Talk:Hippie/Archive 3

message: I have deleted this section, which is very silly. None of the words given were specific to the hippies, and their derivations from African languages, presumably via 300 years of African-American usage, is highly dubious. And even if it's true, so what? Psychedelic comes from Ancient Greek words, but what does that prove? Adam 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hippie slang and the Wolof language 

message: I think you should remove the Doors from this page. Jim Morrison was not a hippie nor should he be associated with hippies. 27 November 2006
:From Korky Day:  Thanks for your comment on Nov. 27.  I did a light show for the Doors in 1967 or 1968.
:At the time, as now, there was a lot of debate about who was and who wasn't a hippie.  A great many hippies rejected the description hippies simply because they didn't want to be "pigeon-holed" with any label at all, except maybe human being, not that they had any serious disagreements with hip culture.  Others rejected the word because they disagreed with some serious or trivial aspect of alleged hippie ideals or practice.  Because of media stereotyping, people would say to me that they'd like to be a hippie, but they couldn't because they weren't allowed to have long hair at their job.  I assured them that hip is a state of mind and heart, not dependent on appearance.
:Aside from fears of stereotyping, the word hippie, like any word, can have strict or lenient interpretations.  Morrison, though a drunk, was definitely trying to be hip, and partly succeeding, to my medium-lenient interpretation.  Haven't you heard or read his lyrics?  Likewise with the other Doors.  I don't know if Jim accepted the word to describe himself, but he was certainly right in the thick of the movement.  Are we going to re-possess his Hippie Membership Card because he wasn't as perfect as you and I are?  No, that wouldn't be accurate--or hip.  2006 Dec. 13. --Korky Day, an old hippie, korkyday @ yahoo.com .  Korky Day 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanx, Korky, you said it better than I could. Don't know who the anonymous poster was, but the comment seems to reek of snobbery (on one side or the other: "Morrison was too commercial to be a hippie" or "Morrison was too cool to be a hippie"; can't tell which). --Orange Mike 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps snobbery, but to give Anonymous the benefit of the doubt, maybe they "bought into" the stereotyping or has some other misunderstanding which we are helping to clear up. Korky Day 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the Doors 

message: "By 1968, self-described hippies had become a large minority, representing less than 0.2 percent of the U.S. population."
That is just a poor sentence really... it should probably be more like
"By 1968, self-described hippies had become a large minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population."
SeanJA 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks.  Next time just go for it ;). ∴ here…♠ 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Sentence 

