Talk:Bohemianism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Moulin Rouge!

Should something about this movie be added to the article? (uhh, it won't be me, as I'm likely not coming back here.) McKay 03:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"Literary" bohemians

In the second paragraph, the second sentence begins, "Literary bohemians..." Does this refer to bohemians in literature or bohemians who write? --sparkit (talk) 22:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Links

Why on earth would anyone remove the links? I restored them. Simon Beavis 16:41 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Error in page

"The term carries a connotation of arcane enlightenment (the opposite of 'Philistines'), and also carries a less frequently intended, pejorative connotation of carelessness with personal Bohemians were often associated with drugs and self-induced poverty." I haven't edited it because I'm not sure what the author intended, but I would suggest replacing it with "The term carries a connotation of arcane enlightenment (the opposite of 'Philistines'), and also carries a less frequently intended, pejorative connotation. Bohemians were often associated with drugs and self-induced poverty."

Well go for it!--Wetman 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

diletente

where exactly might the word and definition for diletente go?

A dilettante (the Italian spelling is standard in English) is an amateurish amateur, a trifler in the arts, a dabbler. An amateur has a love for the arts; a dilettante takes pleasure in them. Until ca 1800 "virtuoso" was a third synonym. --Wetman 07:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
at Amateur. --Wetman 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

POV, gentrification, & related

I apologize if my contributions have not been well sourced enough. I would note that in general, this article is not all that well cited...

I have received criticism on my personal talk page that "Many of your recent edits on this article smack of POV and original research." I take such matters very seriously. I am trying to do my best here, so let's review my three main contributions in detail:

1. Bohemian communities. I admit my contributions there are unsourced. So is every other contribution in those sections. So, there is a mess to clean up. On the other hand, arguing that Eugene, Oregon has Bohemian characteristics starts to border on common knowledge in my view.

2. Rainbow gathering. I did not cite this because the linked Wikipedia article is well-sourced. I have now added the link to Niman, a credible academic ethnography and a perfect "secondary source."

3. Gentrification. I did not cite this because the linked Wikipedia article is well sourced.

Perhaps more experienced editors can help me understand how this works better. I agree that Wikipedia cannot be a mass of incestuous self-citation. But when I point to an article that in turn contains numerous, well-sourced, peer-reviewed and academic-house-published citations - secondary sources in the best sense - isn't it a bit of a waste to have to copy them now here (as I have done?)

I'm a bit surprised that there is any criticism at all around the absolute and incontrovertible fact that Bohemian communities get gentrified. To suggest that this is POV indicates that someone is not familiar with the extensive literature on gentrification. I've both experienced it personally and read detailed analyses of it. Can anyone provide countervailing evidence? I think the burden is now on those who disagree with the inclusion. Charles T. Betz 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It may seem like common knowledge, but I'm sure there are some out there who don't look it as open-and-shut as you are. And the phrasing of your points is the biggest problem here. I think you can prove your points without much of a problem, but you're using words like "obviously," which have the effect of sounding like opinion and closing the door to any outside thought. In effect, it sounds like you're talking down to laymen. I don't mean this to sound like a jerk, but please keep in mind that what may seem clear to you isn't clear to everyone. - Stick Fig 23:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I accept your point on phrasing and am non-defensive about edits that help with my tone. Please help me out on this. Charles T. Betz 23:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you've come a long way and I appreciate your work in making this a stronger article. - Stick Fig 04:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Gypsies were called "bohemians" in France because they first arrived in Paris with a passport from the king of Bohemia. So they they were thought of Bohemian origin, which they are not. Also known as "Manouches" in the north and "Gitans" in the south, their nomadic lifestyle attracted them a reputation of being thieves, children kidnappers, lazy people, careless, etc. Besides, they were known as good musicians. The citation about the king of Bohemia is from the french-speaking Wikipedia, and the reputation part, well, I'm French...Elpiaf 17:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

