Jump to content

Talk:Indie sleaze

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the Indie sleaze era from about 2006 to 2012 was described by singer Gwenno as "very debauched, and probably the last moment where kids had been able to do whatever they want”? Source: “ You may also remember Gwenno from her time with The Pipettes. From 2003-2011 (with Gwenno joining in 2005), the indie-pop-meets-doo-wop trio released two albums through the ‘MySpace’ years, at a time that is now being looked back upon by many online as the “indie sleaze” era.

    “I think I did read an article about that!” Gwenno told us. “I remember those fishnet tights and all those ripped band t-shirts.”

    Asked about why the indie sleaze phenomenon might be catching on now, she replied: “I don’t know because it was very debauched, and probably the last moment where kids had been able to do whatever they want.”” NME

5x expanded by Benmite (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 02:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is a 5x expansion from a 307 byte version. Appears to be written neutrally, sourced throughout, including the hook fact, which is interesting enough. Earwig says violation unlikely, only flagging a few properly attributed quotes. QPQ is provided. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OFFENDED

[edit]

This Article is DEEPLY inaccurate- indie sleaze has NEVER been the name of this movement until children on tiktok who were never part of it labeled it as such. This subculture has many labels- on tumblr it was called as Soft Grunge but it’s generally considered a subsection of hipster. I do not think it’s appropriate to title it as some silly little tiktok name that originated after that fact and makes me doubt the integrity and knowledge of these editors. 2601:B010:9AB:7C00:3192:E755:1650:DBE9 (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that aesthetic subculture topics are a tricky subject and should not be taken lightly. They are a very important part of culture, influenced so many people and should absolutely be documented but with respect and accuracy towards the origins and original movements. 2601:B010:9AB:7C00:3192:E755:1650:DBE9 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hipster (contemporary subculture) and soft grunge have their own separate articles. This article is titled "indie sleaze" because it is specifically discussing what the term indie sleaze refers to. Its relation to the hipster subculture is discussed, and its relation to soft grunge is discussed on the soft grunge article. The three terms do not mean the same thing, they are related, but as far as I can find, there aren't any WP:RELIABLESOURCES referring to the three terms as synonyms, so conflating them is unfounded. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor is correct. "Indie sleaze" is just historical revisionism affirmed by lazy Buzzfeed-tier journalists unfortunately published in reputed sources and hence elevated to its own Wiki article. And all originating from TikTok. Bleh. Οἶδα (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phenomenon you're talking about is much older than TikTok or Buzzfeed. Obviously you're using the term "historical revisionism" pejoratively, but retrospectively reinterpreting social history is an inherent part of it entering the historical record, its needed to incorporate new evidence, perspectives and methodologies, which lead to updated understandings. Here's an article published by Columbia University discussing the same phenomenon happening to greasers: [1] Issan Sumisu (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a pejorative, just a statement unto its tenuous basis. It extends beyond "retrospectively reinterpreting" social history and becomes an invention abstracted by millennial nostalgia and a young generation dubiously "bringing back" something they were never a part of. Indie sleaze is just an umbrella term botch-cloned from the hipster umbrella. It has no consistency to it. You have already stated that you believe it is a term all of its own not to be conflated with hipster or soft grunge, so I don't expect any agreement on the issue. And as I previously stated, journalists in their ephemeral excitement published their historical interpretations in reliable sources and thus elevated its legitimacy. So the regrouping was a success. My musings can be thrown to to the winds. Οἶδα (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
evan collins here - this article is missing crucial information about the origin of the term indie sleaze - it didn't come from that instagram account in 2021, it came originally from one of the proto-CARI facebook groups -- https://mashable.com/article/indie-sleaze-comeback -- heres the group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/302024740648250/ - created on Oct 31 2018 by Dalia Barillaro -- the IG account took a ton of the images from the fb group to start their instagram account, so they were aware of it, even if they won't admit it. 2600:1700:3525:4C10:A124:51C0:5D24:DC1A (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactively-named

[edit]