message: Though I reallize that nudity is a serious aspect of the Hippie Mentality, one should consider that Wikipedia is used in school, and maybe this photo should be toned down or censored...
Political Analysis 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo conveys something important--public nudity need not have prurient connotations.  The photo is entirely innocent. That Wikipedia is primarily founded on words is a tragedy, largely the result of restrictive internal copyright policies.  For a brief time the "Hippie" article had many beautiful photos shot by noted photographer Robert Altman.  Unfortunately he could not protect his copyright and they had to be removed.  The visual arts, including photographs, are a valuable communication tool that helped spread hippie culture worldwide.  Apostle12 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Have a look at Wikipedia is not censored. Tyrenius 17:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Political Analysis (above 26 Dec. 2006) I say that a good teacher will use the students' "laughter" and "distraction" as wonderful teaching opportunities.  By censoring that, you promote boredom and alienation, some of education's worst enemies.  I come from a family of teachers. You haven't said why you wouldn't censor the words, too. Korky Day 07:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I carry a sign that says "Nudist" around town, I'm OK.  If I'm walking around nude, I'm going to jail - it's considered indecent, no matter how innocent the context and purpose or debates about ideas versus depictions.  Why shouldn't we apply the same rule to photographs?  That What Wikipedia Is Not citiation says that the material in question needs to be relevant.  The photo is, agreed, non-pornographic and at least somewhat educational, but it is more or less unneccessary and more problems than its worth.  Saying that hippies had little issue with nudity isn't going to get someone at work or school potentially in trouble, and it gets across the idea.  A half-screen photo a reasonable person could consider indecent (this is neither a work of art or a medical diagram, nor even as educational as National Geographic, it's simply a naked hippie), very well might.  If someone is surfing Wikipedia and just navigates to Hippie, they cannot reasonably expect to see a topless woman (again, What Wikipedia Is Not points out that surfing to "Pornography" will show you just that, I don't think Hippie is the same, this may more closely approach 'shock').  So, I vote we remove or simply link to the photograph.  CSZero 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several problems.  You missed my point completely about the words possibly "corrupting" youth, like the photos, though more legally (like your sign "Nudist").  Furthermore, the photo has no nudity.  Only topfree.  Topfree is legal throughout New York state, other places in the USA, here in Canada, much of Africa and Asia, etc.  So to cave in to the narrow view in some states that breasts are obscene and not for children, is to make this encyclopedia a parochial (and anti-breastfeeding) and not international, reference.  Then it should be called the USA Christian Right Children's Wikipedia.  If you want to create such an encyclopedia elsewhere, please do so.  Even if you could argue that nudity wasn't important to hippies, you would still have the problem of those curious little minds looking in the Wikipedia entries on nudity, anatomy, Renaissance art, etc.   You want to take nude illustrations out of them, too?  As a small child in the 1950s, I found lots of nudity in all the adult encyclopedias.  I read the adult encyclopedias at age 7--in addition to the censored children's encyclopedias I read.  Your narrow view that nudity without a medical, artistic, or anthropological excuse is indecent is totally illogical, neurotic, and has no place here corrupting our attempted objectivity.  If some teachers can't handle that in class, they won't even allow Wikipedia at all.  We cannot cater to them.  Anyone who "navigates" to Hippie really must expect a little "shock" here and there.  That's at the core of hippiedom.  Otherwise you end up with a Disney version of hippies who never have orgasms, take drugs, challenge the law, question authority, question religion, refuse to kill, go on strike, etc.  (I envision the Partridge Family!)  Those who want to categorize hippie-ism as essentially religious are making a similar mistake in my opinion.  You'd have a better argument if you said that the photo isn't representative enough.  The hippies in the photo don't look average enough.  It needs to be not censored, but balanced by the addition of photos with male nudity, non-White hippies, hippies of more average attractiveness, all ages, etc. Korky Day 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand your points, but somebody else already removed it.  I would've rather have just linked it.  If for some reason you find it neccessary to see some topless person in a field to "learn" something, you should be able to click it.  But the average person, in many first world nations, that is those with computers, (and I spent time in New York and NEVER saw anyone waltzing around with a shirt off [even though it is legal], which has very little to do with discretely breastfeeding by the way), who's browsing this encyclopedia at home or work or whatever is very aware what breasts look like, and won't learn anything new from the illustration.  But it may cause an uncomfortable moment when they have to explain what they're looking at to their boss, and saying hippies are supposed to make people uncomfortable won't fly.  The pictures of different grades of shit on the Diarrhea article is more helpful than this.  Wikipedia isn't by definition a work-safe encyclopedia, but if the content is there (linking isn't censorship), why not make it as accessable as possible?  By the way, I'm pretty far from the religious right. CSZero 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your support, Apostle12, and your sincerity and flexibility, CSZero. No pictures are strictly "necesary", but a well-chosen one saves a thousand words, as the saying goes. This particular one might not be the best possible picture of all, but it does convey a lot of good information specific to this article. As I said, add more pictures for balance, rather than taking pictures away. Korky Day 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, Xshare, but Wikipedia, like almost all illustrated adult encyclopedias, has similar mild examples of semi-nudity. If you are sitting in a library, turn the page of Encyclopaedia Britannica and unexpectedly find a photo of Venus de Milo, which is more explicit than this example, are you going to panic? Will your reputation be ruined as a porno freak? Korky Day 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nambassa Day Photo 