The section on popular culture is essentially a trivia section, and as such, is not in keeping with Wikipedia standards. More to the point, it is simply not a good list, not well-written, and totally unreferenced. The section should be rewritten into prose, and some of the obvious cruft removed. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and cut the popular culture section altogether, and bring it here for discussion.
Nothing on this list is referenced, which is, unfortunately, no surprise. Furthermore, many of the items are so short that they provide no elucidation whatsoever, such as, "Get Cape. Wear Cape. Fly's album "The Chronicles of a Bohemian Teenager." That says almost nothing. Of what possible relevance is such an item? Are we going to allow every song that mentions "bohemia," or some term that is considered to be similar, to be listed here? That would not be at all helpful. Most of these could be deleted altogether, with no loss to the article. In a new, well-written and -referenced popular culture section La bohème and its derivatives should be listed, certainly, and their importance discussed. Otherwise, without references and good description, the rest is junk. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

18th century French origin

I was just reading the New York Review of Books article "Finding a Lost Prince of Bohemia" (April 3, 2008):

one of the earliest references to literary bohemians, Le Chroniqueur désoeuvré, ou l'espion du boulevard du Temple (London, 1783), Vol. 2, p. 22, caustically described a boulevard theater, Les Variétés amusantes, as "cet espèce d'antre de Bohémiens."

The NYRoB article is about the 18th century French novel titled Les Bohémiens which has recently been (re)discovered, first published in 1790. It is about dis-establishment literary types. Clearly, the idea and term Bohemianism originated in France in the 18th century. Currently the article says it originated in England in the 19th century, which makes no sense 1) it's a French word and 2) it was in use in France in the 18th century. Someone should update the article. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

expert tag and fact requests

The information in this article on the origin of the term is simply wrong. I tried to correct, with citations and sources, but was reverted with no explanation. The reverter obviously did not read the provided sources. I have no interest in edit warring, so the best I can is add the tags and hope someone else with a little more patience can deal with it. For the record here is the corrected diff. 96.231.161.184 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. That's the same New York Review of Books article I mentioned below. You've also linked to this article which says:
"The two-volume novel (Les Bohémiens of 1790) is the first important use of the term "Bohemians" in its modern sense as anti-establishment intellectuals."
I wonder why it was reverted? Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How Bohemians got their name

"...Gypsies (called bohemians because they were mistakenly believed to originate in Bohemia)..."

Not really. The earliest gypsies to reach France, in the high middle ages, really did come from Bohemia, which was an important kingdom at the time. At the time there was quarter of Paris called the Bohemian quarter - it was meant for students and others from the real-life kingdom. Eventually the kingdom of Bohemia disappeared, and the Bohemia quarter went down-market. But it kept its name, and in time bequested it to students and artists after cheap rent. I know your sentence is sourced, but the truth is slightly more complex than just gypsies. (The word for gypsies in French, by the way, is gitanes - which only goes to show how suspect this etymology is). PiCo (talk) 10:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a matter of semantics, what you mean by originate. How far in history do you want to go. How about saying "... Gypsies (called Bohemians because came to France from Bohemia)." (or via Bohemia)--Jirka6 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The "mistakenly" is mistaken in any case. As the transcluded map illustrates, the Romani people had indeed reached France via Bohemia in the 15th century. We may discuss the semantics of "originate", but we cannot discuss the semantics of "mistakenly", and if "originate" is too ambiguous, we had better settle for a less ambiguous phrasing. --dab (𒁳) 10:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

US or British spelling

Perhaps this should prefer US spelling as a concept not associated with the British Isles: when I was editing it went towards British instead.----Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

On Brooks and his worthless opinion

Please keep the idiot off the page. Give me one single reason why his opinion is of more importance than anyone else's? No? Then keep him off. Can't I get through ONE damn WIKIPEDIA page without coming across some pinhead's random musings?

Keep it clean, comrades. - EZRA.

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars.

He is a notable New York Times columnist. That means his opinion is worth more, by generally accepted standards. I do not accept your rationale and will revert you. Charles T. Betz 03:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Further thoughts: I'd also argue that his book is one of the most prominent mentions of "bohemian" in modern literary history, being a recognized bestseller. Charles T. Betz 03:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Finally - folks I have reverted this guy twice, so someone else needs to do it next time. He also has left obscenities on my talk page. Charles T. Betz 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Update: he's determined to have an edit war. Can someone else please restore Brooks immediately please? We may need to get intervention here. Charles T. Betz 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop being such a crybaby. Are you incapable of forming your own opinion? Apparently so! Have you made it your personal business to prevent others from forming their own opinions? Apparently so! I couldn't give two flying f-cks if Brooks is a "notable New York Times columnist". Is there such a thing? Tell me why I should respect any newspaper, let alone the New York Times, let alone some pitiful little pipsqueak who has a damn column that only a bunch of sap-headed dilettantes with far more money than sense would ever bother to read.

