(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 476: | Line 476: | ||
::I will say that the "bold" tactic of turning nearly every aspect of an article upside-down overnight with a minimum of discussion, has, in the past on wikipedia, usually turned out to be problematic. [[User:Nigel Barristoat|Nigel Barristoat]] 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
::I will say that the "bold" tactic of turning nearly every aspect of an article upside-down overnight with a minimum of discussion, has, in the past on wikipedia, usually turned out to be problematic. [[User:Nigel Barristoat|Nigel Barristoat]] 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Please point out a single aspect of the article that has been turned "upside-down". All changes previous to my edit are completely intact, either in a split history section that we have talked about splitting for a very long time or in other sections (discussed previously on this page and a tag recommending splitting has appeared in the article for a long time). The previous "lead" appears as an overview completely unchanged, while the new lead attempts (still needs work) to actually summarize the article without requiring sources. Apostle12's claim that my changes are "completely ignoring compromises" is not supported in any way. Lastly, my attempts to globalize the lead have been supported by multiple editors on the talk page, while another previous editor discussed the inclusion of GLBT, which although I am having trouble sourcing, I have nevertheless added to the lead to represent their view. So contrary to the claims made above, I have endeavored to edit this article from the perspective of other editors rather than myself. The article was previously 69 kilobytes and now is hovering around 60. Any material that was removed can still be found in the newly split section, [[History of the hippie movement]]. —[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::Please point out a single aspect of the article that has been turned "upside-down". All changes previous to my edit are completely intact, either in a split history section that we have talked about splitting for a very long time or in other sections (discussed previously on this page and a tag recommending splitting has appeared in the article for a long time). The previous "lead" appears as an overview completely unchanged, while the new lead attempts (still needs work) to actually summarize the article without requiring sources. Apostle12's claim that my changes are "completely ignoring compromises" is not supported in any way. Lastly, my attempts to globalize the lead have been supported by multiple editors on the talk page, while another previous editor discussed the inclusion of GLBT, which although I am having trouble sourcing, I have nevertheless added to the lead to represent their view. So contrary to the claims made above, I have endeavored to edit this article from the perspective of other editors rather than myself. The article was previously 69 kilobytes and now is hovering around 60. Any material that was removed can still be found in the newly split section, [[History of the hippie movement]]. —[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::Please don't try to pretend that you have not repeatedly turned this article upside down. As for the new lead, and your retention of the old lead as an "overview," the article now reads as though it has TWO leads--really a problem. I think one lead that incorporates all the relevent information would be much better. |
|||
::::Also, please don't try to pretend that you have been in the forefront of trying to globalize the lead--you had to be dragged by multiple editors, kicking and screaming, before you allowed the lead to move in that direction. It became a true "edit war," with you doing your usual dance--reverting every attempt based on unreasonably literal demands for verification. |
|||
::::"Viriditas works well with others"--NOT![[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:30, 20 October 2007
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the Version 1.0 Editorial Team page.
General background
In late 2003, Jimmy Wales had proposed making an offline release version of Wikipedia. This group was formed in late 2004 to meet this challenge. Our work involves identifying and organizing articles, and improving and maintaining a core set. Our work does not hinder the existing wiki process for creating and editing articles, but rather it supports that work by providing additional organization. We aim to produce collections that can be used in places where the internet coverage is expensive or non-existent. Our early collections were distributed via DVD; now these are shared via download, then distributed on hardware such as a Raspberry Pi. Originally, only a fixed selection was available, but there is now much flexibility in how selections can be made. This project is now mainly one point in a network of groups who collect and distribute open educational resources from the Internet in an offline form.
See these more detailed related articles:
- Guide to Wikipedia Release Version tools
- Wikipedia 1.0 FAQs
- Wikipedia 1.0 Release Version Criteria
- Broad overview of Wikimedia's Offline Project
How you can help
You are encouraged to join us and help out with one of the projects, or to discuss Wikipedia 1.0 on the talk page. A significant part of our work centers around maintaining the assessment scheme, which is now used on more than seven million articles by over 1000 active WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. It is also being used on other language projects. Generally work on this team is sporadic – periods of hectic activity followed by long periods of waiting! Often work is long and tedious – checking through a list of 22,000 instances of profanities one by one, organizing 10,000 keywords taken from category names, or dealing with technical bugs when the assessment bot fails for no apparent reason. However, it is all worth it in the end.
Our strategy has been intensely debated, but the group has reached a consensus. We elected not to follow the German model. Instead we chose to start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there. We have produced three test versions: Version 0.5, Version 0.7, and Version 0.8 with the goal of releasing better collections of articles in due course. The next general release is generically referred to as "Release Version" while our first "official" comprehensive release will be called Version 1.0. These collections are then made available for offline use using a reader such as Kiwix, which was chosen as Sourceforge project of the month. The project was on hiatus for several years because of the loss of our main developer. However, as of February 2016, a new group of developers has begun work on upgrading the code and the process, in order to start producing new collections again, especially collections for schools.
Current needs
Although we have much of the requisite system automated, there are still some outstanding tasks:
- Preparation of a reliable index. If you can write code and you're interested in how to map category trees into a useful index (not as easy as it sounds!) please .
- Reviewing manual nominations. Whenever there is a new release being planned, we need volunteers to review a few articles and process them.
- Propose useful "guide" pages to be added, such as lists and disambiguation pages.
- Check for vandalism in the selected version-IDs of the articles.
- Develop nice pages for navigation through the content, such as subject portals.
- Test the reader software, and find and report bugs.
- Help with distribution, especially in remote areas without Internet access.
Please let us know on the Talk page if you can help with any of these.
Status
At present, the main activities are:
- The assessment scheme, which is used by WikiProjects for organizing their content, using talk page tags and the WP1.0 bot. The bot was updated with completely new Perl code in 2020–2021, and it is currently maintained by User:Audiodude. Technical problems with the bot should be reported here. Related to this work is the WP1.0 server (previously called "Release Version Tools) which provides ways for WikiProjects to analyze article lists and data relating to their work.
- Collaborations to produce offline collections are done in collaboration with various people from Kiwix and Internet-in-a-Box. Please contact Walkerma if you wish to help.
To select articles, we are mainly using a bot-assisted selection process based on assessment by individual WikiProjects, where articles are selected automatically based on quality and importance project rankings.
RevID selection
Based on discussions (at the 2017 Potsdam hackathon and since), we plan to reactivate RevID selection. Previously code based on WikiTrust was used in Version 0.8, and this appeared to produce a largely vandalism-free collection of articles. This worked by scoring each RevID based on the edits remaining in it, and choosing the most "trustworthy" recent RevID based on the WikiTrust algorithm.
Wikipedia 1.0 projects
Active projects
If you would like to start a new project, please discuss it on the talk page first before adding it here.
Wikipedia 1.0 Projects | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name | Summary of overall strategy | Coordinator | Description of activities | ||||
School selection | Put together selections of 1–10 GB sizes for use in high schools and elementary schools | User:Walkerma and others | Uses new code that starts with a seed and works out, guided by the WP 1 selection ranking to guide it | ||||
Work via WikiProjects (WVWP) | Use "networking" to mobilise our existing subject specialists | User:Walkerma | Organise and facilitate compilation of article lists from the WikiProjects and seek to identify important topics within each WikiProject's area of expertise. Locate important topics that are currently not being managed by projects. In conjunction with WP:COUNCIL, the project serves as a link with the editing community, and may later help locate expert reviewers. |
Past releases
Past Wikipedia 1.0 Projects | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name | Summary of overall strategy | Month of release | Description of activities | Website | Next release | ||
Version 0.5 | A test release prior to release of Version 1.0 above. | April 2007 | A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used manual nominations and approval based on importance and quality. Approval was by only one person, from the review team. | Okawix | Version 0.7 | ||
Version 0.7 | A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above. | Early 2010 | A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Used SelectionBot to make an article selection based on importance and quality. Vandalism prevention used a script, with manual checks, which delayed the release significantly. [1] | Kiwix reader, ZIM download | Version 0.8 | ||
Version 0.8 | A test release of automated article selections, prior to release of Version 1.0 above. | March 2011 | A test release designed to pave the way for Version 1.0. Version 0.8 used bot-assisted article selection, with manual adjustments based on feedback from WikiProjects. Used as a test of the WikiTrust revisionID selection code - this worked well. | Wikipedia:Version 0.8/downloads. | Version 0.9 | ||
2006 Wikipedia CD Selection (previously called "Test Version") | Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo | April 2006 | 2000 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). | No longer available - see 2008/9 release below | 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection (below) | ||
2007 Wikipedia CD Selection | Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo | May 2007 | 4655 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). | No longer available - see 2008/9 release below | 2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection (below) | ||
2008/9 Wikipedia CD Selection | Work with release version done off site that was coordinated by BozMo | October 2008 | 5502 articles with content filtered/selected for use by children (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection). | http://schools-wikipedia.org | Not yet known |
Inactive projects
Inactive Wikipedia 1.0 Projects | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Name | Summary of overall strategy | Coordinator | Description of activities | ||||
Authoritative Editions | Gives experts in each field the tools to review suitable articles in their area of expertise and give their okay to particular revisions. | Sj, Jeff Keller, Gnp |
| ||||
Featured Articles First | reviewing older or problem FAs to ensure that quality is maintained, ready for inclusion of these articles in Wikipedia 1.0. | (Now a standard part of the FA system) | |||||
Geography project | to produce a descriptive gazetteer of the world for publication. | This could include an atlas, continents, countries and major cities. This would serve as a test bed for publishing Wikipedia 1.0, but could also be a valuable stand-alone product. | |||||
Three Level Editing | Users participate in a three part editing process to assure that pages are up to quality standards. | The first level is just a general check, the second level is a factual check, and the third level is a last "just in case" check. This process would assure that articles would be up to standards without putting too much responsibility on one user. | |||||
Biographies | Improve and assess biographical articles | Focus especially on the 200 Core Biographies, in conjunction with Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.
. | |||||
Dynamic Pocket Cyclopedia | Lists most important FAs, FLs, and GAs. | An evolving list of no more than half of Wikipedia's most important featured articles, featured lists, and designated good articles. | |||||
WikiSort | Integrate the sifting process into the Wiki. | Aims to use data from the planned user rating scheme to provide rankings of articles, such that important quality articles can be automatically identified for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above). | |||||
Article assessment | To assess articles | This project has been rendered obsolete by WikiProject-based assessments (see above). |
Publishing steps
The process of generating an offline version of a sub-selection of Wikipedia article is multistage. It needs many dedicated and singled-purposed operations. The following chart show how the WP1 project envisioned things in 2010.
Even if this chart is still, to a large extend, valid; we practice and envision things slightly differently nowadays. One of the most important paradigm change we had to make is to remove as much as possible human based manual activity because the amount of work is simply too high to be achieved in a reasonable amount of time. We tend now to automatize as much as possible the whole process. As a consequence the project is now predominantly focused on technology.
Technical approach
Support Wikiproject assessment effort
The first software created to support the WP1 project has been the User:WP_1.0_bot. First written in Perl by User:CBM and then slighly modified and maintained by a few other volunteers. In 2020 the bot has been totally rewritten in Python following modern development standards (API, automated tests, etc.) by User:Audiodude. The code base is available en developed on Github.
The WP1bot had and still have three traditional purposes:
- gather assessments (via categories introduced on main namespace articles talk pages),
- upload on Wikipedia logs & stats
- provide key information & tools to Wikiproject on a dedicated Web service. The data can also be accessed through an API at api.wp1.openzim.org
Select article titles
...
Select article revision
...
Scrape selected articles for offline usage
...
Orchestrate periodic and multiple scraping
...
Publish and distribute offline snapshots
...
Statistics
The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via Talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.
The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.
Related pages
General
- Jimbo's proposal, Chicago Meetup - Jimbo's Oct 2004 ideas on how to get to 1.0.
- Wikipedia:Pushing to 1.0 Early discussion page for brainstorming ideas, before this team was created.
- meta:Wikipedia 1.0
- meta:Static content group
Assessment and validation
- Wikipedia:Article assessment
- meta:Article validation and Wikipedia:Pushing to validation - argue the benefit of article validation and possible implementations
- Wikipedia:Flagged revisions (similar to the older "stable versions")
- Wikipedia:Footnotes
- Wikipedia:Peer review
- Wikipedia:Request for comment
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check
Wikipedia books
- Wikipedia:Books & meta:WikiReader - Wikipedia books are collections of articles from Wikipedia on a certain topic, in the form of PDFs published for download and intended to be printed, and also to be sold in printed form.
- The Book Tool, and Wiki to print, a collaboration between the Foundation and OSI/PediaPress.
Article selections
- Wikipedia:Vital articles
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles - Filling the gaps.
- Wikipedia:Good articles
- Featured Articles
- Wikipedia:Stable versions
See also
- List of online encyclopedias - compare Wikipedia with other projects
|
1 2 3 |
Removal of new Slang and Music sections
I think the addition of slang and music sections is needed, but I removed them due to several outstanding issues. There is no exact date listed for the source listed as "Putnam County Courier", and I need that to verify the source. Some of these things can be cited, and I will help out. As for the music section, it's entirely original research and misses the mark in several key areas, namely the absence of folk music and the selection of musicians. Also the addition of material from John Sinclair, "the early and influential guru of Midwestern hippies, heroin and alcohol were negative energy drugs and were disdained, while LSD and marijuana were positive energy drugs and recommended", lacks sources. Removed sections follow: —Viriditas | Talk 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Slang
An important part of hippie culture was linguistic. Part of establishing oneself as a hippie, and fitting in, was learning to use the hippie terminology. Most of the slang terms used by hippies were borrowed from black jive of earlier decades, as filtered through beatniks and hipsters. For example, to emphasize a point they often interjected the word, "man," and used other black jive such as "far out," "out of sight," "right on," "straight ahead," "dig" and "dig it," "I'm hip (to that)," "to ball" meaning to have sex, "boogie," "reefer," "joint," and most other slang terms for drugs. The most important hippie slang word was, "cool," and being cool was the backbone of hippie culture. The word "groovy" was borrowed from 40's black slang and was common among hippies in the 60's, but was dropped by 1970 as being too old and corny. Women and men were "chicks and dudes," although the word dude was not as commonly used as it is today, except in California. An interesting point is that while many jive words from the 40's and 50's were used, contemporary (60's) black expressions were not used as often. For example, 60's black expressions like "blood," "what it is," "I heard dat," "Uuuuuh, HUH," and "What's going down, Jack?," were not often used by hippies.[1]
Music
The music of 60's hippies was rock and roll, which was starting to be called rock. The main musicians of hippie culture in the 60's were Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, and the Rolling Stones. There were many more, too numerous to mention, and many more came along in the early-70's, with Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin being two of the most important ones. Hippies sometimes listened to other music, but one thing they tended to avoid was top-40 radio, or AM radio, which was considered "pop" music. They preferred to listen to the more progressive stations on FM radio.