message: I think the area for "Edit Summary" should have a much larger capacity. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to say all they want to say about why they are making the changes they are making, especially as concerns the reverts of someone else's writing. The Talk page is a good thing, but it is too far away to for the immediate explanation that is called for. I think the "Edit Summary" should be further divided into a "brief" section and a slightly "extended" section. The "extended" section should still be limited. But it should allow several times the length of writing that the present "Edit Summary" allows for. Bus stop 14:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi.  This talk page is really only used to discuss the article.  You may want to post the above at WP:PUMP. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions to Wikipedia concerning the "Edit Summary" area: 

message: The Communalist Movement to which you refer seems overrepresented at present.  The section on the Summer of Love makes it sound as though the majority of hippies who came to San Francisco (with flowers in their hair) immediately went off to found communes in the locales mentioned.
Just one problem--it didn't happen.  The vast majority of hippies went home to their communities of origin, influenced other budding hippies, and the movement spread.  Only a small minority of hippies joined communes, and most of those stayed for only brief periods. Apostle12 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed adding this section some time ago, and there was never any objection. According to Gale's Encyclopedia of American Religions, the third phase of American communal history concerns communes founded after 1960.  These countercultural communes were part of the hippie movement, and were rooted in the youth who attended the Summer of Love during 1967.  In its aftermath, some hippies moved into rural areas, in an effort to get back to the land, while others stayed in the cities and formed urban cooperatives.  Hippie communes were active until the 1980s, while   Christian and occult New Age communes developed in their wake. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't recall the discussion.  It's not that the countercultural communes didn't happen, and they were certainly a part of the hippie movement.  It's only that the way the section is written, it sounds as though the Communalist Movement was more significant than it actually was.  For example, if we accept the police estimate that 75,000-100,000 came to San Francisco during the summer of 1967, we need to account for those people.  Most communes were small, fewer than 100 people--were there 100 of these, I'm not sure?  Gaskin's The Farm was the largest that I am aware of, peaking at a population of approximately 1,200--and many of those people never attended the Summer of Love.  In any case it's difficult to account for more than 10,000 people participating in the commune experience.  That leaves an undetermined, but much larger, number of people who fanned out to major U.S. and Canadian cities--worldwide in fact. The main Summer of Love article seems pretty good on this, though it errs in the other direction and does not mention the Communalist Movement at all. Apostle12 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what you have written should be added, and I will try to help. —Viriditas | Talk 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks V.  I'll start working on sourcing.  Any ideas? Apostle12 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Timothy Miller is a good source, and both the Hippie Museum and The Farm websites are a good place to find his work  if you don't have access to his books. —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Apostle12 and others will like the re-wording I just put in today. Korky Day 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with emphasis on communes following Summer of Love 

message: Squeakbox, is the material you added regarding simultaneous development of hippie culture in the United Kingdom and elsewhere supported by the Hirsch reference, or do you need to add additional references to support this claim? We are talking specifically about the period prior to summer 1965 when U.S. hippies began to come into being as a distinct social group. "Rockin' At The Red Dog" documents this development in great detail. Apostle12 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hippie beginnings 

message: Weren't there hippies at a Washington proptest recently? That's what my history teacher told my class. Should this be mentioned in the article, or does it need a citation? Because I can't get one.72.11.37.92 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent hippies 

message: I've removed the globalize tag that someone added for several reasons.  One, the article contains a small sampling of global links, from festivals to the hippie trail, although they certainly need to be incorporated into the historical timeline.  As a start, I've moved Nambassa into the history section, as it seems to fit right in before 1981, which is basically the end of the hippie era, having morphed into the Nuclear freeze movement at that point. Whether or not Swinging London should be added is up for debate, as the hippies seemed to join the end of that era, replacing the Mods.  Hippie trail should be explored for obvious reasons.  It's likely that those who followed the hippie trail in the early years helped spread hippie values around the world.  So, the tag really serves no purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the Hippie movement in particular with countercultrual movements in general. Counterculture of the 1960s addresses this issue. Please give an example of "American centrism" in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous examples and citations of the hippie movement outside of the US in this article.  The "American centrism" claim doesn't seem to apply.  I removed the globalize template.  Feel free to let me know if that still seems inappropriate. - Authalic 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize tag 

