Talk:Rainbow Family

message: It appears that a series of IPs have been inserting the following text to the end of the Incidents section: ([sample edit)
:To date, the ACLU has not proven any wrongdoing by the Forest Service.
There are a few problems with this, first it simply exists (unsourced) to inject POV to the paragraph.  The preceding paragraph already adequately spells out information showing both sides on the incident (although it doesn't appear to mention ACLU's findings: see here).  An additional sentence is not needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The attempt to push a POV is pretty blatant here. And quite tiresome. I'm glad I'm not the only one watching. Dlabtot (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the wording in the prior paragraphs could use some work.  Specifically, the quotes are one-sided and should be removed.  All we need are the documented facts presenting both sides; quotes from one side without off-setting quotes from the other isn't a neutral tone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The facts of a situation sometimes are 'one-sided'.  In such cases, artificial attempts to create 'balance' often results in a false equivalence.  But by all means, see what you can do to improve the text. Dlabtot (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to address the concerns I had with the quotes, then worked in additional material from the ACLU's report on the incident.  Take a look and let me know your take on the rewording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks fine to me. A bit staccato. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, the two sentences "Pepper balls were then fired to control the crowd. Witnesses reported that officers pointed weapons at children and fired rubber bullets at gathering participants." came across that way to me, but I just left them in as part of the initial wording of the paragraph - could probably use some more adjustments there, but I'll leave that to someone else to copyedit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Your opinions and conclusions about what is 'fact' are irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ACLU report did not prove anything - true.  But irrelevant, there are an infinite number of things the report 'did not prove' - and there is no reason for this article to list any of them.  Also it is a conclusion that constitutes original research unless cited to a reliable source.  So if you were, for example, to find an newspaper editorial that expressed that viewpoint, it might be worth putting in the article. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest you begin by familiarizing yourself with the Wikipedia policies to which you have been directed. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It's like you aren't even reading the comments to which you are allegedly responding. Please re-read the comment above the one you just made and respond appropriately.  Don't just repeat yourself - actually try to engage in a dialogue. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Look, it's clear you have a strong viewpoint, but Wikipedia is not the place to push your viewpoint. We are writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources according to our WP:NPOV policy.  Dlabtot (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents - POV addition 

message: :This one incident is covered in the Rainbow_Gathering Rainbow Gathering page. Lots for things have happened at gatherings, this page is about the family, so I'll remove/move it there, unless or course there are some good reason for it to stay here. Slowart (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: The revision previous made to the Pinedale incident by Slowart strips the incident from the incident. The point of the incident section is to eloborate where, when, why, and who was involved and give perspective on the incident. Eliminating facts, like the Forest Service being forced to remove the Boy Scouts, or the subsequent feelings of the state officials, is to strip out the meaning of the event. There was much more to the event than was evidenced by Slowarts revision, thus it was reverted. It may not be a perfect revision, though I kept your source. This is not a biased perspective, it is relating the facts of the event. Boy Scouts Had Permit, Were Going to Rehab Area > Rainbow Family Decided to Camp Where Boy Scouts Were Going to Camp (conflict) > State is Forced to Kick Out Boy Scouts (remedial action)> Boy Scouts and State are Left With Hurt Feelings (Resolution). There is nothing biased in that recitation of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kage a (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 October 2011‎
:Please sign you posts. 4 tildes. Please notice the this incident is covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Gathering#Relations_with_law_enforcement this page is about "Rainbow Family" that incident that you replaced also cites World Daily Net as source that is notoriously bias and will not pass if we take it to a source check notice-board. Also note the 2nd cite contradicts the text and says the boy scouts decided (Not booted by forest service).Slowart (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow Family Incident: Pinedale 

message: This statement is false. In this link http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/om-on-the-range/Content?oid=1134423 it mentions the incident team's Budget is $750,000. It makes no mention of what final operating costs are. Thanks Goldendelicious1 (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Forest Service Incident Management team cost federal taxpayers $750,000 in 2006" 

message: Rainbow Family Of Living Light, been a doing since 1978, and The Gatherings part the {Main article: Rainbow Gathering} is wrong needs to have the wrong {Family} 
so it reads Rainbow Family Gather, not just shortened the word FAMILY is the most important part as it is to reflect that it is a family gathering, noting on family. Not doing so is bring in all the party kids and festy kids and and that not what rainbow is about, why I am here to try and help as the kids reading what rainbow is here are not coming to pray for peace but to party due to how this is wrote and need to add the reason everyone gathers which is the invitation
that brought everyone to one place to gather cause this is what rainbow family of living light is about; 2601:205:8001:4C26:5181:1494:AA2E:4E1F (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rainbow Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015055723/http://americanfestivalsproject.net/2009/07/29/lost-in-a-world-of-rainbows/ to http://americanfestivalsproject.net/2009/07/29/lost-in-a-world-of-rainbows/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904104738/http://inciweb.org/incident/2950/ to http://inciweb.org/incident/2950/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-officials-not-happy-with-rainbow-family-cleanup-after-woodsy/article_21b2a239-4aea-5413-86f7-08ed41a26cdc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I wikilinked both, North Table Mountain and South Table Mountain (Colorado). Which one was it? Tomdo08 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Mountain(s) 

message: , Your edit removed content, wikilinks, and sourcing. It was not just a re-ordering of sections. If you want to re-organize sections, discuss that here. But be accurate with your edit summaries. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the edit more carefully, I only reordered content and did no editing with that revision. There was one duplicated section that I removed. Daask (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Look. At. The. Diff. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: You removed section headers. You renamed sections. You removed wikilinks. You added content. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed a hatnote. I moved content around. I added and removed section headings. I did not add or remove body text, references, or wikilinks. Daask (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Upon closer inspection, I think the confusion is derived from the fact that there was a duplicate paragraph that I removed, and the named citation was in that paragraph, which was inadvertently removed. I kept the version of the paragraph with two citations instead of one, without realizing that it used the named citation. Daask (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All of that is editing, so your edit summary is not accurate. You cut the link to , And you changed the focus of sections by renaming them, such as cutting Misrepresentation of Hopi legend and changing it to Cultural Appropriation. Other edits you made, such as adding new sub-headers for sections like Violence are OK, in my estimation. The problem is that you are misrepresenting your edits, and then doubling down on the misrepresentation when it is pointed out. Don't do that. If you want to add in sub-headers for things like violence, that's OK, but don't cut the stuff about misrepresenting the Hopi, or the wikilinks. And don't misrepresent what you're doing here. It's confusing to other editors and a violation of Wikipedia policy. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reorganizing Sections" 

message: I'm 66yrs old. I was a Rainbow in the 70's. Here's a cite for your article. 1st. Amendment right to gather .The Supreme Court. Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) upheld the requirement of a permit for public gatherings on public streets and parks. However, the Court also recognized that this requirement cannot be used to suppress free expression and assembly. The Court has since clarified that permits for public gatherings are permissible to regulate time, place, and manner, but cannot be used to discriminate against particular viewpoints or make it unduly difficult to exercise First Amendment rights. So while permits are often required, the government cannot charge fees that would inhibit the exercise of free speech and assembly on public lands.
2603:8081:8A00:4A4C:59C6:242C:482D:38DB (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite needed