Remove unsourced geo data
This has been unsourced in the article for a lot longer than the Feb, 2007 cite needed date. I'm removing it to talk. —Viriditas | Talk 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Outside the United States, hippie culture has remained more visible as a counter cultural movement, especially in the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. [citation needed]
Removal of OR concerning ROTC, violence, FBI, COINTELPRO, etc
I've removed this paragraph as it consists of OR supported by sources that do not seem to support these claims. I'm not saying it's false information, but in order to keep this in the article, it either needs to be rewritten or supported by actual, reliable sources. Removed content follows: —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although hippies were sometimes accused of verbally attacking soldiers returning home from duty in Vietnam, or participating in the torching of ROTC buildings on college campuses, with the exception of a small radical fringe element, hippies did not verbally assault military personnel and did not condone acts of political violence.[2][unreliable source?] With the release of FBI records under the Freedom of Information Act, it has become clear that many such attacks were actually perpetrated by FBI COINTELPRO agents provocateurs operating on J. Edgar Hoover's instructions to discredit those who opposed the Vietnam War.[3]
Removal of Lloyd Marcus OR
I would very much like to see this in the article, however the source is either not listed, misplaced, or lacking. Please help source it and add it back in: —Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Other songs, such as Lloyd Marcus' "Welcome Home Brother," have given voice to Vietnam veterans who felt disrespected by hippies and who lamented that fellow Americans never properly honored them for their sacrifices in serving the nation. [citation needed]
Removed unsourced Diggers info.
I'm not sure who tagged this, but I will make an effort to source this myself when I have time. Until then, I'm removing it to the talk page: —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Diggers grew from two radical traditions thriving in the area during the mid-1960s: the bohemian underground art/theater scene, and the political movement encompassing the New Left, civil rights proponents and peace activists. [citation needed]
Remove unsourced Haight info
Please help source this info and add it back into the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- While the Haight was the undisputed epicenter of a growing hippie culture, college campuses and cities throughout the United States and as far away as Sweden boasted a vibrant counterculture, including New York's East Village; Chicago's Old Town; Boston; Detroit; Lawrence, Kansas; Vancouver, Canada; and Paris.[citation needed]
Removal of Cold war, Leninist, etc
Please help source this info and add it back into the article: —Viriditas | Talk 00:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some Americans, especially conservatives, military personnel, and veterans, saw hippie opposition to the war as a lack of commitment to the principles of American freedom in the Cold War battle against communism.[citation needed] They also felt that even non-violent public demonstrations against the Vietnam War were unpatriotic because they compromised the ability of the United States to prosecute the war. [citation needed] Many Leninist parties in the United States, including the PLP and CPUSA, also opposed or were at least skeptical of the hippie movement because it conflicted with their disciplined, puritanical standards and rigid dogma.
Sexual attitudes
I removed this section and replaced it with a main link to Sexual revolution. Please help source this information and add it back into the article: —Viriditas | Talk 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hippies regularly flouted societal prohibitions against interracial dating and marriage. They were early advocates for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws that the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia), but which remained on the books in some U.S. states until 2000, albeit unenforced. With their emphasis on Free Love, hippies promoted many of the same counterculture beliefs that found early expression in the Beat Generation. Co-habitation among unmarried couples was the norm, open relationships were common, and both Beats and Hippies advocated for legal and societal acceptance of most forms of consensual sexual expression among adults. [citation needed] With regard to homosexuality and bisexuality, the Beats had demonstrated early tolerance during an era when homosexual expression of any sort was still punishable by stiff prison sentences. Hippies generally espoused the same tolerant attitude. Many hippies, as in the movie Woodstock and the photo (left), were casual about open nudity.
Removed lifestyle section (list to prose, unsourced)
I removed this section which is an unsourced list. It can be merged with the sections above (slang, music, sexual attitudes, etc) with sources. Please help accomplish this goal. Removed section follows: —Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Any attempt to list the beliefs and preferences of a large group of people can be at best a generalization. Within any group, opinions and tastes will vary. Yet even among a group dedicated to non-conformity, many tendencies exist:
- The twin ideals of peace and love were and are paramount.
- Performing music casually, often with guitars, in private homes and outdoors in parks and music festivals
- Preference for any of the following types of music:
- Psychedelic rock such as Jimi Hendrix, The Doors, early Pink Floyd, later Beatles, and Jefferson Airplane.
- Blues such as Janis Joplin.
- Traditional Eastern music, particularly from India, such as Ravi Shankar.
- Rock music with eastern influences such as The Beatles.
- Soulful funk such as Sly & The Family Stone.
- Jam bands such as the Grateful Dead and the Allman Brothers Band.
- Folk music such as Bob Dylan and Joni Mitchell.
- Folk rock such as The Byrds and Buffalo Springfield.
- More recently, reggae.
- Bluegrass (in the case of neo-hippies).
- Interracial dating and marriage, rejection of anti-miscegenation laws (e.g. apartheid South Africa).
- Free love, including open relationships and most consensual forms of sexual expression, except sex with children. Traditional legal constructs and religious teachings that prohibited non-procreative sex outside the bounds of marriage were widely flouted--premarital sex, extramarital sex, bisexuality and tolerance towards homosexuals. (See also: Sexual revolution).
- Communal living.
- Recreational drug use (as opposed to drug dependence), usually limited to psychedelic drugs such as cannabis, mescaline, salvia, psilocybin and LSD. Tendency to reject the Establishment's psychoactive drugs, which were and are legal, including alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and psychiatric drugs.
- A fondness for nudity--especially being nude (naturism), as opposed to objectifying nude performers and images.
- Use of incense.
- Belief in Eastern spiritual concepts, such as karma and reincarnation; interest in Hindu and Buddhist religious philosophies is common.
- Belief that spiritual advancement leads to increased psychic ability, e.g., the ability to see the human aura.[4] A vegetarian lifestyle was often considered important in this regard because it was thought to cleanse the body of impurities and "negative vibrations". [citation needed]
- Belief that a corrupt Establishment was abusing Mother Earth led hippies to participate in recycling and support environmentalism. [citation needed]
- Belief in astrology, tarot and I Ching divination.
- A mellow outlook on life, and a belief that the temporal world is a manifestation of human thought and consciousness.[4]
- Elements of Romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy are evident in hippie music, prose and other artistic expressions.[citation needed]
- Rejection of the typical American diet and, instead, exploration of vegetarianism, fasting, natural food (including whole foods and organic food), more foods from the Third World, and many other alternatives.
- Less competitive forms of exercise, such as foot bag (Hacky Sack), frisbees, handstands, dancing, snake-dancing (martial art), surfing, devil sticks (though referred to as "spin sticks" so as to not make a reference to the devil), and cycling.
- Alternative ways of making a living, especially not supporting the military-industrial complex, capitalism, wage-slavery, "keeping up with the Joneses", etc. For most hippies, reduced incomes or poverty.
- Female equality. The second wave of feminism was simultaneous with the hippie movement. However, the relationship between hippies (especially hippie males) and feminism was complex and often confrontational.
- Raising children more lovingly and peacefully, often with less coercive schooling and with more freedom.
- Natural birth, breastfeeding, no circumcision.
- Alternative media, including underground newspapers, the hipper rock 'n' roll radio stations, campus and community radio, movies promoting hip subjects and attitudes (art films, non-U.S. films, etc.). Tendency to reject television and to entertain themselves.
- Acceptance of those who participate in any of the above, even if they themselves choose not to.
Well this is all great Viriditas, but at some point you are going to have to turn over your dictatorial control of the Hippie article to people with actual knowledge of the subject. By that I mean, people who WERE hippies and speak from authority. Several of them are here, and have helped write the article, and have told you, they were there. If you weren't there, and weren't a hippie, you can't say anything with authority. Citing references? I suppose you think dropping acid in 1969 and living in a crab-infested crashpad in Berkeley is "original research" and doesn't count? Who else can write with authority? Some square who read a poorly written and flagrantly wrong book, and can cite it as a reference? Just because you can cite a reference doesn't make something true, what if the reference is grossly wrong? As a surfer dude in Hawaii No Ka Oi, your first-hand knowledge of hippies came from growing da kine bud and selling it to da kine hauli tourists with da kine long hair, not knowing anything about the hippie culture they can from on the mainland, and surfing some more while trying to score with hauli wahinis? Why don't you leave the artice alone and stop deleting everything? Learn from it. You deleted some really good stuff, dude. Mahalo. Morgan Wright 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please review WP:NPA, WP:CITE, WP:V, and WP:NOR. For your information, I helped write this article, helped source it, and helped develop it. In your edit summary you claimed that I deleted 40 percent of the article "without contributing anything at all, not one single word." I suggest you look at the page history or an edit counter tool. I've made more than 450 edits to the Hippie article, so your assessment is mistaken. All of the material that is essentially unsourced original research has been in the article for a long time with tags. It has now been removed to talk. Feel free to help add it back in with reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Viri, as others have mentioned, things which are common knowledge and undisputed don't need to be sourced unless their verity is challenged by somebody. You have deleted such common knowledge as unsourced, which don't need to be sourced, because they are not disputed, even by you. For example, the fact that hippies listened to rock and roll, do you think anybody on earth would challenge this? You deleted the statement that hippies used slang terms like "groovy" and "far out" and "outta sight" as unsourced, even AFTER I sourced it as from the Grey Lines glossary of hippie terms that the bus company distributed in 1968? How on earth can you delete such statements? You deleted somebody's statement that hippie women didn't use much makeup, you expect somebody to find a source for that? It's common knowledge, just look at any photo from the period. You really need to stop trashing this article, dude. You have reverted twice and if you do it again you will be disciplined.Morgan Wright 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please consult Wikipedia's policy regarding WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. What you consider "common knowledge and undisputed" can be easily demonstrated with a reliable source. Nothing has been deleted, only moved to the talk page after spending months unsourced in the main article. It should be easy for you to source Hippie slang terms, so please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I already did! You can google Grey Line glossary and find it yourself. I'm reporting you to wikipedia for 3 reverts. (actually, 4).Morgan Wright 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the statement above the edit summary before you blindly revert. It says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It does not say, "find it yourself". Please also note that your blind reverts are introducing original research and unsourced material into the article that has already been removed to talk and requires sources. Most of this material has been in the article for some time with citation requests having gone unfulfilled. Also, please stop removing the image from the lead section and replacing it with a broken image. This could be construed as vandalism. If you would like to add this material back into the article, please help source it. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Go ahead and remove material that you dispute, but most of what you deleted was fine. As for verifiable citations, all citations are "go find it yourself," in other words, to verify the source you need to find a copy of the sourced document yourself. I'm not going to the library for you and open the book and show it to you with my finger. The glossary of hippie terms is in libraries, and yes, you can find it. Try here for starters http://www.brautigan.net/chronology1960.html and go down to April 5, 1967, it mentions the glossary of hippie terms. Delete what you think is wrong if it's not sourced, but taking a 70,000 byte article and reducing it to 58,000 bytes, THREE TIMES, is vandalism.Morgan Wright 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to source the content. You will also need to adhere to WP:RS and WP:TRIV guidelines. If you are trying to source a few slang terms, I would recommend developing a section on that subject before adding in unrelated OR. Here is the section you will need to source:
- An important part of hippie culture was linguistic. Part of establishing oneself as a hippie, and fitting in, was learning to use the hippie terminology. Most of the slang terms used by hippies were borrowed from black jive of earlier decades, as filtered through beatniks and hipsters. For example, to emphasize a point they often interjected the word, "man," and used other black jive such as "far out," "out of sight," "right on," "straight ahead," "dig" and "dig it," "I'm hip (to that)," "to ball" meaning to have sex, "boogie," "reefer," "joint," and most other slang terms for drugs. The most important hippie slang word was, "cool," and being cool was the backbone of hippie culture. The word "groovy" was borrowed from 40's black slang and was common among hippies in the 60's, but was dropped by 1970 as being too old and corny. Women and men were "chicks and dudes," although the word dude was not as commonly used as it is today, except in California. An interesting point is that while many jive words from the 40's and 50's were used, contemporary (60's) black expressions were not used as often. For example, 60's black expressions like "blood," "what it is," "I heard dat," "Uuuuuh, HUH," and "What's going down, Jack?," were not often used by hippies.[5]
- Please note that the source listed is incomplete and cannot be verified. —Viriditas | Talk 14:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is the responsibility of the editor adding the material to source the content. You will also need to adhere to WP:RS and WP:TRIV guidelines. If you are trying to source a few slang terms, I would recommend developing a section on that subject before adding in unrelated OR. Here is the section you will need to source:
- Go ahead and remove material that you dispute, but most of what you deleted was fine. As for verifiable citations, all citations are "go find it yourself," in other words, to verify the source you need to find a copy of the sourced document yourself. I'm not going to the library for you and open the book and show it to you with my finger. The glossary of hippie terms is in libraries, and yes, you can find it. Try here for starters http://www.brautigan.net/chronology1960.html and go down to April 5, 1967, it mentions the glossary of hippie terms. Delete what you think is wrong if it's not sourced, but taking a 70,000 byte article and reducing it to 58,000 bytes, THREE TIMES, is vandalism.Morgan Wright 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read the statement above the edit summary before you blindly revert. It says, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It does not say, "find it yourself". Please also note that your blind reverts are introducing original research and unsourced material into the article that has already been removed to talk and requires sources. Most of this material has been in the article for some time with citation requests having gone unfulfilled. Also, please stop removing the image from the lead section and replacing it with a broken image. This could be construed as vandalism. If you would like to add this material back into the article, please help source it. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 13:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I already did! You can google Grey Line glossary and find it yourself. I'm reporting you to wikipedia for 3 reverts. (actually, 4).Morgan Wright 13:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please consult Wikipedia's policy regarding WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. What you consider "common knowledge and undisputed" can be easily demonstrated with a reliable source. Nothing has been deleted, only moved to the talk page after spending months unsourced in the main article. It should be easy for you to source Hippie slang terms, so please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 13:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Viri, as others have mentioned, things which are common knowledge and undisputed don't need to be sourced unless their verity is challenged by somebody. You have deleted such common knowledge as unsourced, which don't need to be sourced, because they are not disputed, even by you. For example, the fact that hippies listened to rock and roll, do you think anybody on earth would challenge this? You deleted the statement that hippies used slang terms like "groovy" and "far out" and "outta sight" as unsourced, even AFTER I sourced it as from the Grey Lines glossary of hippie terms that the bus company distributed in 1968? How on earth can you delete such statements? You deleted somebody's statement that hippie women didn't use much makeup, you expect somebody to find a source for that? It's common knowledge, just look at any photo from the period. You really need to stop trashing this article, dude. You have reverted twice and if you do it again you will be disciplined.Morgan Wright 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You are soo wrong on so many levels. If I cite a reference, my responsibility is to cite the publication, date, page, author, etc, and you are responsible for looking it up in the library. I GAVE THE SOURCE, but you say you can't find the source to verify it, when obviously you never went to the library or anyplace else, you just automatically deleted saying you couldn't verify the source from your computer keyboard at 11 PM. THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS! I give you the source, date and page, and you are responsible for finding another copy of the publication. I told you it was in the Putnam County (New York) Courier, they are still in business. You just call them up and see if they have back issues. If you don't have their phone number, call information. It is your responsibility to find a copy of the publication. If you can't find the back issue there, that DOESN'T mean it's not a verifyable source. Even worse, I gave the source for something which is so commonplace and such common knowledge, that it doesn't even need to be sourced, but you deleted the text anyway, and for no reason whatsoever!! Are you kidding? I give up on Wikipedia, it's just too much work, and when somebody like you is allowed to show up and destroy the work of so many others, it's just a waste of my time to fight it. You will just keep on doing it. There is no way to stop you from trashing people's work, so I just give up. I will go use Britannica because the editors have to actually be literate in that publication. Wikipedia is a nice idea, but when so many silly people feel the need to edit and pretend to be experienced editors, but obviously without having any qualifications as such, it makes the whole thing seem like a failure. Morgan Wright 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cited "Fine, Everett, 1973, Putnam County Courier", referring to a small newspaper out of Putnam County, New York. You need to give an actual reference, complete with full date and title. You should also give a second reference to either reliable linguistic sources, a popular book, or a reliable website. Please let me know what Britannica says on the subject of Hippie slang. —Viriditas | Talk 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted and gave exact page number and exact date of the article, yet you deleted it anyway. But so what? The point is, it's common knowledge and a widely known fact and doesn't need citation, that hippies used slang terms. If it did need citation, who the hell is Everett Fine that he knows more than I do? Just because it was published doesn't make it true. So what, I cite what somebody else wrote. Who cares? He could be wrong just as much as you or I. And if you are arguing against or doubting that hippies used hippie slang, so much that you delete it from the article, then you are obviously.Morgan Wright 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the other contributors who you continuously deleted have given up. The article is yours now, since anything other people write will be deleted by you, any changes they make will be reverted back by you, but you feel free to write anything you want without adding references. You are what is known in the Wiki community as a tyrant. You must have your own edit, everybody else is wrong, only you can be right. Morgan Wright 03:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there something preventing you from adding verifiable, reliable sources for new content? —Viriditas | Talk 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is. It's the same thing that has prevented others from adding verifiable new content. It's name is Viriditas. Every time somebody adds verifiable content, you delete it, saying you don't like the citation, even though it's perfectly fine, and even though you never checked it. I have no interest in writing for Wikipedia anymore. It's a waste of my time.Morgan Wright 03:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- From what I can tell Viriditas is acting in good faith to help improve this article. In fact, Viriditas isn't deleting much of anything, just asking for helping finding sources! The wikipedia guidelines on original research are well founded, and all material in the article should be verifiable -- ideally easily. Morgan, feel free to jump in over at Wikipedia_talk:No original research if you have a questions about why the policy exists, or wish to change it. ∴ here…♠ 03:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. The article was 70,000 bytes and in one day Viriditas cut it to 58,000 by deleteing lots of good work by lots of people, much of which had citations. You say he's not deleting much of anything, that is insulting to me, because I said he did. And I don't have any "questions about why the policy exists" and saying I do is also insulting. I do have a major problem with a person who wants to commandeer an article like this. He made 3 reverts which is against the 3 revert rule, and nobody did anything. I'm going to go back on now and delete the photo of the Russian guy in the 1990's dressed up as a hippie and posing as one. There are many photos of real hippies, why use a staged one? Besides, it is unsourced.Morgan Wright 09:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:DISRUPT. —Viriditas | Talk 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who is disrupting. And you also made 3 reverts and should be blocked for doing so.Morgan Wright 12:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your approach here, Morgan, is not productive. You have some valid disagreements with Vir., but the tone of this conversation is alarmist and aggresive. I've looked over some additional history and see only good faith edits. If Vir. did remove sourced content which was not irrelevant or otherwise inappropriate for the article, please show me where and I will certainly help re-insert it. As an aside, the term Hippie did not die in 1969 and there are individuals and philosophies characterized as hippies today. It is not for you to determine what a real hippie is or isn't, thus the original research policy. If you would like to contribute here, please calm down and try proposing a specific change here on the talk page. Try not to be discouraged if your ideas are not met with agreement, all editors here have had their work removed. Content which is well written, well-sourced, and relevant will typically meet little resistance when proposed for an article. ∴ here…♠ 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
He deleted the section that says hippie women didn't wear much makeup. He says it was unsourced and OR. Huh? Everybody knows that, and there is no "source" that can be cited that would prove it. Did Revlon do a consumer summary of makeup sales to hippie women? Of course not. He deleted the part that says hippies used slang terminology. Idiocy. He deleted the section that says hippies listened to rock and roll and that they liked the Beatles, Stones, Jimi, and Bob. To me, that is so unbeliebable, I have no more time for this idiocy. If you think he was right to delete those things, then I have no reason to talk to you, you are as much of an idiot as he is. I'm outta here, this is sheer stupidity. Peace, man.Morgan Wright 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I thought you were out of here? Your most recent deletions are disruptions to prove a point, and if you do it again, you will not like the results. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
All of the deletions I made were of unsourced original research, by your own definitions, as there were no sources whatsoever for any of it, and I am stating that much of it was simply wrong. Yet, you are defending Viriditas in his deletions of large amounts of good writing that HAD sources. Yet when I delete tracts of unsourced and irrelevent and mainly erroneous content, you revert it back. The net result is that the "hippies" article is horribly written, wrong on most counts, and boring. The photo you use to represent hippies of the USA in the 60's is a photo of a Russian guy in 2005. All the citations of miniscule events that happened in California, yet not a word about Ann Arbor, Boulder, Austin, or Greenwich Village, all of which had thriving hippie scenes by 1965, is very very wrong. You mention one band (forgot who) and say it was the first band to play on stage tripping on LSD? How could you possibly know such a thing? And where is the source?? Yet when I delete this silly information, you revert it back.Morgan Wright 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. WP:POINT. Find something else to edit for now; you've managed to anger people here pretty quickly. Maybe something about animals, or maybe about astronomy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I angered people? Look above for all the people that Viditas angered. Me, for instance!Morgan Wright 01:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I must say that this is exactly why it is difficult to write an encyclopedia article on something such as hippies. Yeah, it's common knowledge what hippies do, wear, smoke, say, etc., but that of course will vary from generation to generation.. from region to region... and most importantly from individual to individual. Afterall, I know old hippies, young hippies, activist hippies as well as hippies who just sit around and get high. No one will have the difinitive definition for this and for all intents and purposes, the article is fine how it is. Also, the only judgement that I feel compelled to make, is that this argument is NOT very hippie-like!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraway420 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagrea the removal of this part of the article. For me these facts were the essence op hippydom. In Amsterdam, Europe, there was in the sixties a full mixture of music and politics, like the Vietnam war or cold war. A monthly like "Hitweek" brought this up, as did the Provo's who opposed "truttigheid". As an elderly hippy I still believe in these things, as do my children. The removed part must be restored. If needed, more sources will be found.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes49 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- Great. Add the sources and convert it to prose. Problem solved. —Viriditas | Talk 09:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
photo of Russian guy in 2005 dressed in hippie costume
I vote that the guy is a bad parody of hippies. He's in Russia and 4 decades off. The caption is a joke, ("Singer at a modern Hippie movement." What's a hippie movement?) and it contains no citations. How do we know we even have copyright license for that photo? Being a hippie is not about how you dress or hold a guitar pretending to be a guitarist. That guy is a hippie like Dobie Gillis was a beatnik. That guy is a hippie like a speghetti western from the 1950's had real Indians. He's a joke of a hippie, in costume only, a bad parody and insulting, and the way he's fingering the frets you can see he can't even play guitar. His clothes are clean, he has no lice and he is not stoned. I vote to get rid of the photo and replace it with a more relevent photo of a stoned, dirty, screwed up freak from California in the 60's.Morgan Wright 04:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- We had better photos for a brief period shot by famous '60's photographer, Robert Altman. These were great shots (not not lice-infested, nor even dirty--you have an attitude guy!), however Wikipedia would not protect Robert's copyright, and he depends on his 60's shots for much of his current income, so we had to remove them. Apostle12 05:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. You can see some of the photos here: http://www.summeroflove.org/altman.html Apostle12 05:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I was only kidding about being dirty, I actually cleaned by jeans about once a month by swimming with my pants on. Then, every two years or so, after the patches on my patches started falling off, I panhandled up enough to get a whole new pair of jeans at Salvation Army for $1, and they were totally clean for a few weeks. But I never wore underpants and slept with my jeans on every night so I don't know how dirty they got, patchouli took care of the smell. Too bad we can't add anything to the article, you-know-who will just delete it. But that Russian guy has got to go, he's an actor.Morgan Wright 13:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The SF Chronicle is collecting stories, albeit the thing is growing so large one gets lost. However, I think that Angela characterizes something about the brilliance of that one summer that seems to get lost. I was there, by the way. But, I was in my mid-20s, yet more in tune with the younger crowd than others my age. It would be good if Wiki could be true to the times; however, Wiki rules may inhibit that. 12.39.133.130 16:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is a problem with Wikipedia's "Original Research" policy, especially when it comes to describing hippies and the Summer of Love. The problem is that "Time" magazine, "Newsweek," and most of those who wrote about what was happening wrote from a perspective of non-understanding. Some were better than others, but most had to pander to a "straight" agenda; even if they actually "grokked" what was happening, they couldn't write it that way.
- An extreme example was outright, purposeful distortion. During People's Park I had a friend whose apartment was on Telegraph Ave., and the "Time" and "Newsweek" reporters used her telephone to call in their stories. One "Time" reporter attempted to report--accurately--that the police were engaging in violent, unprovoked attacks against those protesting the destruction of the park. She could overhear his editor, who was screaming at the reporter from his office back East, insisting "We can't run the story that way. It has to be a riot thing, with out-of-control, drug-crazed freaks attacking the police and destroying property. Go back and write me something decent."
- The "hippie" article has, at times, told the story more accurately and more eloquently. The problem is doing so with sourced material. And Viriditas is a stickler on that. In this case I believe Wikipedia's "Original Research" policy works to the detriment of the article. It may become a "Good Article," or even a "Featured Article," but I doubt it can become truly "good"--in the sense that it conveys the spirit of those times and tells the truth about who hippies were. Apostle12 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, not truth (Kant, Popper, et al, apply here). From what I've seen, verifiable in Wiki means supported by citation. Yet, we know that articles can be wrong. In fact, not a few technical articles that were heavily cited were shown to be wrong, however noone went back to track all the citations and footnote these (it's like the retractions of the press being buried in small print inside the pages somewhere - retractions on Wiki can be handled bold face (or is that bald face?)). Citation-able is not sufficient. Since the 'hippie' thing was so central to the US mindset (obvious distinction between the 'norm' and a more insightful view) and to what we see as progressive (yeah, boomers are now going to play their havoc with Medicare) and since it will not go away (we have the 50 down the road), perhaps the set of pages related to hippie (60 style or the more modern wannabes) might be a good place to look at what's allowed in Wiki. The page needs to be re-arranged into new categories, one of which would be devoted to this early boomer phenomenon. Let's face it; the majority of the boomers and all succeeding generations were either too young or only of potential prior to the main events. Yet, the pre (beats) and the posts (continuation of the energy because it DOES (or did) touch the 'truth') views need to be aired too. Perhaps, after we get all that collected then a general view of the disinterested 'observer' (which Wiki is trying to maintain) could be written (it cannot be found in the old press clippings - or even the newer media reviews). We have too many views and fingers in this pot, yet from what I've seen of most scientific (and religious) controversies as handled on Wiki, there's nothing better. I use Wiki as reference all the time (There is no written document on the planet that covers the ins and outs of mathematics and its foundations better, for instance, yet those pages are still evolving. They'll be truly remarkable in the future.). 12.39.133.130 15:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- To address your point, content disputes often require multiple citations, so we never rely on just one source for controversial or odd claims. So if Charles Perry says one thing about San Francisco in the 1960s, I should be able to find the same thing in a book by Fred Turner, or an interview with Stewart Brand. Evaluating sources for authority, accuracy, and currency is very important, and is part of the process of choosing sources; not all sources are equal. —Viriditas | Talk 20:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- It would be so cool if we could get somehow permission to use this pic:[3] It is contemporary, not an after-the-fact reconstruction, and it shows the miniskirts, etc., but not the (optional) lice...! Blockinblox 17:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It may be contemporaneous, however it is obviously posed and looks quite artificial to me. Altman's photos, by contrast, are spontaneous and joyful--really convey the spirit of the times.Apostle12 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flickr has lots of free hippie images, some from the 1960s, others from later in the period. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 4 June 2007(UTC)
- Some months ago Altman did have a number of photos in this article, however they were withdrawn on the basis of a breach of copyright according to the edit summary.Mombas 11:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flickr has lots of free hippie images, some from the 1960s, others from later in the period. —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 4 June 2007(UTC)
- It may be contemporaneous, however it is obviously posed and looks quite artificial to me. Altman's photos, by contrast, are spontaneous and joyful--really convey the spirit of the times.Apostle12 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lead section
Per WP:LEAD, "introductory summations in any information source should not introduce significant material that does not appear in the main text." This is a problem with the current lead, and an additional problem is that the sources cited in the lead section do not reflect or support some of the material. Somebody has been playing around with the citations again, adding material that is not supported. —Viriditas | Talk 13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- After 1965, the hippie ethos influenced the The Beatles and others in the United Kingdom and Europe, and they in turn influenced their American counterparts.