message: Globalising tag sounds good. i have put the NPOV tag as its American centrism gives a false impression that hippies are a US phenomenon and this violates our WP:NPOV, it would have been fine in an old fashioned American encyclopedia but we are international,SqueakBox 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing the Hippie movement in particular with countercultrual movements in general. Counterculture of the 1960s addresses this issue. Please give an example of "American centrism" in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous examples and citations of the hippie movement outside of the US in this article.  The "American centrism" claim doesn't seem to apply.  I removed the globalize template.  Feel free to let me know if that still seems inappropriate. - Authalic 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: American centrism

message: Codes wrote: Sorry, but this article does not address the movement in Italy, UK, France, W. Germany, Canada, Australia and you seem to be resisting attempts to globalize the article.   
:Could someone provide good, reliable sources for the above? The counterculture of the 1960s should address global countercultural movements. This article should concern itself with Hippies, wherever they may be. Nobody is resisting attempts to do either. Tags should not be used to enforce POV. The issue has been raised, and sources have been requested. It is the POV of some editors that this article neglects to discuss international countercultural movements: a separate article exists for that purpose. It is the POV of some editors that this article fails to account for the origins of the Hippie movement in areas outside the U.S. and its influence around the world. The antecedents section addresses reliable sources for the former, and the legacy section the latter. If more sources can be found, wonderful, but I don't see how the tag is helping to do this, unlike, for example, my use of the list to prose tag in a section that requires immediate rewriting. So, unless something can be done to address the reasons for the tag, it doesn't have a purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an issue with the article quality that multiple editors have noticed and asked to be addressed. The purpose of the tag is not to push a POV, but to call for the problem to be corrected. It would not take too much to fix this problem. But there is clearly a resistance on your part to the call for more globalization, and it seems in your general estimation, other editors' assessment is outweighed by your own. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you challenging a source for? My edit summary? Shouldn't be hard. For starters, try looking up "Hippies" AND "Italy". There was a hippie scene in that country beginning in 1967 just like every other country in Europe, and obviously still is one today, instead of challenging this fact, find the best sources and write about it please and stop being so provincial. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A long string of editors have done all they can to address these concerns. Repeated bland reiterations of "It would not take too much to fix this problem. But there is clearly a resistance on your part to the call for more globalization" without any suggestion of ways in which this could be done seem to hint at a desire to create a quarrel rather than address the alleged problem. If this information is available, use it! Don't merely gesture languidly and say, "Oh, it's out there somewhere, I'm sure; you do the work!" Please, why not assume a little good faith on the part of the dozens of editors who have been working on this article and trying very sincerely to globalize. If you know something about these topics, contribute to them yourself, don't stand around sneering at provincialism. --Orange Mike 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see what I can do when I find the spare time, but in the meantime please nobody remove the tag until the problem is fixed, or accuse anyone of pushing a POV by means of the needed cleanup tag. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag. The topic is in active discussion, and we have discussed this topic before with the same conclusion. The tag serves no purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I restored the globalize tag yesterday and this article still needs globalizing. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting our readers know this. perhaps they can help and they can certainly keep it in mind as they read. Until all regular editors feel comfortable with removing the tag it should definitely stay. In this I am fully inn agreement with Codex, SqueakBox 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag. Why did you add it? Is there a source you want to see represented? Which author? Please help globalize the article by adding to it, not by removing sourced content showing that the movement started in the States. —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to see the article globalized is why I replaced the tag, smae reason as I put it on in the first place. This article is still very US centred. This tag is not a criticism of other editors like yourself but it is a encouragement to other editors and users, SqueakBox 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags are used to inform and notify readers and editors of a problem. They should not be used to introduce POV, opinions, and editorial wishful thinking. Tags are removed when editors remedy the problem, and when the tags no longer inform or address the issue raised by the editor who added it. How would you like to remedy the problem as you see it? I don't see a problem with globalizing the article. That's not an issue with the current article but more of a featured expansion of legacy and influences; a task request would suffice, not a globalise tag. If you are referring to the origins of the hippies, make sure you cite reliable sources in your reply. I don't see a reason for the tag other than personal opinions and belief. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you are in total denial of reality. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Dr. Codex.  Please bill me for your time.  Back on topic, we require solutions, not another endless little game of "tag, you're it, no I'm not, yes you are".  One answer can be found by looking at the big picture, the forest for the trees: the current article overview is structured around chronology.  While this was necessary for the first overview, it is not set in stone for new revisions.  Best practice would be to merge the chronological overview into a Timeline subarticle (there is/was a good one on the WELL) and link to it from a history section. There's no reason to confine ourselves to chronology as the primary overview, when we can just as easily portray the article in terms of geography, consequences, comparisons, etc.  So, the issue isn't a matter of widening the scope, we agree that's inevitable.  The points raised above concern the initial origins of the social group, their goals, conflicts, and cultural influence at the time, and their legacy and existence today.  Within those three topics lies the embedded chronology. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have made some changes. What is particularly unacceptable is the history section, SqueakBox 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Codex Sinaiticus

