Talk:Geek chic

Fashion NA‑class Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion 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.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The great chopping of '07

Hi all. I have removed a lot of unsourced material from the article and rewritten much of the rest. It appears that anyone who ever wore glasses or a cardigan is on the list of examples. I have removed all those without references. If you can find a ref where they or someone else uses the term, put 'em back in (and include the ref). I think there may be some confusion between geek chic and hipster irony here. Not everyone wearing an ALF shirt is actually a fan of ALF. Thanks, Wachholder0 01:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most if not all these examples of geek chic...

are perfect examples that support the statements made under the revisionism section. These examples are entertainers or people who work in the arts and entertainment industry, not the sciences. Not a single person I recognize from the fields of science, computers, math, or engineering. A word on the female examples (including fictional ones like Daria): Like the majority of self-styled girl geeks, most of them, just going on appearances alone, more closely fit the image of boho-chic than geek chic.Mr. ATOZ 20:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionism

The "revisionism" section needs revised, as it seems to be composed entirely of subjective analysis and omits references for the bulk of statements made. Whether or not us geeks would agree with the section, the fact remains that Wiki is not a place for opinions and relies on writers to uphold its good name 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Viola

This tells me that you totally fail to understand the basic definition of geek chic. That section is telling us that it was NOT scientitsts, engineers, or computer people (the traditional "geek" population) who came up with "geek chic". They are not the ones who revised the geek image to be cool. They are too busy with their science, math, and computers to even bother. It was those others that the revisionism section mentioned (celebrities, hipsters, MTV people) and solely as a superficial fashion statement! Just look at the list of celebrities considered geek chic. Any scientists, engineers, or computer people on there? What about the girl in this article's photo (see the talk page in the geek article for everyone's thoughts on her)? Subjective? No! But a bold faced fact that is staring us all in the face!Mr. ATOZ 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Black

The Jack Black link in the article leads to a disambiguation. Since I can't tell which one is meant, could somebody help? -- Mkill 19:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Jack Black (actor). Done. --Doug (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Examples of Geek Chic

In the examples of geek chic, I find some questionable celebrities which include:

Conan O'Brien - I'm unsure of any visual evidence to prove he has a geek chic look.
Tina Fey - Just seems to wear thick glasses, other than that she dresses in average-looking clothes.
Stephen Colbert - I think he dresses more like a pompous news guy than a geek.

In fictional examples I question the inclusion of:

Dewey Finn - he dresses more like a slob or stoner)
Gordon Freeman - I don't see how he dresses like a geek other than thick glasses

I hope it's agreed for this article that just wearing thick glasses doesn't necessarily make one "geek chic."

Moved comment from article space

"I think that this summary is not good and well understaning, in needs to be more improved." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.222.216 (talk • contribs) -- MarkBuckles 08:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of geek chic, Quentin Tarantino is highly suspect. He is a filmmaker and that places him strictly in the arts and entertainment. Mr. ATOZ 14:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social Impact?

I was a geek growing up. I still am, I guess. However, as an adult, its more acceptable. I graduated high school in 1994, when the geek chic trend was just starting. I'd like to know if the trend might have had some impact on the lives of actual geeks. Has geekdom become more socially acceptble? Joshcating 13:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't done a thing for real geeks, only for the flashy wanna-bees. Real geeks don't sport an image. They are too busy focused on their work or whatever it is that they're obsessed with or passionate about, whether it be producing freeware applications or science teacher.Mr. ATOZ 16:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Mr. ATOZ - That's utter crap. As a geek myself I resent the implication that sporting an image or even being in defense of slightly unpopular dress sense means you're not a true geek. Given that by no means are you an authority to speak on what it is to be a "real geek" I don't think you've got the right to... "eliticize" for lack of a real term, geek culture, who is allowed to do what, etc. I'm a vehement defender of what I wear, and the way I dress, and the fact that I am a complete geek in almost every sense of the word. By your logic though that makes me an "untrue geek". Focus on a single subject or group of subjects does not exclude the desire to sport an image or stand out amongst the crowd. Please do your research and maybe make a few unbiased and unjudgemental observations before you declare image-sporting geeks as wanna-be's. Geek IS an image now, more and more people are realizing this, more and more markets are open to it (take for example ThinkGeek) and it's becoming more accepted. 203.14.180.97 07:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a geek is one part brains, one part pains, and a helluva lot of loneliness. Would you even know about the pains and loneliness! I haven't even seen you mention what field you're in. You think it's all about wearing gimmiky t-shirts and glasses like the chick in this article's picture? She is the perfect example of a poseur. She may know something about computers and webdesign, but she's more interested in sporting her ego than producing any serious content on her site which I have visited http://www.stephthegeek.com/about. She obviously uses the geek label as a gimmick to make herself seem more interesting. If she wants to be taken seriously, she would drop the stereotypical geek image (which actually evolved from geeks having poor fashion sense and poor hygiene) and sport a mature image. Yes, Geek is an image now and you are buying into all the lies.Mr. ATOZ 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa...easy, all.....I didn't mean to start an argument. Joshcating 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant?

The fact that he simply described his character's look as geek chic probably does not belong in the heading. And it doesn't neccesarily mean it is geek chic.Mr. ATOZ 17:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone in a different Silicon Valley than I am?

I marked "This exaggeration is based on the more casual dress code enforced in many such companies although in reality, this is still mostly limited to business appropriate attire" as uncited, because not only is it, but it's also pretty much wrong.

Having worked at FriendFinder, Yahoo, a small company in the old Xerox campus, and SBC... have friends at Jackster, Apple, Cisco, and Facebook. Sure, some people dress all business-casual. but they do so because they feel like it. Lots more people wear tShirtHell and thinkgeek shorts, jeans, and chucks. Blue hair is commonplace.