- Citation 10 for this statement links to an excerpt from Brown and Gaines book, "The Love You Make. An Insider's Story of The Beatles", which doesn't support this claim directly, but merely states that Dylan got the Beatles stoned; if this is supposed to support the statement that "the hippie ethos influenced The Beatles", I would suggest that this is a stretch. Also, the incident takes place in 1964, so the source contradicts the statement in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Citation 11 links to a Chamber of Commerce website for Languedoc, France that merely claims that Hippies moved into the area in the 1960s. This doesn't support the statement directly, but it does show that the hippie movement was in Europe. No connection is shown between the the hippie ethos in the U.S. influencing Hippies in Europe. —Viriditas | Talk 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Citation 12 links to an article in an obscure webzine named Swans, written by someone named Karen Moller. On the plus side, the article is fairly current (September 25, 2006), topical ("Tony Blair: Child Of The Hippie Generation"), and describes British hippies in the early 1960s, presumably from the author's book, Technicolor Dreamin': The 1960's Rainbow and Beyond. The writer claims that the hippie movement in America was mostly a political protest movement while in the UK it became a way of life, however, other authoritative writers on the subject have not made that observation, and in fact contradict it (Writer Charles A. Coulombe and many others). The writer gives an interesting, first-person portrait of UK Hippies, but I don't see how it supports the statement in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Citation 13 links to an article in the "Road Junky Travel Guide" blog entitled, "The Beatles Travel to India". I am having great difficulty figuring out how this article supports the statement in the Hippie article. The blog entry purports to show that after 1968, The Beatles popularized India as a destination and Hippies followed in their footsteps. —Viriditas | Talk 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- So that's four citations, none of which support the content in question. If someone wants to rewrite the statement so that it is supported, that might be preferable to outright deletion. —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Beat Generation
Around that time, Ginsberg connected with Ken Kesey, who was participating in CIA sponsored LSD trials while a student at Stanford. Neal Cassady was the bus driver for Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters, and he attempted to recruit Kerouac into their group, but Kerouac angrily rejected their invitation and accused them of attempting to destroy the American culture he celebrated[citation needed].
- Subterranean Kerouac: The Hidden Life of Jack Kerouac and other sources place this around October 1964 (need exact date), so the phrase "around that time" should be cleared up as that refers to 1963 in the text. Kerouac said he didn't want to be ogled like a "dinosaur" and accused hippies of being communists several times: "Finally in New York City, Cassady secured an apartment for a meeting between the original white hipsters and the new crew, "The environment was typical for the Pranksters, with tapes echoing and lights flashing off mirrors. An American flag covered the sofa. [...] Kerouac walked over to the sofa, carefully folded the flag, and asked the Pranksters if they were Communists." (p 123)" Lee and Shlain, Acid Dreams [4] —Viriditas | Talk 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just as Der Wandervogel formed around German folk music, and the Hippies rallied around rock music, it should be mentioned that the Beat Generation developed around Jazz music. —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Places other than California
Who is going to write about other places than California in the early formative years of hippies? Ann Arbor and John Sinclair, [5], Greenwich Village (a hippie spot since way before 1967) "The Hill" in Boulder in 1965. The article makes it look like it all started in one place, SF, in 1967. This is obviously not true, because these guys traveled around constantly, hitch-hiking everywhere. The Pranksters lived on a bus for crissakes. 1965 had hippies all over, even the Beatles were hippies in 1965, just look at the Rubber Soul album. Bob Dylan turned them on to pot in 1964 in New York City. The hippie thing was around for years before 1967 but the media pegged it as SF, and that's why millions of hippies congregated there in 1967. Almost everybody in the summer of love in SF was from someplace else. They read it in Newsweek. But they were already hippies when they got there. So all the details about the goings on in SF need to be downplayed and other places need to be mentioned. There were hippies all over by 1965 but this article has it all starting in SF. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Check out the White Panther Party if there is an article about it and Lawrence (Pun) Plamondon but you never heard of these people because they are not mentioned in the square press that we have to verify citations from, that it all started in San Francisco. Wrong, they went TO san francisco because of the song about Flowers in their hair.Morgan Wright 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good eye and good points, Morgan. I've requested expansion regarding some of these points before. All we need are good sources. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Lawrence, Kansas was on the list via the Gaslight Tavern. Could that pass the test (the page is full of cites - note that one source has disappeared due to a disk crash that did not have a backup (tsk)]? If so, then bring it back. Also, if so, what other sites could be added? For instance, Morgan could find, no doubt, all sorts of references to Boulder's situations from which to write an acceptable page. If the Gaslight page is not acceptable, why hasn't it received attention? Are only particular pages or types of pages getting their 'overlord' (sorry, Viriditas, but the 'imprimatur' nature (okay, I'll agree, this is my viewpoint) of all this trampling, etc. can grate. What is your interest in the 'hippie' phenomenon(a) or have you been assigned the topic? Consider the query to be rhetorical, if you want.) By the way, isn't citing other Wiki pages of sufficient value or does one need to duplicate citations? That is, a page may be a summarization (integration) across topics on several other pages (I can show several examples). Is that not allowed? 'hippie' has gotten extraordinary attention of the oversight type. Why? 64.119.36.136 10:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Travel
Hippies traveled light and could pick up and go wherever the action was at any time; whether at a "love-in" on Mount Tamalpais near San Francisco, a demonstration against the Vietnam War in Berkeley, a party at Ken Kesey's "Acid Tests", or if the "vibe" wasn't right and a change of scene was desired, hippies were mobile at a moment's notice.
- This should be easy to source. Since it isn't disputed, and seems to reflect the overall tone of the article (hippies traveling all over the country and the world) I'm leaving it in the article for now. —Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason to source anything which is common knowledge and is not disputed. Since this is a fact known by anybody with an IQ above 6, and not disputed by anybody, even Viridictator, then why do we need to cite it? 151.205.170.214 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Amazing, you just repeated what I wrote above. Meanwhile, it should be possible to verify everything in the article, and if we can't find any sources for this mobiility, then we would have to remove it. My guess is that there are a lot of sources and I hope to find some. What you consider "common knowledge" may not be so common to others. Try to see the world outside of your own POV for once. WP:V solves the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no reason to source anything which is common knowledge and is not disputed. Since this is a fact known by anybody with an IQ above 6, and not disputed by anybody, even Viridictator, then why do we need to cite it? 151.205.170.214 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The reason people write encyclopedias is so people who know a lot (adults, scholars, smart people) can pass their knowledge to people who don't know a lot (kids, people from other cultures, dumb people). The people who know about hippies, mainly ex-hippies, write what they know, and the 10-year-old kid who just moved here from China can look it up. There doesn't have to be a citation that hippies had long hair, for example, but the kid from China might not know that. Don't remove common knowledge. Don't force people to find a citation that hippie women didn't wear gobs of makeup, (there is no reference for it because nobody wrote it down), or that hippies listened to rock and roll or talked in jive slang. Don't be so strict about citations for commonly-known things like this, especially since it's not the sort of thing people write down. And you should never assume that just because something is true there is a reference for it. Nobody knows, for example, where the word Yankee comes from. That's because nobody wrote it down, and centuries later the "scholars" have no clue. Everybody back then knew where it came from, but they are all gone. When the hippies are all gone, people would be left scrambling to figure out all the stuff the hippies never wrote down. That's why you should let hippies write this article, soon they will be dead and where will you be. Hippies rarely wrote any of the stuff down, the only people who wrote about hippies were the straights, the outsiders, and the squares.Morgan Wright 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- About sourcing, in this case, which deals a lot with a cultural affair which it is known that the 'square' press could not get, there has to be another type of source and a way to populate the thing. For instance, an auxiliary site could be developed to collect the 1st person accounts (Hippie Tales, as an example). The SF Chronicle is allowing comments related to the SoL (s___ out of luck, from one view). Too, if the 'square' press (or some more enlightened variant that is not 'square') does not have supporting material on the web, it may exist in notes, etc. Morgan argued that a source existed in some location off the beaten path. Where do we find all this stuff that is pertinent? The question is whether there is sufficient interest to round out all the hippie material. But, in the meantime, I do not see why it would hurt wiki to allow inclusion with the cite being to a class that points to 1st person experience. At least, for the period of the 40th, as people are awakening to their pasts, or (and get this) people who suppressed awareness of their youthful deeds (or misdeeds) are allowing things to poke around the wall. Who knows what will come up from a few more months of collection? Morgan mentions a bottom-up approach for an encyclopedia as we ought to have for 'science' too (wiki embodies a new type of science whether the collection of current editors realizes this or not (it cannot be suppressed)). What top-down view is there for the hippies that is well-founded? That, dear editors, is the issue. Applying your procedural baggage in this case may be more counter-productive than you can believe possible. 64.119.36.136 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I encourage you to participate in the discussion behind the community policies in places such as Wikipedia:No original research, or found a new wiki-based project without these requirements. For many reasons, the community here has chosen to base the contents of this encyclopedia on a specific subset of available information, which of course involves some disadvantages. However, ranting against established policy on an article talk page will get you nowhere. Best. ∴ here…♠ 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- About sourcing, in this case, which deals a lot with a cultural affair which it is known that the 'square' press could not get, there has to be another type of source and a way to populate the thing. For instance, an auxiliary site could be developed to collect the 1st person accounts (Hippie Tales, as an example). The SF Chronicle is allowing comments related to the SoL (s___ out of luck, from one view). Too, if the 'square' press (or some more enlightened variant that is not 'square') does not have supporting material on the web, it may exist in notes, etc. Morgan argued that a source existed in some location off the beaten path. Where do we find all this stuff that is pertinent? The question is whether there is sufficient interest to round out all the hippie material. But, in the meantime, I do not see why it would hurt wiki to allow inclusion with the cite being to a class that points to 1st person experience. At least, for the period of the 40th, as people are awakening to their pasts, or (and get this) people who suppressed awareness of their youthful deeds (or misdeeds) are allowing things to poke around the wall. Who knows what will come up from a few more months of collection? Morgan mentions a bottom-up approach for an encyclopedia as we ought to have for 'science' too (wiki embodies a new type of science whether the collection of current editors realizes this or not (it cannot be suppressed)). What top-down view is there for the hippies that is well-founded? That, dear editors, is the issue. Applying your procedural baggage in this case may be more counter-productive than you can believe possible. 64.119.36.136 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Rasatafari movement
Another influence were members of the Jamaican Rastafari movement who, while openly espousing Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as God, also wore long hair (called dreadlocks), smoked cannabis as a sacrament, rejected the establishment (which they called Babylon) and espoused a back-to-nature and back-to-their-African-roots philosophy. Due to large scale immigration from Jamaica to the UK during the 1950s, this movement influenced the developing UK hippie movement, with contacts often formed when young whites would buy cannabis from black communities.
- Please add references for this claim. I've never seen any evidence for this in the research that I've done. —Viriditas | Talk 08:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Neither have I, and I think it's bogus. Never saw a rastafarian in Haight. But maybe it's true for London, I wouldn't know.Morgan Wright 13:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- How do you feel about starting a new section about Hippies in the UK, using Karen Moller as one source? I talked about her comments in the above section. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Punks vs. Hippies
Don't the punks hate hippies? Like The Casualties song "Kill The Hippies" And Guttermouth's song "Fucking Hippies"The Clydelishes Clyde 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Source the conflict with a WP:RS and add it to the article. Just don't add trivia. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The answer is no, most punk rockers were hippies. Definitely.Morgan Wright 02:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Most? Where can I read more about this? I can see some subcultural overlap to be sure, in fact I agree that there is an overlap, but is it accurate to say that most punks were hippies? Where do you draw the line? Yes, they were both countercultural subcultures, but they had clearly distinct philosophies, don't you think? I'm studying the Goth subculture right now (as I plan to help improve that page as well) and I see more similarities between them and the punks. —Viriditas | Talk 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- I would say there is definitely overlap, but also contrast; sometimes even conflict. Though both hippies and punks tend to hate all generalizations (labels), punks usually hate it more. Most true hippies strongly disavow ALL violence, while many punks embrace milder forms of it (usually non-lethal). So in general, hippies value relaxation, peace, love, nature, spirituality, etc., while most punks yearn more for being in control of their own destiny and seeking thrills and challenges. Stylistically, hippies value natural, pre-industrial, or non-western (Asian, Native American, African, etc.) fashions, while punks go for their own over-the-top versions of 20th/21st century (post-) modern-industrial fashions, although members of both groups have been known to wear both leather and denim, especially in the 1980s. Hippies value togetherness and don't mind being leaned on or leaning on others; punks insist on independence. Shanoman 19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Harry Gibson autobiography
Morgan added a link to an "auobiography" by Harry Gibson [6], but I can find no published autobiography of Harry Gibson. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction. Or, is this an unpublished autobiography? —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since there has been no answer to this question, I'm considering removing the link. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's right there at the link! According to the text, this brief autobiographical sketch was published in 1986 as liner notes to one of his albums. --Orange Mike 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's likely that I missed that the first time around. I'll make the formatting change to the ref. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- {{Cite album-notes}} added. —Viriditas | Talk 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's likely that I missed that the first time around. I'll make the formatting change to the ref. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's right there at the link! According to the text, this brief autobiographical sketch was published in 1986 as liner notes to one of his albums. --Orange Mike 13:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Declined in the 1970's
I replaced the words "before declining in the 1970's" with "before declining in the mid-1970's". I think the former phraise kind of suggests its strictly 1960's... which isn't exactly true, the hippie era continued at least into the early 70's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.160.28 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
POV tag
User:SqueakBox placed a section dispute tag in the article at 01:55, 16 June 2007.[7] If there is no explanation for this tag, I will remove it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- See WP:DRIVEBY. I have waited more than 24 hours for an explanation of the tag. As of 03:15, 17 June 2007, I have removed it.[8] Please do not add it back in without explanation. —Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Unreasonable requests for citation
I agree with the editor who commented, "Why would one need a citation for that?" Your removal of major parts of the article and your entirely unreasonable requests for citation have literally sucked the life out of this article. If you were to apply this standard across the board for all Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia would die on the vine. It's time you acknowledge that your perfectionistic attitude is destructive. Apostle12 05:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please address the topic, not the editor. A source request was made for the statement that Hippie ideals were "best epitomized by The Beatles' song "All You Need is Love". If this is true, it should be very easy to source. Pretend for the moment, that you know nothing about hippies, nothing about the counterculture of the 1960s, and absolutely nothing about the Beatles. Where would you go to verify this statement? —Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've found the sources, and I'm in the process of adding them. —Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am very glad you added the sources you found. I believe your assertion--that what is true is easy to source--is unfounded in many instances. In my opinion your considerable talent might be better employed researching and adding sources, rather than engaging in wholesale removal of material that you consider inadequately sourced. The topic I am addressing is such removal--and I believe my comments are apropos. Apostle12 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- All the guidelines and policies make it clear that the burden of proof is on the claimant. And, the material was never removed, so your objection is misplaced. My unstated assertion, that what is true is easy to source, is directly related to notability, so if something cannot be sourced, then it is most likely not notable and therefore, unencyclopedic; this is especially true for popular culture articles like this one. However, in terms of niche or specialist subjects, what is true may not be easy to source: sourcing becomes a valid concern that needs to be addressed. For example, the article Ogura Yonesuke Itoh was recently deleted because the only source that has been offered by the original editor is somewhat obscure. Google and other search indexes turn up nothing, and as a result, the article was deleted (and recently recreated). In any case, the material you are referring to went unsourced in the article for a long time - with citation requests unmet. If you want to help get them back in the article, let's work together on a point by point basis. Last time we talked, we were going to work on the sexual mores section. Let's get started. The unreferenced material is located at Hippie/temp. —Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would maintain that moving this material to Hippie/temp constitutues "removal" for all practical purposes--especially from the point of view of the reader using Wikipedia as a reference. Not sure where the other material is located (except in history), but the same objection applies. I may eventually contribute further, however my time is extremely limited at present and I find your approach discouraging. Others have expressed the same sentiment. Apostle12 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Beatles material was never removed from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- True. However your pattern has been to systematically remove anything that remains unsourced for a period of time. A lot has been lost that way. Apostle12 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's not my pattern; it's official policy. Nothing has been "lost"; it can either be found on the talk page or in the page history. There's a number of current discussions (particularly threads 27.1, 28, 29 and 33) that discuss this topic on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and would benefit from your participation. —Viriditas | Talk 06:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- True. However your pattern has been to systematically remove anything that remains unsourced for a period of time. A lot has been lost that way. Apostle12 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Beatles material was never removed from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- This seems to me an important discussion. I agree that we should source as much as possible, as dictated by Wikipedia policy. However, I would also point out that for a phenomenon that occurred within recent history, but before the advent of the Internet, it will sometimes be hard to do. I was the editor who asked why we would need a source for the statement that hippie ideology was epitomized by All you Need is Love. My view remains that while it is nice to have a source, it wouldn't have been unreasonable to make such a claim without a source. After all, the tenets of the ideology had been sourced, and the Beatles song was very much a part of the scene, as anyone who was around then can attest.