message: Squeakbox, is the material you added regarding simultaneous development of hippie culture in the United Kingdom and elsewhere supported by the Hirsch reference, or do you need to add additional references to support this claim?  We are talking specifically about the period prior to summer 1965 when U.S. hippies began to come into being as a distinct social group.  "Rockin' At The Red Dog" documents this development in great detail. Apostle12 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hippie beginnings 

message: Weren't there hippies at a Washington proptest recently? That's what my history teacher told my class. Should this be mentioned in the article, or does it need a citation? Because I can't get one.72.11.37.92 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent hippies 

message: I would like to thank and to congratulate the above for their long and tireless efforts on the Hippie article...it is informative and much improved due to your unwavering contributions. Mombas 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Mombas. Apostle12 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the kind words. —Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulation to Viriditas and Apostle12 

message: Please explain why you are deleting information from the talk page?  —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have absolutely no idea how that happened but it wasnt intentional and needs restoring, SqueakBox 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored what I can, it looks to me like a bug of some sort, whether deliberately malicious or not I dont know but I could not have made that edit, SqueakBox 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Codex is having problems editing as well.  I wonder if the two are related. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Coul;d be, I say it wasnt me as it was too complicated to have been a human error mistake, SqueakBox 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page deletions by a malicious bug masqueading as Squeakbox 

message: Would jesus be considered a hippie with the unconditional love and turn the other cheek stuff. You always see him wearing some kind of robe and sandals as well and he loved fine wine.He wandered and squated in many locals....a drifter and non materialistic. He challenged the establishment(the man) as well.
:Indeed, if one were to take an objective look at the gospels concerning Jesus himself and what he actually said; Jesus certainly looks more like a hippie than a traditional Christian.  Jewish and Roman historians by the name of Josephus and Philo, wrote extensively about a group at the time of Christ called the Essenes. Jesus probably an Essene healer, is often thought to be connected to this group. Given Josephus’ and Philos account, the Essenes sound much like an ancient version of the modern hippies and the counterculture. Mombas 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Essenes were a group all unto themselves; not very hippie-like. But yeah, a lot of hippies considered Jesus One of Us: hung with the social dregs, "the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath," long hair, sandals, talked about peace and love, fed people for free, got persecuted and killed by The Man (with the collaboration of the existing "religious" Establishment, which didn't want to hear Him). Not sure if it has a place in this article, though. (There is not an article on the Jesus freaks.) --Orange Mike 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure there is.  The "s" is added after the link, like this: Jesus freaks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Clearly not, SqueakBox 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jesus as the "first" hippie 

