Talk:Trash culture

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2010. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Definition

I really disagree with this definition. It fails to encompass the reality and history of trash culture as a multifaceted and nebulous thing. Dime novels, blaxploitation films, exploitation films, pornography, lesbian pulp fiction, gangsta rap (with its increasingly corporatized image) and a whole lot more. This seems to presume that trash culture is lower class and that lower class is stupid and ignorant, and that these is the dominant themse of today, without exploring class, cultural, sexual orientation and other oft described "trash" culture phenomena. If no one puts up discussion in a little bit, Im changing it.

Agreed, this definition is terrible. It fails to recognise the artistic merits of the b-grade variety, which have a devoted fan subculture. This description is far too derogatory and negative, and needs some NPOV applied. It would be great if you could add some, you seem to have the main points well outlined in your above comment. Really, the 'derogatory term' at the start has to go, as its use is far broader than that. The broad list of by-products of modernism is given no context, no rationale. The lower-upper class elitism is not the defining feature of the culture, though it plays a role. It isn't perpetuated by peer pressure and the mass media in some giant conspiracy, in fact this entire article needs a rewrite.Nazlfrag 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are not related to the entry "Trash culture" published on February 27th 2017, but they relate to a previous entry "Low culture" which has a redirect to the current "Trash culture" entry.

Definition of Trash culture

I've reverted removals of pictures illustrating examples. These are examples specifically referred to as trash (even in the headline) in reliable sources. Removing them seems to be favouring some reliable sources over others. Darrelljon (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, favouring some reliable sources over others is a vital part of encyclopaedic research and writing. If one source says one thing and ten others say the opposite, we go with the majority. If, let's say, an article in the the marginally-reliable Buzzfeed says one thing, and articles in the Guardian, New York Times and Financial Times say something else, we go with the better sources. Neither of those exactly maps on to this situation, but it seemed worth clarifying!

In this case, I think we have sources that are using the same words with different meanings. The news sources are using "trash culture" as essentially a value judgement—they're saying Kardashian, Collins et al. are lowbrow, low-quality, appealing to the lowest common denominator, etc. (they can be saying this even while claiming to celebrate them). The scholarly sources we're citing are typically using the phrase in a much more precise, analytic way. At the same time, I'm aware that there's nothing stopping me following my own advice and improving the article more generally, so I won't revert – but I think this is a useful distinction to have in mind for anyone who plans to improve this rather shoddy article in future. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article improved

Hello everyone, I have tried to improve the article to the best of my abilities. I welcome any possible suggestions. Er nesto (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]