- I would maintain that moving this material to Hippie/temp constitutues "removal" for all practical purposes--especially from the point of view of the reader using Wikipedia as a reference. Not sure where the other material is located (except in history), but the same objection applies. I may eventually contribute further, however my time is extremely limited at present and I find your approach discouraging. Others have expressed the same sentiment. Apostle12 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- All the guidelines and policies make it clear that the burden of proof is on the claimant. And, the material was never removed, so your objection is misplaced. My unstated assertion, that what is true is easy to source, is directly related to notability, so if something cannot be sourced, then it is most likely not notable and therefore, unencyclopedic; this is especially true for popular culture articles like this one. However, in terms of niche or specialist subjects, what is true may not be easy to source: sourcing becomes a valid concern that needs to be addressed. For example, the article Ogura Yonesuke Itoh was recently deleted because the only source that has been offered by the original editor is somewhat obscure. Google and other search indexes turn up nothing, and as a result, the article was deleted (and recently recreated). In any case, the material you are referring to went unsourced in the article for a long time - with citation requests unmet. If you want to help get them back in the article, let's work together on a point by point basis. Last time we talked, we were going to work on the sexual mores section. Let's get started. The unreferenced material is located at Hippie/temp. —Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I am very glad you added the sources you found. I believe your assertion--that what is true is easy to source--is unfounded in many instances. In my opinion your considerable talent might be better employed researching and adding sources, rather than engaging in wholesale removal of material that you consider inadequately sourced. The topic I am addressing is such removal--and I believe my comments are apropos. Apostle12 09:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I've found the sources, and I'm in the process of adding them. —Viriditas | Talk 07:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- That having been said, we do have a problem with this article. At 60 kb, it is waaaaay too long. That kind of wiki-bloat occurs when lots of folks stop by and, knowing something about the subject, happily add their bit to the article. Having guidelines for the article, moving some material to sub pages, and requesting sources are all good ways of arriving at a more readable, and ultimately, better written article. Do not lose heart Apostle12, we need your clearheaded approach here. Sunray 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Sunray. Regarding objections to the length of the "Hippie" article, I think the problem may be due to the fact that the movement was so ambitious. After all, hippies set out to challenge every established order; they literally wanted to change the world. Given such an objective, every aspect of life was affected worldwide. Unprecedented actually, and not easy to condense without losing the spirit of it all....idealistic and arrogant, perhaps even delusional.Apostle12 05:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- We should be able to split the history section right now,. —Viriditas | Talk 20:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool. How do you propose to do that? Sunray 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Copy the entire section to History of the hippie movement, and replace the current section with a condensed summary that mentions all the key points. —Viriditas | Talk 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool. How do you propose to do that? Sunray 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- That having been said, we do have a problem with this article. At 60 kb, it is waaaaay too long. That kind of wiki-bloat occurs when lots of folks stop by and, knowing something about the subject, happily add their bit to the article. Having guidelines for the article, moving some material to sub pages, and requesting sources are all good ways of arriving at a more readable, and ultimately, better written article. Do not lose heart Apostle12, we need your clearheaded approach here. Sunray 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Sunray 21:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a summary could merely contain a link tio the history article, especially at first. I dont think 60kb is even too long let alone weigh too long but the section is inherently problematic, SqueakBox 21:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't find the section "inherently problematic", and as you've explained your position on the talk page before, I understand and respect your POV. I've been working on expanding La Onda and I plan on adding some of that information to the history page. If you have any other good sources to add regarding worldwide hippie movements, please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, and a summary could merely contain a link tio the history article, especially at first. I dont think 60kb is even too long let alone weigh too long but the section is inherently problematic, SqueakBox 21:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Research paper....
I am doing a research paper on divorce. One of the points we have to discuss is how "hippies" had an effect on divorce. I am thinking that it is because hippies married at age 19 and 20 and then realized when they were older that it wasnt right person...so to say. Any ideas?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.194.244 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got that impression. Hippies were often prone to the idea that marriage was just another dead Establishment concept, a meaningless piece of paper. Early marriage was quite common among all demographics in the hippie era; indeed, it was more likely to be stereotyped as poor-white behavior than hippie behavior. Hippies were part of the broader counter-cultural movement that challenged traditional thinking on these matters, leading to looser divorce laws; maybe that's what your teacher was talking about. --Orange Mike 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (didn't marry until his mid-20s)
Hippie vs hippy
Someone changed the lead to read "Hippie or hippy... This doesn't scan well for a number of reasons. Back then, the word was spelled "hippie" by those in the know. Here's what Paul Brians says about that in Common Errors in English:
- A long-haired 60s flower child was a “hippie.” “Hippy” is an adjective describing someone with wide hips. The IE is not caused by a Y changing to IE in the plural as in “puppy” and “puppies.” It is rather a dismissive diminutive, invented by older, more sophisticated hipsters looking down on the new kids as mere “hippies.” Confusing these two is definitely unhip.
A comparison of the Internet usage of the terms shows that "Hippie" is used 11,200,00 times vs. 5,760,000 for "hippy" (including descriptions of folks with wide hips). I think we should standardize on "hippie" and let the redirect gently wise up those unhip enough to spell it the other way. Sunray 00:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Sunray, here's the problem: in the U.K., as well as in parts of the world that prefer British spelling of English words, the term is spelled "hippy." Those who favor making Wikipedia more global in its perspective insist on the inclusion of "hippy" (though they would prefer it be primary rather than secondary). "Hippy" has been there for a long time now, and if we remove it entirely they will be upset. Apostle12 01:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- "Hippie" is used by media such as the Times and the Guardian, though, I can see that "hippy" is also used. The term is also misspelled hippy by plenty of American sites (though usually in more recent usage than earlier). Can we get some sources on usage in the UK? Sunray 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- How about being inclusive? Quite a number of English words have alternate spellings, one predominating over the other and neither considered "mispelled." This applies especially to British variants. Not worth an edit war, though I am sure "hippy" will reappear in due course. Apostle12 01:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Well, I did manage to find a fairly authoritative British source for "hippie". I also found a source for "hippy". I think that the best resolution for this is to go back to a statement such as the following: "Hippie (sometimes spelled hippy)..." How does that strike you? Sunray 08:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. --Orange Mike 14:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's fine. Did drop the commas though, since you used parentheses.Apostle12 16:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Hippie POV
The hippie article reads like everything hippies did was good and that hippies did nothing wrong. Not all hippies had non-violent protests. Some hippies were violent, which is not stated in the article. Both sides of hippies protesting the U.S. government and its involvement in the Vietnam War are not written equal. The legality of the drug use should also be included. The article seems to make all hippies seem innocent. Hippies had positive effects on the world but also had negative effects on the world that should be stated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.225.182 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article isn't about the anti-war movement or the legality of drugs. If you have some good sources for the "negative effects" hippies had, by all means share them. I recall seeing some good ones pertaining to drug misuse/abuse. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an article about Hippies, and it should discuss what they are and what their movement was about, and the history and legacy of the same. It is irrevelant whether "some were good hippies and some were bad". An article about African-Americans, or Republicans, or Christians should not list specific behaviors of members of those groups whether good or bad, nor offer value judgements. Let's remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advocacy or editorial one. It should report that hippies advocated the use of mind-expanding substances, opposed the war in Viet Nam, and preached (for the most part) civil disobedience in protest, not whether it was right or wrong for them to do so.Rosencomet 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, Rosencomet! Sunray 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- And yet, the issue of drug misuse/abuse was a serious and notable one for the hippie community, is covered in every major work about hippies, and was said to be one of the factors that led to its decline in the U.S. Particularly noteworthy is the effect hard drugs had on the Haight-Ashbury hippie community. I'm afraid I don't see this as a value judgement, but rather as an historical fact as organizations like the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic were created to deal directly with this problem. This is like saying we shouldn't cover the issue of doping in sports because it is a value judgment. —Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- You misunderstand. I was commenting on the statement by the previous poster about everything some hippies did wasn't good, and some hippies were violent, etc. An article about a movement like, say, American democracy, shouldn't include a list of individuals who, on their own, professed to be patiotic Americans and democratic, but actually broke the law or behaved improperly. An article about those individuals should discuss that, but this is an encyclopedia article about the movement, not a scold about individuals who were (or professed to be) part of it but "did things that weren't good".
- And yet, the issue of drug misuse/abuse was a serious and notable one for the hippie community, is covered in every major work about hippies, and was said to be one of the factors that led to its decline in the U.S. Particularly noteworthy is the effect hard drugs had on the Haight-Ashbury hippie community. I'm afraid I don't see this as a value judgement, but rather as an historical fact as organizations like the Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic were created to deal directly with this problem. This is like saying we shouldn't cover the issue of doping in sports because it is a value judgment. —Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well said, Rosencomet! Sunray 18:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an article about Hippies, and it should discuss what they are and what their movement was about, and the history and legacy of the same. It is irrevelant whether "some were good hippies and some were bad". An article about African-Americans, or Republicans, or Christians should not list specific behaviors of members of those groups whether good or bad, nor offer value judgements. Let's remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advocacy or editorial one. It should report that hippies advocated the use of mind-expanding substances, opposed the war in Viet Nam, and preached (for the most part) civil disobedience in protest, not whether it was right or wrong for them to do so.Rosencomet 18:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Doping in sports is an intentional practice used to cheat at sports and circumvent the rules. It should be discussed, but I wouldn't put it under an article defining, say, "football". But this is more like including a section on blown-out knees or head injuries; certainly not uncommon, but hardly an inherent part of football.
- The issue of drug use being promoted for consciousness exploration and the like is certainly fair game, including the degree (if documented in an encyclopedic way) to which the movement may not have sufficiently accompanied cautionary statements along with their support for the practice. But Hippies did not want these substances to be used to the detriment of their members or the movement, and sports dopers do. Certainly, Timothy Leary made it clear that he did not consider these substances to be for everyone, and that there were safeguard practices that should be in place, especially for first time users (set, setting & dosage). He even often advised that a psychologist, and one who had used these substances him/herself, be present.
- Not so Ken Kesey, who handed out spiked kool-ade at the Acid Tests with only a vague reminder as to which plastic garbage can was the spiked one ("this one is for the cool cats, this one for the little kitties"); no real control over dosage, no attempt to disciver whether the user had previous medical and/or psychological conditions, etc. But this was not done maliciously; these were young people acting irresponsibly due to an unrealistic belief in their own invulnerability and of how wonderful these substances were for the world. Hippies, as a whole, opposed drug abuse; they just defined abuse and use differently than the government did. They usually put down heroin, speed, and other particularly harmful drugs (by their lights), and decried the illegalization of drugs because it left the purity and contamination of these drugs unregulated. As Arlen Riley Wilson said, you can't regulate a substance by illegalizing it; only when it is legal can you control it.