message: If you want to be seen as a good faith editor please desist from attacking me ie here. Your claim mthat hippies started in the US is plain wrong and your defence of a fallacy in defiance of consensus is not good. Are you American? Your article would be great in an American encyclopedia but in an international encyclopedia, to use an Americanm term, it sucks, SqueakBox 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You changed a cited, direct quote to what you wanted it to say and then inserted original research that was not supported by the source.  You also added a NPOV tag to reflect your POV, as there is no consensus for the tag.  Please do not engage in tendentious editing.  You should be familiar with the policies, so you should understand that criticism of your edits is not a personal attack. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bizarre claim that hippies didnt also begin in the UK is simply false and I have added a ref to cite this. At least 2 estabklished editors support the POV tag and I assume that your removal of it is proof that you are acting in a POV way unacceptable in this encyclopedia. You quote "Reverting vandalism" is an attack and its too late to take it back now. i think Codex is right about an Rfc, we dont have to tolerate this article being hijacked by an American centred POV that will merely misinform our international clientele of readers. Apparently good faith isnt enouigh for you, anyone who disagrewes with you is aggressively shot down, SqueakBox 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apostle12 and I have removed the tag, and there is no consensus for its addition.  I have not made any of the claims you state above, so you must be mistaken.  You altered the Hirsch citation to say something it did not, multiple times, and this has been explained to you previously.  If you have good, reliable sources for any of the things you feel are missing from the article, then by all means, add them.  But, please do not alter cited sources to say something they don't, add original research to cited content, or add unreliable sources.  Thank you. I look forward to your contributions. —Viriditas | Talk 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPA]] 