His book was a bestseller, was it? You're not trying too hard to convince me he's worth paying any attention to, comrade.

Please, just do the right thing. All opinions are equally worthless. The random musings of a NYT halfwit are worth no more than the random musings of some other damn halfwit. Just let it go. People should be able to read a page without having the opinions of (more often than not) self-appointed authorities stuffed down their throats.

If you dare to put his nonsense back up, I'm going to go through EVERY article on bohemianism I can find, and quote every stupid journalist who ever uttered two words about it.

Now shut up and do something more important with your life. - EZRA.

I still do not accept your rationale, and do not appreciate your tone at all. The concept of notability is core to Wikipedia; all opinions are not created equal. Your opinions of Brooks' value are not relevant here.
A subjective concept such as "Bohemianism" is the sum total of various opinions, having no grounding in anything other than the literary and social commentary tradition. (It's not really measurable, is it?) Or are you suggesting that only dead people can contribute to defining such a concept?
I intend to see this debate through to its end. Your behavior is irresponsible and un-Wikipedian. Can you find anyone else to back you in your opinions? If not, you must stand down. Your edit has now been reverted by two different editors. Charles T. Betz 14:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither do I appreciate your tone, comrade. "All opinions are not created equal"? Very profound, dear boy. What did I say? All opinions are equally worthless. There is no such thing as a "qualified" opinion! Get that through your skull. Your "reasoning", that is, your boyfriend Brooks works for the NYT (Ooh!) is utterly pathetic. You are a pinhead, if you were employed by the NYT, what would that make you? A pinhead who works for the NYT.

Please, like I already said, I will read every essay every half-wit ever wrote that has any mention whatsoever of anything at all related to "bohemianism".

Can I find someone to back me in my opinions that some idiot who works for the NYT is still an idiot? Yes. Probably billions of people. Shall I get them all to post on Wikipedia?

Why not post the opinions of some legitimate bohemians? I know plenty of them! Or are only the opinions of high-hat Ivy-League morons of any value to you? If so, please, have a shred of self-respect.

Allow people to form their own opinions, and stop quoting idiots. - EZ

Folks, I need help here. This article is peripheral to my core concerns. If everyone else is OK with this person's unjustified deletion of what I think is an appropriate and interesting mention, then fine. But please consider his abuse and irrationality and realize he may randomly come after your work next. I think he needs to learn that Wikipedia is a community effort, or take his act elsewhere. But like I said, I have other fish to fry. Charles T. Betz 13:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My attempt at mediation

Keep the peace, y'all. I tend to agree with Charles on this particular case, simply because it's analysis that's useful to the article, and it isn't like it's untrue. I live in the Ghent area of Norfolk, Virginia, and in many ways, it's clear the point that Brooks is getting at just by looking at my own city. Without trying to be derogatory here, it's clearly been influenced by bohemianism but gentrified to the point that the people that actually live there are upper class. Having also lived in a college town in the past, the example is clear there, too. Even so, we try to avoid original research on the site.

In this specific case, considering that this analysis is coming from a well-known New York Times columnist and not an obscure blogger, I think we're relatively safe regarding the notability of the sourced argument. If you would like to find an equally notable counter-argument for balance, feel free. I don't think anyone is against that. Our goal is to acheive balance and portray a neutral point of view. That doesn't prevent us from running analysis; it just means that we don't let the analysis take over the article.

If you'd like to continue this argument, Ezra, you may want to consider registering an account with Wikipedia as well as signing your posts using four tildes. Also, please be careful regarding your tone; we tend to assume good faith in our editors and, as such, even if we disagree with people, we don't fight with them. - Stick Fig 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OOPS- i made a rookie mistake and posted before noting that further comments already resided below. I will restate more forcefully what I posted above about Brooks, to wit, that [not only is he a complete idiot but] PAUL FUSSELL got there first and with more brio, aplomb, sense, intelligence (choose your term). To cite Brooks and not Fussell is to pander, palin and simple. Furthermore, some actual analysis of his contribution with his bobos idea would seem to be a minumum for him to remainActio (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bohemianism today

Someone added a section with this heading. I think the concept has merit. However, I don't think it sufficient to merely list bohemian communities with no commentary and no citations. As such, it seems highly arguable and I've reverted it. On the other hand, a well written, and sourced, section on this topic would be a useful addition to the article, IMO. Sunray (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern?