- To expect a section discussing drug abusers who admired Hippie values and leaders in this article, is like expecting a section on reckless drivers who had accidents in an article about Nascar. Yes, there was a general level of carelessness, more in certain portions of the movement that others, about the dangers of these substances among those attracted to the incredible praise they were getting from the spokespeople within this young movement. Fair enough. But drug abuse, when it led to problems, was an UNINTENDED side effect of an honest desire to explore the realms of consciousness and human experience the hippies had heard were available through this practice, one which began thousands of years earlier among mystics of every culture on Earth. What was so unique was that for the first time such exploration was a popular youth phenomenum including millions of people, rather than something limited to a rarified portion of the society like shamans, mystics, ascetics, sorcerors, and others who usually had to go through training by others with similar interests before they engaged in such adventures.Rosencomet 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- We are mostly in agreement, and while the original editor may have chosen his words haphazardly, I think it is important to address the opinions of editors who see POV issues with this article: they are there just beneath the threshold of a tag. I myself have tried to balance the article on the drug topic in the past, only to have the material removed. A focused, penetrating eye will notice glaring omissions, with what can only be described as "negative" perceptions of hippies all but removed. There is a huge difference between consciousness exploration and young men and women running away from home to join the hippies only to be found homeless and addicted to drugs upon their arrival. These things are documented and did happen, and there were casualties of the movement. Some naive, trusting young girls were raped with flowers still in their hair, and the heroin, speed, and crime epidemic that swept through the Haight and other hippie communities is documented in the literature. Don't try and sell us the sweetness and light angle. The burning white light of the counterculture was eclipsed by the darkness of men even as the greatest minds of their generation fastened wings of wax and flew too close to the sun. Historically, Leary is considered just as irresponsible as Kesey, perhaps even more so, and many people blame Leary in particular for the crackdown on legal LSD. Owsley Stanley called Leary "one of the most destructive actors to appear on the scene". (Forte 1999) According to the New York Times, Albert Hofmann "said he disagreed with Mr. Leary's popularization of psychedelic drugs" and he was "frustrated by the worldwide prohibition that has pushed it underground". According to Hofmann, "It was used very successfully for 10 years in psychoanalysis" but "was hijacked by the youth movement of the 1960's and then demonized by the establishment that the movement opposed." Frankly, there's no advice about tripping with a psychologist in the phrase, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". And if you're not already familiar with Greenfield's book, you should be. I'm afraid there is a POV problem here, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. —Viriditas | Talk 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- To expect a section discussing drug abusers who admired Hippie values and leaders in this article, is like expecting a section on reckless drivers who had accidents in an article about Nascar. Yes, there was a general level of carelessness, more in certain portions of the movement that others, about the dangers of these substances among those attracted to the incredible praise they were getting from the spokespeople within this young movement. Fair enough. But drug abuse, when it led to problems, was an UNINTENDED side effect of an honest desire to explore the realms of consciousness and human experience the hippies had heard were available through this practice, one which began thousands of years earlier among mystics of every culture on Earth. What was so unique was that for the first time such exploration was a popular youth phenomenum including millions of people, rather than something limited to a rarified portion of the society like shamans, mystics, ascetics, sorcerors, and others who usually had to go through training by others with similar interests before they engaged in such adventures.Rosencomet 17:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- You both make valid points here. The original editor made comments that were blatantly POV and unacceptable—we all agree on that. What we are talking about has to do with the weight given to particular aspects of the hippie saga. Viriditas makes the point that there are issues just beneath the surface that elide certain realities. That is undoubtedly true. However, there are also things left unsaid about the manufacture of imagery about "the hippie" that the Nixon administration (for example) convinced the media to employ in order to counter the menace of the drug culture. We cannot get at much of this on either side of the equation in an encyclopedia article. We do need to ensure proper balance in the article, however. That always means that the subject must be presented well, and accurately, and that criticisms are not given undue weight. Sunray 02:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If the article is already POV by only stating everything hippies did was right and that hippies did nothing wrong. You need to even it out with the opposite POV. The article also needs to show the negative effects of hippies. When both of these views are in the article the article will become NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.225.182 (talk • contribs)
- Three editors addressed your points. We currently have a section on Charles Manson in the article, and I suggest carefully expanding a section on the social effects and implications of the movement, such as homelessness and drug misuse/abuse. If you can be specific, then your concerns can be met. Speaking in generalities isn't going to help improve this article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Viriditas for the most part, but the Unsigned poster above has totally missed the point when it comes to objectivity. You do NOT arrive at a NPOV article by expressing both the POV view that everything someone did was right "evened out" with the opposite POV. You maintain objectivity by simply reporting what someone did without any such judgements, and frankly I don't see this article as saying anywhere that "hippies did nothing wrong". The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to judge whether someone's actions were "right" or "wrong", or whether a movement or philosophy was "good" or "bad", but just to accurately describe it.
- I'm not trying to "sell us the sweetness and light angle". I have added nothing to the article to imply that the hippie movement was good or bad, or always resulted in desirable outcomes. But you don't do an article about motion pictures with a section about young women who got raped travelling to Hollywood to become stars or exploited on the director's couch or addicted to drugs or alcohol, no matter what was "in their hair". You define motion pictures, and present their history and notable features, and leave the judgements to the reader. Should an article about automobiles include whether everything drivers do is "good" or "bad"? Will you judge their motivations, the destinations they chose, their success at arriving there, ad infinitum? How about the "dark side" of power tools?
- I think the crime and homelessness found in Haight Ashbury belongs in an article about Haight Ashbury, and it was due to the unexpected effects of the enormous public youth response to the publicity/hype coupled with NOTHING in place to deal with this unique mass migration of starry-eyed and clueless young people, NOT due to the nature of the hippie movement IMO. I agree that an article about "The Haight Ashbury Experience" should certainly include references to both those who saw it as an attempt at a social experiment and those who reported on the problems that arose.
- On the other hand, to say that 'there's no advice about tripping with a psychologist in the phrase, "Turn on, tune in, drop out"' is to ignore the body of literature Timothy Leary published and the lectures he presented. That is one sound bite, you know, and it also doesn't say "use far too much drugs of any sort in an irresponsible way". All of which really belongs in the article about him, not about "Hippies", as does IMO the material about Charlie Manson (hardly a spokesperson for hippies in general, or characteristic of them) - or should an article about "African-Americans" include sections on notable black criminals, and one about "Jews" include a section on "Son of Sam"? And there are few books more POV than Greenfield's, which has been resoundly panned by nearly everyone personally associated with Timothy Leary (myself included). IMO, it is a mistake (no matter how popular a mistake) to equate the irresponsibility of Leary and Kesey; when did Leary ever distribute massive amounts of drugs at high school gymnasiums, or anywhere for that matter? All Leary really did, besides his personal behavior choices, was to speak his mind in public, and he did it after years of study as a respected psychologist with real credentials. Kesey was just a novelist, and a good one who's works I enjoy, but he had no background to distribute random amounts of powerful drugs to strangers in uncontrolled situations. It's a miracle how little harm resulted.Rosencomet 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- You speak my mind, Rosencomet, so I won't add a lengthy comment. However, I think you have hit on how this article: a) is relatively neutral, and, b) could be further improved. It is time to do that, and I think you have added the missing piece: A litmus test of what could be added, what stays and what goes. I will zero in on Manson for starters. I've never liked that section. Manson has nothing to do with hippies, except that he, like the "starry-eyed and clueless young people" fed into/on the hype. From previous discussions I've had with Viriditas, I'm pretty sure he wants to further improve the article. Let's do it! We could start with a "To do" list. Sunray 20:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, to say that 'there's no advice about tripping with a psychologist in the phrase, "Turn on, tune in, drop out"' is to ignore the body of literature Timothy Leary published and the lectures he presented. That is one sound bite, you know, and it also doesn't say "use far too much drugs of any sort in an irresponsible way". All of which really belongs in the article about him, not about "Hippies", as does IMO the material about Charlie Manson (hardly a spokesperson for hippies in general, or characteristic of them) - or should an article about "African-Americans" include sections on notable black criminals, and one about "Jews" include a section on "Son of Sam"? And there are few books more POV than Greenfield's, which has been resoundly panned by nearly everyone personally associated with Timothy Leary (myself included). IMO, it is a mistake (no matter how popular a mistake) to equate the irresponsibility of Leary and Kesey; when did Leary ever distribute massive amounts of drugs at high school gymnasiums, or anywhere for that matter? All Leary really did, besides his personal behavior choices, was to speak his mind in public, and he did it after years of study as a respected psychologist with real credentials. Kesey was just a novelist, and a good one who's works I enjoy, but he had no background to distribute random amounts of powerful drugs to strangers in uncontrolled situations. It's a miracle how little harm resulted.Rosencomet 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Keeping my comments brief and to the point per talk page guidelines: the valid part of the point made by the unsigned editor is that the article lacks a critical analysis of the hippie movement. I don't think there is any need to continue to address the false part of his argument. The question that remains is, does this article accurately describe the hippie movement? I think we are all agreed, no matter which side you are on, that it does not. I'm not going to address your point about adding information to imply that the movement was good or bad, because this again, addresses the false part of the unsigned editor's argument. As for representing the Haight: "It is largely accepted that [hippie culture] was born in the early 1960s on the West Coast of America, and particularly in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco." (Muncie 2004). So we see that that the locus of the hippie movement is the Haight (Ford 2005) and should be briefly addressed in this article. Regarding Leary, nobody has ignored his body of literature. I read all of it, in fact. The point is, Leary did not advise hippies to trip with psychologists. His supporters have made it very clear that the "Turn on, tune in, drop out" is the call of the muezzin, a religious rallying point for sacramental gnosis; no psychologist is needed. Perhaps you are confusing the early Learly with the late, messianic stage Leary. There is no intermediary needed for direct experience, nor is one required. You say, "All Leary really did, besides his personal behavior choices, was to speak his mind in public," and yet evey single major professional and academic associated with LSD has decried this as irresponsible on Leary's part, including not just Albert Hofmann, but also Ralph Metzner, Sidney Cohen, and Humphrey Osmond. Metzner asked Leary to consider adding "...and come back" to the end of the "Turn on" mantra, but Leary refused. (Stevens 1998) Like Hofmann and Owsley, Cohen blamed the LSD crackdown on "irresponsible enthusiasts" like Leary and Kesey. (Stevens 1998) Osmond went so far as to describe Leary as someone who "lives in an almost totally hypothetical future", comparing Leary's "millennialism" to Hitler's. According to Greenfield, Osmond and Aldous Huxley, "handed the future of psychedelic research to the wrong man." Haight-Ashbury hippies even ran Leary out of the Digger free store in 1967, telling him "You don't turn us on!"(Sante 2006) I can go on and on and on like this. Clearly, there is a POV issue as some people are completely ignoring evidence that contradicts their sacred assumptions about the past. A lengthy discussion about including Charles Manson in this article can be found in the talk archives. Feel free to ressurect it any time. As for Greenfield, please address the flaws in his book here, so you can educate me on the subject. I've read the book, read the reviews in the media, and followed the associated commentary. I haven't seen a single bad review or a "panning". The book shows without a doubt that Leary was human, with all the little flaws one would expect. It's time to stop the hagiography, the hero worship, and the historical revisionism. —Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Gasp, that was brief! I'd hate to see a lengthy comment ;-) All good points, though. Tell me: You come across as someone who has read a great deal about it but who wasn't there. Your POV seems somewhat negative about the hippie phenomenon. Not that that is a bad thing, there is much chaff to get through and a sharp eye is needed. As to Manson. I know the debate, because I participated in it. I backed off because I could see that your mind was entirely closed about it. But I think it is fair game to raise it again, since people obviously see mention of him as out of place. Much of the above discussion about Leary is tangential to this article, though important, and should be dealt with in other article(s) about him. However, Leary was very influential to the movement and absolutely has to be covered in this article as well. Hitting the right note on such a controversial figure will be a real achievement. Sunray 00:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I WAS there, at least at the end, and have spoken with and worked with Timothy Leary, Terence McKenna, Paul Krassner, Ralph Metzner, Nicki Scully, R.U. Sirius, Stephen Gaskin, and Robert Anton Wilson (among others), who all agree that the Greenfield book is full of one-sided crap. Jay Stevens (Storming Heaven), who is no hero-worshipper of Leary by any means, is far more objective than Greenfield. Furthermore, I am not hero-worshipping Leary or saying he was always a responsible individual; if you review my statements, I merely said that Leary has repeatedly mentioned the dangers of individuals with psychological problems using psychedelics outside of a controlled therapeutic setting, has published his well-know guidelines concerning set, setting and dosage in the use of such substances, and warned that they are not for everyone. I am not saying this is sufficient to save him from being called irresponsible, but it does not rise to the degree of Kesey's actual DISTRIBUTION of such substances without even a conversation with the THOUSANDS of strangers who took unmeasured doses in settings like high school gyms which implied that there WAS no need for caution. I think considering Osmond and Cohen to be definitive and objective experts on Leary, or that they know better than he, is ridiculous, though I have no problem with someone who considered Leary an "irresponsible enthusiast", or that the notoriety of Leary and his adventures helped cause the crackdown on legitimate research. I have no idea WHAT "lives in an almost totally hypothetical future" means, or it's relevance here; who cares what Osmond's opinion of Leary's view of the future is, anyway, or Leary's of Osmond's for that matter? Any comparison between Leary and Hitler is, of course, ridiculous inflammatory rhetoric, and serves only to reinforce the judgement that Osmond spoke out of personal animosity for Leary rather than objectivity.