message: In an edit summary dated 23:20, 23 March 2007, Codex Sinaiticus wrote:restore NPOV tag - multiple editors challenged POV of this article for reasons clearly outlined, no satisfactory compromise reached, but one side of dispute unilaterally deleting tag against policy
:To reply: Codex and SqueakBox have repeatedly added a NPOV tag without proper justification, and Apostle12 and myself have repeatedly removed it.  There is no consensus for the tag.  The tag is being used to promote a POV not supported by the current sources, and in some cases, editor(s) have altered reliable sources and inserted original research to promote this POV.  Proponents of the tag claim the article does not represent a worldwide view.  Opponents of the tag claim that the addition of reliably sourced perspectives contrary to the ones in the article at present, are welcome and encouraged.  When asked how this alleged NPOV issue can be solved, proponents have remained silent, reinforcing the opinion that disruptive tag warring is being used against best practices of tagging problem articles.  A survey of topical, reliable sources does not support the placement of a NPOV tag, and one wonders how an issue that does not seem to exist can be fixed. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry but there is definitely a dispute, the dispute is not resolved by pretending it doesn't exist, there has to be some dialogue. Please read up on the WP:NPOV policy for more to see about resolving disputes.  If this continues, I am going to opt for a RFC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Describe the dispute in 50 words or less. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but first of all, I do not recognise the authority you imagine you have to issue me such imperative commands.  The problem has been sufficiently stated on this page numerous times, as the incoming RFC will quickly pick up. The real problem is basically YOUR editing patterns, continually removing the globalize tags, denying that any such problem exists, quickly reverting most attempts at widening the horizons past the borders of the US that you didn't write yourself, challenging the attribution of practically every single word of the article, the talkpage and even the edit summaries to an unprecedented degree, and for quite some time, having a generally proprietary attitude toward this particular article, making it difficult and frustrating for other editors to work with.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can I address a dispute when you repeatedly refuse to describe it?  Ok, so now there isn't a NPOV dispute like you claim, nor was there ever.  Thanks for clearing that up.  The globalize tag was removed by multiple editors, after you  failed to explain how to address the problem. Is there a reason you are incapable of explaining a dispute after you tag an article?  I've personally.worked on globalizing the article for some time as the talk page and edit history shows.  You engaged in personal attacks when asked how to address the problem s you see it, calling me crazy and provincial. Another editor addressed the problem you fail to describe by inserting unsourced, original research and falsifying published sources, deleting mention of the origin of the hippies in the U.S. and adding unreliable sources to boot.  This is unacceptable.  In the future, if you can't describe a dispute, don't tag the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the dispute has been described and patiently explained, at your request, over and over again, by more than one editor here, but amazingly no matter how many times it is explained to you in really, really simple English, you still don't seem to want to get it, instead seem to want to keep pretending there is no dispute and summarily keep removing the tag like you alone are the arbiter of all things here.  That's the kind of thing that is immensely difficult to work with here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no dispute at this time, nor was there one regarding this issue in the past, nor have you ever explained or justifed one.  Not a single editor has ever opposed expanding this article to include notable, reliably sourced descriptions of international hippie movements.  But, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your "dispute". —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS a dispute, you either have reading c0omprehension difficulties, or are in total denial of reality if you cannot see that there is a dispute, and guess what, you don't get to make decisions about things here all by yourself and call that a "consensus".  Do I actually need to go through this talkpage and highlight all the different times the dispute has been explained to you in baby English? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've never explained or justified any kind of dispute.  You only seem interested in blindly slapping tags on an article but not doing the necessary work of explaining why you added the tag, and how other editors can fulfill the criteria in order to remove the tag.  This has been explained to you many times with no response on your end.  If you can't explain why you add tags to an article and what other editors have to do to remove them, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Without proper justification in whose eyes? Its easy enough to solve the pov, get rid of the US centrism. If you think this issue doesnt exist you are ignoring the evidence, 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "evidence" seems to consist of links to rockabilly.com - unreliable web sources that fail to meet WP:ATT nor support your content in any way. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to Codex re:NPOV tag

message: Until Viriditas stops making what he knows to be false and bad faith vandalism allegations concerning this edit then we will clearly get nowhere but it strikes me that such claims are an indication that he is coming from a good faith space himself and these false allegations are completely unacceptable especvially after he has been warned but continues with the behaviour. Editors whose main goal is to making editinf as unpleasant as possible for other editorts in order to promote their POV, as Viriditas has now done twice, only damage wikipedia. Please desist, SqueakBox 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: if an editor changes the user or article talk page comments of another editor in such a way that it changes the original meaning and import of the statement, and if this editor is warned about doing this, but instead, chooses to continue changing the comments of other editors, not once, not twice, but four or five times, and each time the editor in question does this, it changes the meaning of the original comments made by other users - is this behavior vandalism? —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False vandalism claims as a POV promotion

message: Through a series of edits, I reconstructed the lead of the "Hippie" article to effect a compromise that I hope might satisfy Viriditas, Squeakbox and Codex Sinaiticus.  I have remained true to the Hirsch quote, though I have also addressed a central point made by SqueakBox and Codex Sinaiticus, which I believe has merit.
Specifically the development of the hippie ethos was an interactive affair, with its earliest beginnings in the S.F. Bay Area (Chan Laughlin, Ginsburg et al in Berkeley and San Francisco, Neal Cassady and Ken Kesey in Menlo Park and La Honda).  Then very soon afterwards a direct connection was established with the Beatles, especially after Ginsburg's visit to the U.K. and their visit to the Bay Area in 1965.  Subsequently the Beatles and other English groups directly influenced the development and spread of the hippie ethos through their music.  
In other words, the early cultural influences traveled back and forth, from one side of the pond to the other.
The lead as previously written did not convey this.  I am sure that the lead as currently written can be improved, and the sourcing can be made better.  Anyway, a start...all I have time for this evening.Apostle12 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do the sources used to justify these claims meet WP:ATT? —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately it seems that all of these "hippie" type said to be in foreign countries, do not exist, unless I can provide their exact geographic coordinates, social control numbers, plus central polit-chik authorisation signature, in triplicate.  Nothing else will be good eough or reliable enough. I do not have this info, ergo, these "hippies" do not exist.  I imagine many of them will be dissapointed to hear of their non-existence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise for lead 

