Talk:History of modern Western subcultures

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Culture

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Soho#Bohemian Soho|Soho]] The anchor (#Bohemian Soho) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

a lot missing for 90's and 2000's era

yolo, hipster, swag, all that stupid stuff needs to be reported on ....unfortunately

Opinion

I feel this article contains points of opinion that could be more concisely worded and documented as statements of fact. It also seems to lose focus towards the last three decades of the century. Some of the discussion is confusing, especially regarding the freak scene and overlapping groups beyond the 70s. Otherwise, I really enjoyed reading this article.

I agree, but it's a work in progress. I'm hoping it will improve when (or if) someone else contributes to it. :-)
Stick with it. This is a fascinating article and we can put up with the present rough-cut until the wonderful Wiki process that we all collaborate in will make it truly awesome. Keep it real: use the Force. Punanimal 8 July 2006, 11:19 (UTC)
I also agree, but without condition. This article should be on another site. It also contains obvious errors and fabrications. I vote for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.61.237 (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be cleaned up.

Someone with the authority should mark this article to be claned up, or perhaps I should motivate myself to actually contribute, and not just leech the wealth of information from Wikipedia.

I've volunteered myself. I'll be cleaning up this article in my spare time. I've already done the first graf.--Andymussell 23:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cut paragraph

I pulled the following paragraph because I don't see how it fits (or where it would fit) into the article. If someone could clarify or modify it and put it back in that would be fine by me.--Andymussell 21:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Collier's 1984 book The Rainbow People describes a subculture of transatlantic-based wealthy hedonists. He says, "The era of the Rainbow People opened with the coronation of a prince called 'Tum-Tum' as Britain's Edward VII in 1902 and closed in 1975 with the death of Aristotle Onassis, dubbed 'Daddy-O' by Women's Wear Daily."

This graf now has its own page under The Rainbow People.--Andymussell 18:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21st century

Where do you go from here? I finished reading this article and now I want to know about subcultures in the 21st century? Where do I go? Put link in see also MPS 01:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too Broad Perhaps? Think Geographically.

Just a thought from a librarian . . . I love this article and see great potential. Perhaps it is too broad. I would suggest adding in geographical subcategories. Instead of subcultures in general, perhaps it should focus on subcultures in Britain or the United States. Or maybe it can somehow stay "all encompassing" but then use the geographical delimiters as subheadings. I think that will do much to clean up any confusion. I am a new Wikipedian . . . let me know if I can help! --digilio 05:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep getting distracted by other Wiki projects I've also taken on...thanks for the offer of help, and anyone else who wants to pitch in is more than welcome too. I'll try to keep it coordinated.

There is definately an english-language bias to this article, especially an American one -- and a pretty white-bread one at that. I can't do much about that, as I'm barely cognizant of, much less capable of writing on, nonenglish subcultures that haven't become large enough to be borderline nonsubcultural.

Overall I'm realizing this article is far too broad, and needs to change into something else but I'm not sure what. Likely a 'review of main subcultural trends from the mid20th century until now'...but I'll have to work on that title. --Andymussell 02:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Subcultures

I don't mean to throw a monkeywrench into the debate, but arguably, most ethnic subcultures are also legitimate subcultures. For example, Mexican Americans and Cuban Americans have separate dialects, musical influences, and literature from the American intellectual mainstream. Perhaps if we developed a list of subcultures we could better divide out this broad topic. MPS 03:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, thoughts

This is a wonderful idea for an article, which really *needs* to become so magnificent that it serves as a guide to a series broken up by century and region. Subculture is what's going on as far as creative people are concerned, what matters in their daily life, and is fragile and constantly changing. It's traditionally underreported if not ignored by the mainstream. Go baby, go! Twang 01:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swing

I'm disambiguating Swing, and there doesn't seem to be an appropriate article for the usage here, unless it's another name for Jive (which also needs disambiguating). Could someone who knows better please fix it? Thanks! --Jamoche 06:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the 19th century?

yeah, what about it foo'! 64.12.114.29 04:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

where to go

I took a lot of time off working at this trying to figure out what to do with it; several editors above gave good suggestions, but really I think the problem is that the topic is far too expansive for one article. In particular, the decade-based divisions, though better than nothing, provide too-definite boundaries for what are really very blurrly lines.

I'm going to start breaking it up into refers to other pages in rough chronological order, unless anyone else has a better idea. --Andymussell 01:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

The standard reference book on this subject is Dick Hedbidge's Subculture: The Meaning of Style from 1979. You need to make a distinction between bohemian movements and what would properly be understood as a subculture. - --Hecubot

Yeah, definitely. I'm hardly an expert but I think a lot of the "subcultures" mentioned under the early 1900s, '20s, '30s and '40s are artistic and academic movements--not subcultures in the way that they're commonly understood.

I don't think, for example, that beats and hippies are comparable to surrealists or existentialists.

Hip Hop

This is great but how can you fail to mention hip hop? futurebird 01:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairstyles

I removed a ridiculous unsourced section about hairstyles which claimed that long hair for men and women had always been considered normal. Hair length has of course varied from period to period and culture to culture. Brianyoumans 23:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gamers!

so what about gamers? i think it really started in the 1980's. Game informer and ign.com both came out in the 90'sMambi55 01:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trash

The write-up on the '90s and 2000s is trash. The author(s) seem to confuse the term "subculture" with "generation." The dominant characteristics of any particular generation describe the "mainstream" while a subculture is all about deviations from or reactions to the dominant mainstream culture. Anything that is ubiquitous in the mainstream cannot be a distinctive aspect of a subculture. Also, the supposition that a "mainstream" culture still exists in the early 21st century (due to fragmentation etc...) is contested but this viewpoint is not acknowledged.

20th-century to 20th century

Would there be any objection to moving this article to History of Western subcultures in the 20th century? The hyphen is only used when 20th and century are working together as a compound adjective before a noun. History of Western subcultures in the 20th-century would remain as a redirect to the new title. If there's a consensus to do so, or at least no objection, I'll make the move in about a week. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of modern Western subcultures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041208205932/http://www.savoyballroom.com/exp/context/savtalk.htm to http://www.savoyballroom.com/exp/context/savtalk.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

heavy metal

Systematically omitted here in favour of punk rock, also grunge is omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.57.23.1 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely terrible article

I had to refrain from just boldly deleting almost everything in it. Instead, I will do the sensible thing and ask more experienced editors to give this piece a really hard look. There is no introduction explaining the scope of this article. Almost none of its content is being attributed, there is little context given to its almost random enumeration, and especially the comments on more recent eras are silly at best and downright offensive at worst. A negative highlight is the naming of "social justice warrior" as a contemporary subculture...

It is possibly just too much work to transform this article into something worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, so if noone feels like taking on that herculean task, I strongly suggest to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.172.38 (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]