- May I say that I have not revised any history nor changed any text, but I reiterate that no matter HOW irresponsible you may think Leary's IDEAS were, or HOW many other people you can quote who share your poor assessment of them, all Leary did was express them. He did not hand out massive amounts of drugs hap-hazardly at large open-to-the-public events held on high school property. All of which, I agree, belongs in discussions about Leary, not about the Hippie movement, of which he was a famous member but not a founder. I know that not all members of the counter-culture supported Leary; so what? Why would hashing over either the words of Leary hero-worshipers or Leary demonizers belong in an article about Hippies? Are you going to add a section on hippies' reactions to Dylan's born-again period, or Alpert's transformation to Ram Das, or Jerry Rubin's sell-out to Wall Street, or any other example of someone admired by hippies who had feet of clay? To what end? Does one trot out controversial people admired by members of other movements and sully their memories in articles designed to describe those movements, or shouldn't one at least reserve such information to the articles concerning the individuals? And I'm not being one-sided here; I don't think a bunch of quotes about what a great contribution to psychology, sociology, or popular culture Leary may have had in the opinions of this or that colleague or journalist belongs in the Hippie article either. My argument remains that the job of the editors is to help create an article that objectively describes Hippies, not one that reports on different people's judgements of their worth, or that of those they admired.Rosencomet 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Terence McKenna died in 2000, so I fail to see how he could "agree that the Greenfield book is full of one-sided crap" when it was released in June of 2006. And don't try and wiggle out of your tall tale, because you used the words "who all agree". Putting aside your wild, necromantic exaggerations for the moment, who was "there" or not "there" has nothing to do with this discussion, nor could it. I don't even believe you can substantiate your statement regarding Paul Krassner, Ralph Metzner, Nicki Scully, R.U. Sirius, Stephen Gaskin, and Robert Anton Wilson with published reviews in reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to fall into your mud puddle and start name dropping because it serves only one purpose: distracting from the topic at hand by trying to make it seem like this has to do with my personal opinion ("no matter how irresponsible you may think Leary's ideas were") when I don't recall ever offering my opinion on this or any other subject. The subject is not what dead people think of recently released books, nor what you think I think, nor what popular figures think behind closed doors. The topic is the perceived bias of this article as expressed by other editors, including myself. There is no discussion of criticism, controversy, or balanced analysis of the hippie movement in this article. Please stick to that topic, and do not persist in communicating with the dead for advice. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- O.K., O.K., Terence McKenna should not have been in this list of people who thought Greenfield's book was crap. I've discussed Leary with Terence, and anyone who held the opinions he expressed would think Greenfield's book is crap, but I agree that's not the same as saying he actually called it crap, so I apologize on this point (which you have certainly beaten into the ground). And I'm not going to "substantiate" everything I say on a talk page "with published reviews in reliable secondary sources" any more than anyone else does. I remind you again: I did not add any such data to the article. YOU started the name-dropping with Metzner, Osmond, Cohen, Huxley and Hoffman, and you introduced the line "of course, I wasn't there", so let's not have the pot calling the "mud puddle" black.
- Terence McKenna died in 2000, so I fail to see how he could "agree that the Greenfield book is full of one-sided crap" when it was released in June of 2006. And don't try and wiggle out of your tall tale, because you used the words "who all agree". Putting aside your wild, necromantic exaggerations for the moment, who was "there" or not "there" has nothing to do with this discussion, nor could it. I don't even believe you can substantiate your statement regarding Paul Krassner, Ralph Metzner, Nicki Scully, R.U. Sirius, Stephen Gaskin, and Robert Anton Wilson with published reviews in reliable secondary sources. I'm not going to fall into your mud puddle and start name dropping because it serves only one purpose: distracting from the topic at hand by trying to make it seem like this has to do with my personal opinion ("no matter how irresponsible you may think Leary's ideas were") when I don't recall ever offering my opinion on this or any other subject. The subject is not what dead people think of recently released books, nor what you think I think, nor what popular figures think behind closed doors. The topic is the perceived bias of this article as expressed by other editors, including myself. There is no discussion of criticism, controversy, or balanced analysis of the hippie movement in this article. Please stick to that topic, and do not persist in communicating with the dead for advice. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- May I say that I have not revised any history nor changed any text, but I reiterate that no matter HOW irresponsible you may think Leary's IDEAS were, or HOW many other people you can quote who share your poor assessment of them, all Leary did was express them. He did not hand out massive amounts of drugs hap-hazardly at large open-to-the-public events held on high school property. All of which, I agree, belongs in discussions about Leary, not about the Hippie movement, of which he was a famous member but not a founder. I know that not all members of the counter-culture supported Leary; so what? Why would hashing over either the words of Leary hero-worshipers or Leary demonizers belong in an article about Hippies? Are you going to add a section on hippies' reactions to Dylan's born-again period, or Alpert's transformation to Ram Das, or Jerry Rubin's sell-out to Wall Street, or any other example of someone admired by hippies who had feet of clay? To what end? Does one trot out controversial people admired by members of other movements and sully their memories in articles designed to describe those movements, or shouldn't one at least reserve such information to the articles concerning the individuals? And I'm not being one-sided here; I don't think a bunch of quotes about what a great contribution to psychology, sociology, or popular culture Leary may have had in the opinions of this or that colleague or journalist belongs in the Hippie article either. My argument remains that the job of the editors is to help create an article that objectively describes Hippies, not one that reports on different people's judgements of their worth, or that of those they admired.Rosencomet 18:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, my comments were about the notion that there is a "need" for material showing that "Hippies had negative effects on the world that should be stated in the article" because "The hippie article reads like everything hippies did was good and that hippies did nothing wrong". I disagree with both statements; I don't think this article says any such thing, nor do I think it "needs" judgements on the "goodness" or "badness" of Hippies, nor do I think such material would be encyclopedic. I don't think you actually disagree with this, Viriditas. So let's leave any arguments about Leary and what his detractors have said about him to the Leary article if necessary. Why continue here when we really don't disagree on the issue this thread began with?
- As for Krassner, Metzner, and other's reactions to the Greenfield book, just search on the topic. And bad reviews are not hard to find, like this one [9]. Here's something from Metzner:
- "Robert Greenfield’s recently published biography of Tim Leary — a sensationalist hatchet job of character assassination — has resulted in a slew of mainstream media review articles which basically echo Greenfield’s cynical, so-superior, moralistic put-down. Apparently, Leary’s message was so threatening, that even 10 years after his death, mainstream media still find ways to negate it. In an ironic development that Leary would have found uproariously funny, a second biography, by English writer John Higgs, also appeared this year — a very different and admirably balanced portrayal." - Ralph Metzner
- And this one: Subject: Neal Pollack on Greenfield on Leary (Aug 14/21)
- "Neal Pollack’s review inanely parrots the hatchet-job that Robert Greenfield has penned as a supposedly “comprehensive biography” of Timothy Leary. Apparently main-stream publishers and national magazines still can’t resist the temptation to pontificate in moral judgment over a generation of seekers who were turned on by the creative possibilities of consciousness expansion, and turned off by their culture’s addictions to consumerism and militarism. (Pollack approvingly quotes Greenfield’s condescending dismissal of the sixties counterculture as “a freaky mirror image of mainstream celebrity-obsessed America”.) Pollack thinks Greenfield’s book is “an epically thrilling, wicked epitaph for the vain, bizarre, self-promoting guru”. But you have to wonder, why spend 600 pages on a sustained job of character assassination of a man who’s been dead for almost ten years and presumably no longer a threat to anyone? Greenfield has zero understanding nor, apparently, real interest in the potentials of psychedelics, nor of Leary’s bold and irreverent attempts to explore these potentials. As a close collaborator of Leary and Alpert, both at Harvard and Millbrook, and a life-long friend of both men, my regret at having naïvely agreed to talk with Greenfield is only tempered by the realization that he would have written his hit-piece anyway. Of course Leary had his faults, like any man. One thing I do know is that he also had the capacity to laugh at himself and his failings, to treat everyone he encountered with total respect and generosity, and without malice. At a time when university research projects are starting to replicate studies that our Harvard project published over 40 years ago, those who would like a deeper understanding of the man and his visionary work should read the eminently fair and balanced biography, only published in the UK so far, by John Higgs, -- I Have America Surrounded."
- Ralph Metzner, Ph.D.
- Professor Emeritus, California Institute of Integral Studies
- Co-author, The Psychedelic Experience.
- Rosencomet 22:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike Jesse Walker's naive review and Metzner's self-interested editorial (Metzner is the co-author of The Psychedelic Experience with Timothy Leary), Paul Krassner's interview with author John Higgs regarding this very issue hits the target. Perhaps Walker and Metzner can learn a thing or two from Higgs:
- "Most of the mud that has been slung at Leary is perfectly true, but you can be factually accurate and wildly misleading at the same time. For instance, if someone asked me to describe Winston Churchill, I could say he was a mentally ill drunk who lost the 1945 UK General Election. And I'd be factually correct, but that wouldn't mean I was being fair, or that I'd nailed the essence of the man. With Leary, for everyone with a complaint against him, there are countless people who credit him with enriching their lives on a very profound level, and I don't understand the desire to ignore this. Ultimately, you can't hope to understand why he did what he did if you refuse to look at the ideas that drove him. Leary was too complicated a figure to dismiss as either a saint or a moron, as many people try to. He's probably the best example of the "trickster" archetype that the 20th Century produced, and his ambiguity is key to understanding him. The crux of his philosophy was the extent to which the reality that appears to be external to us is actually a model constructed by our own minds, a model that we are responsible for and which in certain circumstances can change. This is a frightening and unsettling idea, but it is also liberating. The implication is that if you hear someone describe Leary as a saint or as a moron, then they are not really telling you anything about Tim, but revealing something about themselves. Leary used to say, "You get the Timothy Leary you deserve." (He was being willfully antagonistic here, I think. It would perhaps be fairer to say that you get the Timothy Leary you want.) The upshot of all this, of course, is that it is only right and fitting that we hear so many wildly different opinions about him. Perversely, it validates his ideas."
—Viriditas | Talk 00:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
More
Maybe be more specific. Put more images. 170.185.232.10 17:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify; more specific about what? What kind of images? —Viriditas | Talk 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Removal of Road Junky
I removed the Road Junky citation from the lead.[10] This was in reference to the claim that the "Beatles gave tens of thousands of hippies the dream their answers were to be found in the East". The lead section really needs to be trimmed and the article body developed to include WP:RS to these types of statements. I don't think an anonymous blog post on Road Junky qualifies as reliable. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Floating Lotus Magic Opera Company
The lead section previously linked to this reference which supported the theatre detail in the lead; However, there is no mention or discussion of theatre in the article, specifically concerning Floating Lotus Magic Opera Company, the group that the link refers to. Per WP:LEAD, section zero should only summarize the article, not introduce new information. Please help add this information into the article if it is notable. —Viriditas | Talk 03:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll work on adding a section. Floating Lotus was indeed one of the most notable creations of the late 60's hippie community and found its main inspiration in the trauma of the Vietnam War. As such it was both cultural and political. Performances were well-structured, beautifully performed and well-attended. There was also a communal aspect to Floating Lotus, since the group (which numbered approximately fifty persons) lived communally for a time on virgin redwood acreage located just south of San Francisco. Apostle12 20:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs its own section. What we need is a discussion of the inextricable theatrical components of the hippie movement. This is a very interesting topic for expansion, as it looks like there is a historical continuum of development with origins in the history of theatre, especially the influence of traveling theatrical groups in the Commedia dell'arte style, happenings in the 1950s, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, and the breaking down of the fourth wall in the Acid Tests and early music festivals, leading to the establishment of the modern rock concert. Aside from summarizing this in the main article, the meat and potatoes should be split off into the "culture" article (or whatever you want to call it). —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, in the Lotus productions we made a conscious effort to break down the fourth wall.
- I don't think it needs its own section. What we need is a discussion of the inextricable theatrical components of the hippie movement. This is a very interesting topic for expansion, as it looks like there is a historical continuum of development with origins in the history of theatre, especially the influence of traveling theatrical groups in the Commedia dell'arte style, happenings in the 1950s, the San Francisco Mime Troupe, and the breaking down of the fourth wall in the Acid Tests and early music festivals, leading to the establishment of the modern rock concert. Aside from summarizing this in the main article, the meat and potatoes should be split off into the "culture" article (or whatever you want to call it). —Viriditas | Talk 02:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- One night in particular comes to mind during a performance of "Apocalypse Bliss" at John Hinkle Park in Berkeley. At the end of the last scene, the cast members emerged naked through the palm frond "curtain," moved up into the audience and brought the entire audience down to the area in front of the stage to share food and drink and to dance. One elderly couple remains fresh in my memory, radiant white-haired octogenarians dancing with naked twenty-somethings. Apostle12 07:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I can genuinely appreciate the beauty of that scene, Apostle12, as well as the metaphorical nature of the relationship between the baby boomers and their parental audience. There's a rich tapestry here on so many levels. Perhaps you can help integrate the theatrical aspects of the movement with the current article; this is very much needed. I think you (or another editor) mentioned the "playful" aspects of the hippies before; this is a primary theme we should see throughout the article, as I find it emerging from the text in every analysis. Thank you for sharing your memories. —Viriditas | Talk 04:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- One night in particular comes to mind during a performance of "Apocalypse Bliss" at John Hinkle Park in Berkeley. At the end of the last scene, the cast members emerged naked through the palm frond "curtain," moved up into the audience and brought the entire audience down to the area in front of the stage to share food and drink and to dance. One elderly couple remains fresh in my memory, radiant white-haired octogenarians dancing with naked twenty-somethings. Apostle12 07:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Remove unsourced about women, afros, long hair.
Please source this information before adding it back into the article: —Viriditas | Talk 23:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hippie women tended to wear little or no conventional makeup, preferring a more natural look; when makeup was worn it was generally for dramatic effect. Many white people associated with the American Civil Rights Movement and the 1960s counterculture, especially those with curly or "nappy" hair, wore their hair in afros in earnest imitation of African-Americans. "Long-hair" became a pejorative term among those who disliked hippies.[citation needed]
- I've been able to source some of of this in a tertiary source: Secondhand Clothes and Tie-Dyed Shirts: Antifashion and the Hippie Influence." American Decades. Ed. Vincent Tompkins. Vol. 7: 1960-1969. Detroit: Gale, 2001. 10 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. I'll add back in what is stated in that citation. —Viriditas | Talk 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Viriditias' proposal to add a section called "Culture of the Hippies"
"Culture of the Hippies" sounds somewhat overblown to me, because the movement proper lasted such a short time and I see culture as something that develops, and becomes deeply rooted, during many generations.
However there was such a thing as "hippie culture" and, more specifically, a "hippie ethos." Hippiedom was, after all, an idea--something along the lines of:
- "We are each conscious creators, and we can choose to re-fashion the world we live in along more loving, compassionate lines. We must not be limited by the societal, governmental and cultural structures we create--such structures are often antithetical to the essential, moment-to-moment practice of loving one's fellow man. Life is a banquet and most poor folks are starving (quoting Auntie Mame)."
The remarkable thing about the hippie phenomenon was that this idea did indeed take root, to the extent that contemporary Western culture would hardly be recognizable had hippies never existed.
I have attempted in the past to add information regarding the beautiful, central idea of the hippie ethos from works authored by Stewart Brand, Stephen Gaskin and others, sourcing same as best I can. Perhaps you might better tolerate the addition of such information in the section you propose.