The tag that says a work of 1895 noted the "postmodernism" of Bohemians is anachronistic. The word is not purely stylistic; it invokes the history of "modernism". How can you have postmodernism before modernism? The word that is looked for is non-bourgeois. 4.154.253.179 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Focus

The article purports to be about Bohemianism as a lifestyle but the images seem to have no relation to that. You have two paintings of Bohemian girls, who probably are literally girls from Bohemia (or Gypsies if Bohemienne in the French sense), and a map of Bohemia. What on earth does this have to do with people like Bret Harte who called himself a Bohemian who was an American with no connection to (nor even awareness of)geographic Bohemia?

I am in doubt also as to whether Bohemian Grove has enough of a serious connection to the subject as to deserve an image in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.65.177.41 (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bohemian communities past and present

This entire section is very problematic. First, it is not well-referenced, hence, the refimprove template I placed earlier today. Second, the list of current bohemias (which I have extracted and pasted below) has no references whatsoever, and I believe it would be very difficult to reference. By what standard are they considered "bohemian," and are we talking bohemian in the 19th century sense of the word (artistic and rebellious) or in David Brooks contemporary sense of the term relating to the "Bobos"? This is not at all clear. And so, with no standard set, and with no references being demanded, we end up with a long and useless list of cities, neighborhoods, streets, whathaveyou, with no description of their character, and no justification for why they should appear here. It is not formatted very well, either. Here is the list:

Current bohemias include:
Argentina: San Telmo, Australia: Norwood (in Adelaide, S.Australia), Newtown in Sydney and Victoria Street, Fitzroy, Brunswick in Melbourne, Fortitude Valley and West End in Brisbane, Chile: Valparaiso, China: Dali, Canada: Vancouver's Commercial Drive, Osbourne Village in Winnipeg, The Junction and Kensington Market in Toronto and Mile End in Montreal, Colombia: La Candelaria in Bogotá, Czech Republic: Prague, Finland: Kallio in Helsinki, Germany: Prenzlauer Berg, Kreuzberg and Friedrichshain in Berlin, Guatemala: Antigua, Hungary: Szentendre and Budapest, Israel: Safed, Lithuania: Užupis in Vilnius Mexico: Coyoacán, Roma and Condesa, Nepal: Kathmandu, Netherlands: Amsterdam, Peru: Barranco in Lima, San Blas in Cusco, Romania: Vama Veche, Sweden: SoFo Södermalm in Stockholm, Thailand: Chiang Rai, Turkey: Beyoğlu, Cihangir, and Rumelihisarı in İstanbul, United Kingdom: Deptford, Camden Town, New Cross, South East London, Hulme in Manchester, Glasgow's West End, West Cornwall (as most evidenced in certain theatre professionals in the region) and the market town of Totnes, which is considered to be a high example of bohemia in the UK. More recently Camden, and in particular Camden market has also become to be associated with "bohemian" behavior.

My suggestion is that the section be retitled to "Bohemian communities in the past" because this can be much more easily referenced. Speculative and unreferenced lists of current bohemian communities have no place on Wikipedia. I intend to get started on this now. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More unreferenced content removed from article:

Major U.S. cities often have bohemian areas such as Inwood in New York City; Montrose in Houston, Texas; South Side in Pittsburgh, PA; Downtown Juneau, Alaska; Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan in Washington, D.C.; and Hampden in Baltimore, Maryland. Some entire U.S. cities, often those associated with universities and elite liberal arts colleges, may have a Bohemian reputation or image; examples include Portland, Oregon, Ashland, Oregon, Sebastopol, California, Austin, TX, Bellingham, WA, Berkeley, CA, Cambridge, MA, Eugene, OR, Arcata, CA, Santa Cruz, CA, Boulder, CO, Columbia, MO, Carrboro, NC, Asheville, NC, Ann Arbor, MI, New Paltz, NY, Athens, OH, Winter Park, FL, Oberlin, OH, Missoula, MT, Burlington, VT, Brattleboro, VT, Ithaca, NY, Olympia, WA, Paia, Haiku, HI, La Crosse, WI, and Madison, WI. Other U.S. cities may have a thriving bohemian community but not a bohemian image, such as Somerville, MA, Norman, OK, Orlando, FL, Louisville, KY, or Allentown in Buffalo, NY.

