as hipsters, if only ironically. EverGreg (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Images simply grabbed from flickr are not adequate. Someone says this is a hipster, or hipster clothes? That is not a reliable source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I wasn't entirely clear on what I meant. That the persons in the picture self-identify as hipsters was a requirement, but only to avoid shaming anyone by putting their face in a wikipedia article about a potentially derogatory term.

The choice of pictures rely on the wikipedia article and its sources for identifying key features of hipster style. For example: The fixed gear bicycle and the glasses in the pictures are directly illustrating the text, while the facial hair in the last photo relies on the psychology today external link. Our hipster article list several other visual features of hipsters such as mop-top haircuts, platform shoes, converse shoes and old sweaters and a close read of the article's many sources would undoubtedly yield many other identifiers. Probably ones contradicting each other (platform or converse?) but this is in line with how the article describe the vague concept of hipsterness.

In short, as long as this article's sources are reliable and authorative and they are represented faithfully in the article text, it is fairly straightforward to find fitting illustrations. EverGreg (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Blublocker

Isn't this a blatant advertisement? Why not use a picture of glasses rather than a link to a store? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.58.153 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This has now been removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is atrocious, it is extremely anti-hipster. The section "1990s and 2000s" as well as "Theories and Analysis" section could easily be collapsed under the critical reception section of this article. Subtle examples of bias at work are when terms like "inauthentic" and "pretense" are used in sections clearly meant for neutral analysis. Quoting someone does not magically transform the bias statement into unbiased truth - me quoting conservative Catholics in a section about the Reformation does not mean that I am writing neutrally. Furthermore, the section devoted to describing the "hipster" merely restates common stereotypes, and does not acknowledge these "facts" as such. The first section "history" acts as if it's giving a sociological account of what a "hipster" is and chooses to rely on satires as a form of evidence. The first two sections of the article must be rewritten from a more NPOV. DeconstructedSign (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hipster is at least in part a derogatory term. Doesn't that mean that describing what is meant by the term is necessarily negative? For example the article on Chav 92.238.128.101 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you about it being a "derogatory term." However, the article does not state nor admit in any other fashion that sense, other than declaring "hipster" to be slang. The matter is further complicated by the overall tone of the article, the article describes "hipsters" in a sociological/anthropological fashion. If the term is derogatory, then isn't the sociological/anthropological interpretation of the "hipster" just mere pseudoscience? For example, an article on the (forgive my language) "dyke"/"dike" should merit nothing other than an analysis of the stereotype and an explanation of what the term means. Describing the "dyke"/"dike" in the same manner of this article would be incredibly offensive. This article confuses its priorities and turns prejudice into "fact." Significant rewriting is needed to correct this mistake. DeconstructedSign (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