What exactly to call it? I am open to suggestion.Apostle12 20:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article needs a section summarizing the most notable people in the hippie movement. If Stewart Brand is one of those people, then let's add a Stewart Brand section with that quote. I also want to see a short section about Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, and anyone else you think deserves mention. The "Culture of the hippies" title pertains to splitting all the culture-related information out of this article and into a new one, leaving a summary in its place. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Syn and or tags
The citations provided do not say anything about the legacy of the hippies and interracial dating, hence the syn tags. I will add these tags back in and/or remove the material unless it is properly supported. The Red Dog material has the same problems. A quote from one musician needs a RS, and has been interpreted to read something beyond the sources offered. —Viriditas | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to find specific sourcing for the multiracial nature of the hippie world. I have objected previously to the characterization of hippies as "white," since they were white, asian and other in about the same proportion as the general population. (Yes, I know there is a source who wrote that hippies were mainly white, but this characterization distorts the reality nonetheless.) In fact one of the most notable features of hippie culture was a marked willingness to see others as simply people, with little attention paid to race. Interracial dating was practiced by a large percentage of hippies, far beyond what was prevalent in the general population. It was definitely considered 'cool.'
- I'm not sure what this means: "A quote from one musician needs a RS.." Apostle12 20:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- See this diff and this external link. The quote refers to Chandler Laughlin, but the wiki text adds George Hunter, and I haven't found a source that states that the Charlatans were the first psychedelic rock band to play live on LSD. Sources generally agree that they were innovative: one sources writes, "...many feel they were the first acid rock band" (McCleary, 2004, p. 89). The multiracial sources said nothing about hippies, and this has more to do with the civil rights movement. I removed the following: "Interracial dating and marriage have become common and generally accepted. [6] Multiracial children of such unions—like Tiger Woods, Keanu Reeves and Barack Obama—enjoy a certain cachet."[7] There's nothing about hippies in either of those links. Something that should be added: Due to its proximity to the Fillmmore, the Haight-Ashbury on the West Coast was an interracial neighborhood during the counterculture of the 1960s (Echols, 2002, p.42; Lee & Shlain, 1992, p. 41). The subject of interracial relationships was expressed in the music of the counterculture, in hippie musicals like Hair (1967), (Perone, 2004, p. 10) and in hippie films such as Jesus Christ Superstar (1973). —Viriditas | Talk 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Laughlin source is a partial substantiation of the "proto-hippie" line. I might well have added the "Works" source, since in the film both Luria Castell and Ellen Harman refer to Laughlin AND Hunter as "the first hippies they ever saw." (I have now done so.) This is not synthesis, this is summarization and writing about something in one's own words. Why did you eliminate the Laughlin quote? All it needed was something more about Hunter.
- Did you read "The Red Dog Saloon And The Amazing Charlatans"? The author clearly states that the ingestion of LSD before the Charlatans' audition performance was "unprecedented."
- The article used to contain material that referred to the fact that hippies were active in the civil rights movement, and specifically it spotlighted their opposition to anti-miscegenation laws. Rather than just request a source, you deleted this entirely, thus removing the antecedent for the material (also now deleted) underscoring the fact that interracial dating is now generally accepted and multiracial children are considered somewhat "cool." Now this very important aspect of hippie culture, and the legacy attached to it, are entirely missing. How discouraging!
- It is important to remember that no civil rights leader during the 1960's (including MLK) could come out in favor of interracial dating and marriage. To do so would have played into segregationist warnings, e.g. "You wouldn't want your daughter to marry one..." Of the three 1960's counterculture groups, hippies were the most prominent in arguing for the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws...AND they just went ahead and dated outside their race. These were black hippies, white hippies, asian hippies and native american hippies (can't recall many latino hippies). They didn't just talk about it, in true hippie fashion they went ahead and did it, flouting convention and the law, and it became commonplace. Now society accepts it. What do you want, a source that says, "Thank God for the hippies, otherwise interracial dating would still be taboo and multiracial children would still be ostracized"? Founders4 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced etymology content
Removed to talk page. Please provide sources. —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ironically, many of those involved in the developing counterculture scene latched onto the gratuitous use of the term "hippie" by the largely un-hip media, and began labeling each other with it in tongue-in-cheek fashion. The jest eventually became so ingrained that they came to identify with the label. In the same way, non-narcotic drugs came to be called "dope" through the habitual imitation of those who used such catchall terminology out of ignorance. Put-ons and goofs were a common trait of hipsters, who took great pleasure in living up to bizarre stereotypes when confronting the outside world.
Proposal regarding the "Red Dog" section
I would like to suggest that the Red Dog section is split in to two separate sections, one dealing with the Berkeley coffee shops and one with the Red Dog Saloon - as it already touches on both subjects. I would also be please to assist in any way that I can. I have already included a correction about the involvement of Chan Laughlin with the Jabberwock. Thanks, RossChickenOnAUnicycle 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think a short mention is appropriate as an introduction to the connection between the beat/coffee house/folk scene in early to mid-1960's Berkeley and developments at the Red Dog. Such an introduction establishes a clear link between late beat culture and early hippie culture. However, the level of detail recently added to the article seems inappropriate to me, so I have deleted much of it
- It is good information, though. I think it would better fit separate articles on the Cabale Creamery and the Jabberwock. Thanks for contributing. Apostle12 04:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite
I think as a small term project parts of this article should be edited as most of it is written as if the hippies have totally disapeared this is biased against the remaining communes and groups. just my opinion
84.71.53.76 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking as a self-described hippie, I'd have to disagree. The article accurately reflects the comparative rarity and cultural insignificance of the remaining hippies, while addressing the influence of the hippie movement on the broader culture. Compared to our heyday, we are just a vanishing memory. --Orange Mike 14:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Festivals
I added the OR tag to the festivals section due to a number of unverified claims; it is claimed that the "tradition of hippie festivals began in the United States in 1965 with Ken Kesey's Acid Tests" however this exact claim has yet to be substantiated. For example, from 1958-1965 the Newport Folk Festival was popular with the youth culture, and according to Britta Sweers, "folk music was increasingly integrated into youth activism such as the demonstrations against the Vietnam War" and began "mixing with the hippie movement" and contributed to new "hybrid" forms of music. Before and during 1965-1970, American Folk Rock was "played by groups related to the hippie movement". Folk Rock became a term "for the various bands of the hippie culture who experimented with drugs, and would go, like Jefferson Airplane, in the psychedelic direction." (Sweers, Britta, (2005). Electric Folk: The Changing Face of English Traditional Music. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195158784) —Viriditas | Talk 06:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, these historical perspectives might well be incorporated into this section. Nothing stands on its own, after all. Depends, I suppose, on how one defines "hippie" festival, as opposed to "folk music" festival. The religious quality that characterized Grateful Dead performances (much noted and easily referenced) did begin with the "Acid Tests, and it was this spirit that kept people coming back for more. Thirty years of "more," much in keeping with Miller's description of hippies as "a new religious movement." Apostle12 08:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm glad you explained. I'll attempt to help source the section in a little bit, but as it stands right now, it reads as OR. Luckily, I have some sources that I found while doing some research a few months ago, and I'll see if we can use them. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it does read as OR and that sourcing is needed. As you may have noticed, I was moving things around in this section to try to create some sense of order, since I had been less than pleased with the changes that were introduced some months ago. As I was trying out various options, I realized that the historical perspective was completely missing. Having little time, I simply added what I thought was one well established fact that might at least hint at a "beginning."
- Ok, I'm glad you explained. I'll attempt to help source the section in a little bit, but as it stands right now, it reads as OR. Luckily, I have some sources that I found while doing some research a few months ago, and I'll see if we can use them. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Making mention of the precedents (again we have a tie-in to the Beat era and the '50's folk scene), would much improve this section. Look forward to seeing your revisions. Apostle12 15:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
History of the hippie movement
I've split the history section off to History of the hippie movement. Please make an effort to expand that article and to use this article as a general overview of the most important aspects of the movement. I've summarized the antecedent section, however much of the lead section should be moved into an overview of the history and the lead replaced with a summary of this article. —Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas *IS* a Reliable Source.
Just wanted to call attention to a sample of some of Viriditas' recent verdicts on hippie-dom, as gleaned from his most recent round of edit summaries; I think we can all learn from his wisdom and authority. Remember, these are not opinions, they are solid facts, because Viriditas, being Viriditas, IS a reliable source.
- "If there is one thing we don't need, it's a 250 pixel image of an art car" -- says Viriditas.
- "Please stop adding 'later renamed San Francisco State University'. Nobody cares." -- says Viriditas. Viriditas just clearly stated that "nobody cares", so remember - if you think you care, you are either wrong, or just a nobody, by definition.
- "Removing Image:Freespiritartcar.jpg. It's a terrible photo." -- says Viriditas.
Viriditas has spoken. A note to everyone else. Who are you to question Viriditas? You are not Viriditas, therefore you do not OWN this article, so please, do not even attempt to challenge him. Thank you. 70.105.19.171 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm glad you picked up on my sense of humor. Or did you? Adding a lead that adheres to WP:LEAD (summarizes the article and globalizes the lead per talk page criticism), removing duplicate content (do we need to state that the hippie movement was incorporated into the mainstream three separate times), removing insignificant parentheticals (it is not important to the history of the hippie movement to tell the reader that a certain University was renamed, perhaps you should check the subject of this article), and removing poor images (a photograph of a car bumper from the distance!?) is not WP:OWN; it's called editing - why don't you try it? BTW, all content is still intact in the split article, History of the hippie movement. —Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alas, not being a Reliable Source myself, whenever I try editing, my changes are always subjected to little bothersome things like "consensus". We are indeed privileged to have someone here who can render these decisions, without having to bother with the whole rigamarole of sounding others out first. 70.105.19.171 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why would I need consensus to add an actual lead section, remove duplicate content, and horrible photos? Perhaps you enjoy looking at a low-res photo of an ugly car bumper from a distance, but I'm sure most people don't. Perhaps you enjoy reading that "hippies wore long hair" in two consecutive paragraphs, or looking at "citation needed" tags without adding references, but I certainly don't. I've also brought the article down from an unreadable 69 kilobytes to a reasonable 60. You want to make some changes? Go right ahead: there's a missing section on the year 1968 that needs to be added to both History of the hippie movement and summarized in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 13:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Alas, not being a Reliable Source myself, whenever I try editing, my changes are always subjected to little bothersome things like "consensus". We are indeed privileged to have someone here who can render these decisions, without having to bother with the whole rigamarole of sounding others out first. 70.105.19.171 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, obviously nothing exciting or notable of mention happened in 1968, it was a pretty boring and uneventful year for hippies (especially in Chicago!). See the article? Wikipedia would never lead you astray, would it? 70.105.19.171 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is the most important section of the article, and has yet to be written. I'm not just talking about the context of the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, as well as the 1968 Democratic National Convention, but how hippies felt and responded to these events. —Viriditas | Talk 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, obviously nothing exciting or notable of mention happened in 1968, it was a pretty boring and uneventful year for hippies (especially in Chicago!). See the article? Wikipedia would never lead you astray, would it? 70.105.19.171 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really? The most important? Funny, the way it reads at the moment, it would appear the consensus is that there is no need to waste our readers' time trying to inform them about trivial events that ought not to concern 'em, such as the year 1968. 70.105.19.171 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's one of dozens of things missing. The popularity of the Carousel Ballroom in 1968 is yet another. —Viriditas | Talk 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Really? The most important? Funny, the way it reads at the moment, it would appear the consensus is that there is no need to waste our readers' time trying to inform them about trivial events that ought not to concern 'em, such as the year 1968. 70.105.19.171 15:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear Anon 70.105.19.171, all this energy you're expending picking fights with other editors surely could be put to better use if you focused on improving the article and collaborating, yes? --MPerel 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Viriditas Takeover
I don't have time adequately to address the issue this morning, however I want to express my outrage that Viriditas has (once again) initiated a wholesale takeover of this article, completely ignoring compromises worked out over the past two years among several main editors.
This is an outrageous, arrogant approach. To leave the article for a single day and then to come back and find that it has been completely re-written is maddening. In the past Viriditas' approach has driven away several competent, conscientous editors. It threatens to do the same once again. I will be referring this matter to an administrator.Apostle12 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- All I see are improvements. Why not tone down the emotions, try not to overreact, collaborate reasonably, and communicate what specific edits you disagree with? btw, are the comments under ip 70.105.19.171 yours? --MPerel 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, those are not mine. Ironic that you are asking ME to "collaborate reasonably." Apostle12 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will say that the "bold" tactic of turning nearly every aspect of an article upside-down overnight with a minimum of discussion, has, in the past on wikipedia, usually turned out to be problematic. Nigel Barristoat 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please point out a single aspect of the article that has been turned "upside-down". All changes previous to my edit are completely intact, either in a split history section that we have talked about splitting for a very long time or in other sections (discussed previously on this page and a tag recommending splitting has appeared in the article for a long time). The previous "lead" appears as an overview completely unchanged, while the new lead attempts (still needs work) to actually summarize the article without requiring sources. Apostle12's claim that my changes are "completely ignoring compromises" is not supported in any way. Lastly, my attempts to globalize the lead have been supported by multiple editors on the talk page, while another previous editor discussed the inclusion of GLBT, which although I am having trouble sourcing, I have nevertheless added to the lead to represent their view. So contrary to the claims made above, I have endeavored to edit this article from the perspective of other editors rather than myself. The article was previously 69 kilobytes and now is hovering around 60. Any material that was removed can still be found in the newly split section, History of the hippie movement. —Viriditas | Talk 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will say that the "bold" tactic of turning nearly every aspect of an article upside-down overnight with a minimum of discussion, has, in the past on wikipedia, usually turned out to be problematic. Nigel Barristoat 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't try to pretend that you have not repeatedly turned this article upside down. As for the new lead, and your retention of the old lead as an "overview," the article now reads as though it has TWO leads--really a problem. I think one lead that incorporates all the relevent information would be much better.
- Also, please don't try to pretend that you have been in the forefront of trying to globalize the lead--you had to be dragged by multiple editors, kicking and screaming, before you allowed the lead to move in that direction. It became a true "edit war," with you doing your usual dance--reverting every attempt based on unreasonably literal demands for verification.
- "Viriditas works well with others"--NOT!Apostle12 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- ^ Fine, Everett, 1973, Putnam County Courier."
- ^ http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/278/16698, retrieved 24 March 2007
- ^ http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIa.htm, retrieved 18 December 2006
- ^ a b Gaskin, 1970, Np
- ^ Fine, Everett, 1973, Putnam County Courier."
- ^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18090277/, retrived 4 August 2007
- ^ http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050428/news_1c28multi.html, retrieved 4 August 2007