::::::::::::Okay, here is a photo of a San Francisco urban commune that provides, among other things, an example of what I meant by "sartorially diverse", and it is available by Creative Commons license. On the downside, it is in black-and-white, which I know is a problem for some people, and it was taken in 1972, when (in the US, at least) the folks this article calls "hippies" were far more likely to self-describe as "freaks". It would be a valuable addition to the meager hippie-related material on Wikimedia Commons in any case, so perhaps someone familiar with the appropriate licensing template there, which I am not, would take on the task of uploading it? A number of other interesting images are available from the same source. Just for the sake of balance, here is one showing a rural commune. I wonder how many of those "tie-dye diaper babies" rebelled against their parents by moving to the gritty city, spiking their hair, and doing a stretch of years as hippie-hating "punks"? 
 ::::::::::::According to the edit history, Bell Bottom Girl, already transformed from "Young girl wearing ..." into "Hippie ...", was "rotated" into the lede spot at 01:08, 12 September 2011, over three years ago now. Where were the itchy "undo" trigger fingers and demands for prior consensus when that happened? For evidence that "hippie" does indeed mean a style of clothing to some people, one need look no farther than the top of this talk page, where "WikiProject Fashion" appears as one of the project categories, but that is not what 99 percent of the article's text is about and it is not what the lede image should be conveying. The sad truth is that more than a few people turning to WP to figure out what a hippie was/is will be forming their impressions based more on the most prominent image than on the text, so that IMO even with a revised caption the young lady is continuing to do actual harm where she is and needs to be moved out of that spot SOON.