@Issan Sumisu, how does [2] this edit violate the guidance in WP:ISATERMFOR? That policy is about dictionary-style definitions, with the example "Dog is a term for an animal..." The lead sentence that defines indie sleaze as a retroactively-named style is not a dictionary-style lead, it is just an accurate adjective to describe the style. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning the lead by stating it is a retronym is turning it into a diction-style lead. Retronym is a linguists term, it is used exclusively to describe words. Issan Sumisu (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the edit didn't say "indie sleaze is a retronym for...", it says "indie sleaze is a retroactively-named fashion style..." That is a sentence referring to a style, not a word. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I replied with that because that was where you wikilinked to. The same argument still stands with "retroactively-named": it puts the focus on the word, not the topic, turning it into a diction-style lead. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a piped link to retronym, the prose is "retroactively-named". And no, the subject of the sentence is the style. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zanahary. Something must be done in the first sentence. Compare to Mod, which was used to describe the subculture in its early days. Thriley (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a blatant false equivalency. For an accurate equivalency: Greaser was coined retrospectively and doesn't mention it in the lead. Either way, there is policy stating blatantly not to do this. Issan Sumisu (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That policy does not pertain to describing things as retroactively named, it pertains to substituting concepts for their referent words in definitions. It does not apply. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Retroactively named" reforms the sentence into a definition. It is metalinguistic construction, the exact topic the policy is saying not to do. The way to include this information that early without faulting into metalinguistic construction would be something along the lines of Indie sleaze is a fashion style. It was popular in the United States and United Kingdom from approximately 2006 to 2012, however was named retroactively in the 2020s. Does that work for you? Issan Sumisu (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it’s ungrammatical and your stated reason for it is really unconvincing. I’ll see about getting a fourth opinion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An additional opinion would be good, but I don't understand why what I said would be unconvincing."Retroactively named" is a commentary on the term's origin and application, not the style. Thus, first discussing the term by stating it's named retroactively, means the sentence is describing the language itself, not the fashion style. Also, what would be ungrammatical about my proposed sentence? Sure, it's a runon sentence, but that was for the compromise, I couldn't see any other clear way of including it without it being unchronological. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as calling a woman “red-haired” does not suddenly make the sentence’s subject the woman’s hair, calling a style “retroactively-named” does make the sentence’s subject the style’s name. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't a structural equivalent: "red-haired" is a description modifying a referent; "retroactively-named" doesn't describe the referent, it describes the term which describes the referent. It shifts the semantic focus to metalinguistics rather than the subject. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid that you are just mistaken; both are simple modifiers that do not amount to subjects but instead describe the subjects of their respective sentences. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true, then you just proved that the sentence is dictionary-style. "Retroactively-named" describes a name, that's why it specifies "named". If "retroactively-named" describes "the subjects of their respective sentences" then the subjective of the sentence is the name. Issan Sumisu (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, “retroactively-named” describes the “style”, which is the subject of the sentence. The subject of “That’s a bushy-tailed squirrel” is a squirrel, not a tail. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A description modifying a referent is a false equivalent to this topic, as it doesn't spicy terminological history. To work off your allegory, an accurate equivalent to "retroactively-named" would have to include diachronic specification (the process of explaining how linguistic features change over time). So, a more accurate allegory would be "a squirrel that was formerly considered to be bushy-tailed". Do you still how this shifts the semantic focus to how the description of the squirrel's tail has changed over time, and the focus is no longer on the squirrel itself. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, semantic focus? I thought we were discussing syntax, which is what the policy you cite is about. Your example dedicates many words to the historiography of the squirrel’s tail, while “retroactively-named” or even “retroactively-identified” makes a short addition to the lead. Your cited policy does not apply here, and I don’t believe inserting that hyphenated modifier into the lead sentence produces an issue of undue weight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ISATERMFOR is about both syntax and semantic focus. A sentence is dictionary-style because of both its syntax and semantic focus. Put it this way, "retroactively-named" and "retronym" are entirely synonymous, they are both adjectives that mean "a new term created from an existing word in order to distinguish the original referent of the existing word from a later one". If the sentence used to the term "retronym" (which was the use of this word that was actually the original focus of this discussion), then there would be no debate, because that reads like it is straight out of a dictionary. Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of terms are retroactively made, I get what Issan Sumisu is saying, but at the same time the Proto-punk page does make mention of it being a retrospective label. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this was about linking the phrase to retronym, my bad yeah I'm fully on Issaan Sumisu's side on this Aradicus77 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Landfill indie and Bloghouse

[edit]

Indie Sleaze was describing an aesthetic popular during the 2000s landfill indie era as well as the bloghouse era, the latter which is where Mark Hunter (photographer) (The Cobrasnake) originally emerged out of, the style later evolved into the early 2010s hipster look.

I'm currently making seperate articles for landfill indie and bloghouse, as well as other blogosphere related microgenres and scenes from the early 2000s like blog rock and blog rap. In the early 2000s, the internet was becoming this big new novelty that entranced the alternative music scene, a bunch of artists started to get into blogs and thought that intertwining music with the emerging internet was the new way forward, at the same time magazines and blogs were also intertwining alternative music scenes with the internet for the very first time, sites like MySpace and personal music blogs became synonymous with this era.

I think what indie sleaze has mainly come to be defined as was the fashion styles and sensibilities of people within the landfill indie scene and the bloghouse scene. Which is why there is sometimes a lot of overlap, but the style seems to be evolving in the 2020s to now be closer associated with styles in 2020s underground rap music. Aradicus77 (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 340 - Advanced Writing for Arts and Humanities - 1

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2026 and 1 May 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jellygirlinajellyworld (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jellygirlinajellyworld (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indie_sleaze&oldid=1352028025"