message: Have you folks considered mediation? This seems like a pretty typical global-view versus reflect-the-sources dispute, and I think a mediator might help a lot. (I also think knocking off the accusations of vandalism would help.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the meantime, I've protected the version in front of me, no endorsement implied blah blah blah. Go to dispute resolution with this. I'd recommend mediation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am all for mediation, if only we can get the other party to acknowledge that there actually is a dispute here.  Would you be willing to mediate. MIB? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If me mediating is amenable to Viriditas and other involved parties. I'm not sure how I can really resolve the disagreement, but hopefully I can get things rolling so that you guys can resolve it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support MIB's involvement, and I would like to see Codex explain the dispute as he sees it with a resolution provided so the issue can be addressed and the tag removed.  Apostle12 updated the article yesterday and removed the tag, and Codex added it again without acknowledging Apostle's contributions or explaining why he added it or how it can ever be removed to his personal satisfaction. —Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are actually abundant sources.  I just now did a search for "Italian hippies", and found out there were beatnik hippies there livign in tents in 1966 who got attacked by the police  http://parole.aporee.org/work/hier.php3?spec_id=20484&words_id=943 .  There are also lots of hippies still there today.  Also elsewhere in Europe: France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, same story. Lots of hippies there today, and have been since the 60s.  Australia, NZ.  Why would these easily verifiable facts repeatedly get pulled from the article? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is that site, and how is it a reliable source? It seems to be a poor translation of an unspecified article, translated well after the fact, putting the word "hippie" into the author's mouth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, well would you consider this newsreel a reliable source? Note how many hippies were in Rome in 1967, in the last minute of the tape. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just checking in after a busy day.  Yes, mediation sounds good.  The sources I provided are the best I could find within the hour or so I had available to me.  I am sure they can be improved, however there seems to be no doubt that hippiedom spread worldwide. Apostle12 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: Hey check this outItalic textSuperscript text I understand what a hippie is but what I'm looking for is what their reasoning and beliefs were. Can anyone help me?
168.216.226.129 18:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the article and ask questions about material that interests you so we can expand it. Better yet, research the information you're looking for and add it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey check this out 

message: Although a hippie is somebody from the late 60s, what is the antonym of "hippie", which the antonym of "hippie" means "somebody from the early 60s"? --PJ Pete
:The antonym is "square"; hippies in the early sixties were called "beatniks".  The difference between the two is described in the article on the beats. —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antonym 

message: The article needs some upgrading. Here's what I see:
*It's waaaay too long at 60+ kb (though I see that Viriditas and others have been working to condense it). An overly long article usually needs editing and condensing to make it more readable. Creation of sub-articles is often a good way to go.
*Some folks have been adding their favourite Woodstock like festivals under the "Legacy" section. Most of these have their own pages. A nice tight summary paragraph would deal with the topic better, IMO.  
*Clean-up and editing of several sections is needed (e.g., the "Lifestyle" section has a tag on it, but there are others).
* References are needed for some sections.
I'm ready to dive in and would welcome any other thoughts and/or offers of assistance. Sunray 21:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sections "Ethos and characteristics" and "Legacy" need a serious overhaul.  We also need someone to visit every web source and compare the text to the cite.  In some cases, they will not add up.  When they don't, it would be a good idea to move the text to the talk page so that everyone is aware of the problem.  In the case of published but non-web sources, some claims may need to be explained.  We also need to pick a citation format and apply it to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further improvements to the article