These complaints of "lack of neutrality" fall completely flat when you see that the article is very well-referenced. There are a wide number of sources, and yes all of them are critical of hipsters. If you are aware of sources that say positive things, you are free to add them. But, this is not an article in which a bunch of editors who hate hipsters filled the article with criticism. No, there is simply a lot of criticism out there, and this article reflects that. There is no neutrality issue here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. Obviously one can cite (please excuse the examples) a thousand articles on "why Jews are evil Zionist pigs" (I use this as an example of extreme bigotry, I mean no offense) or other articles on "beaners." It is quite easy to cover up bigotry with sources, humans have been doing this for years. "Hipster" is a prejudicial term. That should go without saying. No one describes themselves as a "hipster." Likewise I would refuse to label myself a "honky." The fact that there aren't articles out there defending "the hipster" is more evident of it being recognized as a pejorative term. The neutrality issue hasn't fallen flat, the debate has just been slow. Significant rewriting has to be done to this article. If not, then the neutrality of this article has to be contested like all other articles. Stereotyping and prejudice, as shown by this article, are not what wikipedia aims for. DeconstructedSign (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your argument is utterly without merit, and the examples you provide are off-point and offensive. There is no neutrality issue with this article. The article is well-referenced and balanced. So far, you and the other critics have failed to find a single source that argues in favor of hipsters. If you find said article, and it is from a notable and verifiable source, it can be added. Otherwise, this is just you pissin' and moanin'. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This website is way too mainstream. It uses to many labels and definitions. I used to go on this site before anyone ever even heard of it. I go on Pikiwedia now, but I'm sure you haven't heard of itn and if you have, I probably heard of it before you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.136.3 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree, this is not simple "pissin' and moanin'" this is about scholarly merit. For a group to exist there has to be some conscious recognition from within that group. No one is a self-proclaimed "hipster" nor would anyone want to be one because every attribute of said "hipster" is negative and offensive. There is no solid definition of hipster, as it is varied off of other perceived attributes. This article is more spawned from simple bigotry/hatred of this so-called group. It's not scholarly and needs to be revised. Who would ever wanted to be described as: ""... mop-top haircuts, swinging retro pocketbooks, talking on cell phones, smoking European cigarettes... strutting in platform shoes with a biography of Che Guevara sticking out of their bags."[7] Lanham further describes hipsters thus: "You graduated from a liberal arts school whose football team hasn't won a game since the Reagan administration" and "you have one Republican friend who you always describe as being your 'one Republican friend.'" Or what about this: "Time notes how instead of creating a culture of their own, hipsters proved content to borrow from trends long past, stating: "take your grandmother's sweater and Bob Dylan's Wayfarers, add jean shorts, Converse All-Stars and a can of Pabst and bam — hipster."" Again, despite the source and the moderate tone, it's meant to be a mocking statement. There is no critical attitude towards any of the statements within this article. There is no way around it, the term is offensive, it's a pejorative term and this article fails to recognize that - which is a result of a poor use of the critical faculty.DeconstructedSign (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I say again, the article is well-referenced. The POV template is only justified if the article has opinions in it which were introduced by editors without references. That is not the case here. Your dislike of the what the sources have to say is irrelevant. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, it is my humble opinion that you yourself are biased against hipsters, and are disinterested in hearing anybody else's opinions. I believe it would be in the best interest of this Wiki page if you would stop un-doing any changes to this page, and stop taking it upon yourself to edit the page. Once again, I believe you aren't allowing a fair discussion of the word, and it is a fairly one-sided article as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rymaster111 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as this is an encyclopedia, your opinion does not count for much. What counts are facts, verified by reliable sources, which this article has. Therefore, your claims of bias are without merit. So, I am going to continue editing this article, removing vandalism, and uncited opinions, because I have improved this article considerably. You, on the other hand, have not, by all available evidence, done anything constructive whatsoever. So, come back when you have some reliable sources to balance what you claim is the article's bias. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? This article totally lacks neutrality. It reads like an exercise in kicking the undefended. The fact that major media outlets generally mock hipsters is hardly a surprize, but should Wikipedia be a mouthpiece for corporate purveyors of American normality like Time magazine?? (And many of the citations appear to have been originally derived from the Dan Fletcher piece in Time, Jul. 29, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.124.4 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have offered no adequate reason or explanation for your removal of referenced information. Nor have you offered any basis for the claim that the article is not neutral. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Democracy is the worst thing imaginable and I have quotes from the CCP to prove it. In fact I have many quotes. The fact that you have references does not make something balanced, and since wikipedia hopes to be balanced, your argument of it being well referenced falls flat on its face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you live in a democratic government doesn't mean that Democracy is better than any other form of government There are, in fact a LOT if valid arguments as to why democracy fails. Democracy is the worst possible form of government we can live in. I say this in the sense that is we lived in a lesser form of government (take lesser to mean whatever form of government has proved to be inferior to democracy) then the system would collapse, thus making democracy the worst, as anything worse would be impossible. So be careful of what analogies and examples you use as counter-arguments. When you're talking about a social group or sub-culture, different concepts and forms of analysis that must be applied than those that would be applied to analysis of political systems. So while you statement was meant to be sarcastic (your first sentence, I mean), it is in fact, completely up for debate, since the strength of a political system is subjective. Thus, your argument is deemed completely invalid based solely on the example that you used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.136.3 (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an article named "In Defense of Hipsters". It makes a lot of valid points; perhaps someone more ambitious would be willing to suggest some changes. http://towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/1404/1/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.168.223 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, but that is not a reputable or reliable source. It looks like a blog posting the opinion of someone who is not himself an expert or even a notable source on the topic. So, no, that cannot be quoted in the article. Thanks anyway. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this clearly has a problem with hipsters. This is not neutral... Bordering on offensive. This needs to be redone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.245.150 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)