Any such content should be removed on sight. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any reference that turns into an unweighted list like this needs pruning. Thank you. --Wetman (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
And these lists made up a large part of the article. These lists really tell one nothing about "bohemianism". I still have a lot of work to do on that article to get it into better shape. Hopefully, that will happen soon. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The article needs any enrichment you can give it. Any social construct like "Bohemian" needs plenty of sourced quotations to show how the term has been used, what it has been meaning, and how its connotations have changed, perhaps subtly. Part of social history and the history of ideas.--Wetman (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with all the problems. Furthermore, the current draft uses the phrase "these neo-bohemian communities", and there is no way to know what it references - presumably something from the list above, but who knows what? And neo-bohemian isn't defined in the article. Personally, I think the irony of gentrification point is an opinion unnecessary to an encyclopaedia article, and it wouldn't be difficult to insert and provide a citation for the converse opinion.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)KD Tries Again
Is this "neo-bohemian" comment still in the article? If so, I must have missed it, and it should be removed. As for the gentrification paragraph, I thought it was borderline, so I left it. But, the article still needs a lot of work. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in the same sentence as the gentrification comment. I changed it to "once Bohemian", which is not perfect but at least makes some sense.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)KD


I am wondering why The Farm, in Summertown, Tennessee is not there. It started with a caravan of hippie buses from the Haight more than 30 years ago. Their very intention was to set up a spiritual communtiy that was not so materialistic and so on. Maybe I am not being picky enough with my definition of Bohemian, since someone said they're all dead, but I think that the word has couple of meanings. http://www.thefarm.org. Beadingbusily 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadingbusily (talk • contribs)

I added a reference for Greenwich Village, NY and also added sources that describe Venice and Topanga, California as centers for artists and others living unconventionally or "beyond the pale of respectable society" by the mid twentieth century. More context for the inclusion of the cities on the list might be more useful - but I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martina Holiday (talk • contribs) 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Medieval France, Czech Hussites and Bohemians?

I am not sure the term "Bohemian" used to name Romani (Gypsy) people is as recent as the authors claim. It definitely did not originate in 19th century France, but much earlier, in 15th century France. At that time, the Czechs (Bohemians) were revolting against the Pope (see Hussite wars) and their reputation in otherwise catholic Europe was not very good. At the same time the gypsy people reached France (both from SW - Spain and the east), which coincided with the period of early Czech Protestantism and "bohemian popularity" in France (Jeanne d'Arc prepared for a crussader to Bohemia to defeat bohemian heretics). Some of the newly coming Roma people claimed they were of Egyptian origin (Gypsy), some of them used Bohemia as the claimed place of origin. However note that until 1945 the population of Romani people in Czech lands was low (and comparable to Germany and Austria, in fact out of 10000 Romani people in Czech lands (less than 0.1% of Czech population) only ca 300 survived the holocaust), and only increased with the repopulation of Sudetenland with people from Slovakia after the expulsion of German speaking minority in 1945-46. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.141.38 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Former Bohemian Communities

The section on Former Bohemian Communities presently reads as follows:

"A Bohemian quarter refers to a district where people can live and work cheaply while behaving unconventionally—a community of free souls living beyond the pale of respectable society. It may include sexual minorities. These districts often undergo gentrification. Complaints about gentrification often come from those who have been responsible for the process; former students and bohemians who have made attractive an otherwise undesirable and therefore inexpensive area."

I don't care that a citation has been added at the end of this sentence; this is weasel-worded, non-neutral, and frankly, more than a little judgmental. It should be edited to reflect whose opinion it is that the complaints of gentrification are coming from any one source, and likewise that gentrification is caused by said source's action. As I don't read German - and would have considerable trouble tracking down a german book from 1998 at any rate - I can't even determine whether the citation actually reflects the statement on the page.

Anyone care to deal with this issue?2602:306:80B3:DB00:40A5:5B71:5E33:6579 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's very poorly worded and out of place with the rest of the page. I've blanked the section and added "Gentrification" as a link in the See Also instead. Tobus (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit

I am a professor of English literature at a leading uk university, I hope my alteration is understood. In one section, wiki. refers to a book by a Virginia Nicholson, on bohemianism. The grievance I have with the section is that it reads more like a piece of advertising than an encyclopaedia entry. The authors attempt to quantify the inclusion reads like a basic definition of bohemianism, something the reader will no doubt have picked up from earlier paragraphs. This isn't the sort of thing you should be seeing on wiki, and is why many academics disapprove of its use. Wiki simply is nowhere near the quality of journal entries and other traditional sources we use. This was my first foray into wiki. for a while, and it well be my last.

it is not enough to claim that the hippie counterculture of the 60s was bohemian. in many ways it was a form of antimodern neo-tribalism that took less from the beats than from various back-to-the-land movements; i would suggest looking at Whole Earth catalogues, reading marshall McLuhan and his acolytes, nd doing further research.

The hippie culture was all that, but reduced to its barest essentials (those that can be discussed in this article, which is on bohemianism, not hippies) it was a form of bohemian culture. Readers who want more information can read the excellent Wikipedia article on hippies. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

The article also says hippies were a 1970s phenomenon, but Woodstock (69) was the swan song of the hippy era. Hippies were circa '66 to '71. Also, re above comment, there are many divergent opinions about the definition of "hippie". 184.147.123.113 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Many original hippies still lived as hippies in the 1970s and later, well after 1971, so how could they not have been true, original hippies? At most, between 1966 and 1971, a lot of young people were "fashion hippies" who weren't really committed to the lifestyle and soon came to drop it again (the boomer sell-outs who became the often conservative parent and grandparent generation of millennials). See also Hippie § 1970–present: Aftershocks and History of the hippie movement § Legacy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Referring to David Brooks is unacceptable if one fails to note his debt to Paul Fussell's more trenchantly observed but perhaps similarly flawed book Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. Actio (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Referring to David Brooks is acceptable; one need not refer to all of his antecedents. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Larry Siegel

On a similar note can someone explain why the Stover book is allowed a shameless advertising plug? At least the Nicholson book has been researched.

Bohemianism as rebelliousness

Many are turning to a lifestyle of self-improvement and prudence in rebellion of the proliferation of self-indulgence and depravity in modern society. Are these new rebels neo-Bohemians? Does the definition of Bohemianism flip when the lifestyle it is conventionally associated with becomes the norm? i.e. Is Bohemianism associated with the lifestyle itself, or with the lifestyle as a means of intellectual pursuit? Because the latter is totally lost on the vast majority of those who practice the "Bohemian" lifestyle today, imitating what they are taught is cool and dangerous in pop music, movies, TV, and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:16 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Factual innacuracy

Bohemians, in the classical sense, were not as widespread as this article suggests. It may not have been an exclusively European phenomenon, but it was to a far greater extent than indicated. Areas such as Greenwich Village and the lower East Side in New York would be more correctly identified with beat poets. Furthermore, true bohemians were largely all dead by around the 1930s (Patrick Leigh Fermor, A Time Of Gifts) - WWI symbolised their death, in a sense. Therfore it's fair to dispute the dates suggested by the article as well as the suggested locations.

The article says that Bohemians were "Frugal". I disagree with this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2803:9400:454A:2410:B9FD:C3FE:5399:AD7B (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2002 (UTC)

nitpick with DC

As a DC resident I can most certainly attest that Dupont Circle is no longer in any way a bohemian neighborhood, unless Johnny Rockets' and houses worth millions are still bohemian. Adams Morgan is on the fringe, going from "bohemian" to fratty (as in frat boy bars) in the past few years. I'd say other neighborhoods like Mount Pleasant, Petworth (slowly gentrifying), parts of Shaw and the H Street NE area (Old City I) are more likely candidates. I know this is only one small point in the whole article, but I figured I'd mention it here before making any changes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.44.28.162 (talk) 03:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bohemianism/Archive_1&oldid=1136572610"