Talk:Billy Jack

message: I have revisited this page two years on. It is now clear to me that wikipedia shares in the normalized violence, since Jimmy Wales is violating tax law by using his nonprofit status to create a for-profit encyclopedia, and destroying online and meatspace reputations to do so. 
Any "POV" that attempts to create necessary preconditions for the very ability of the least well off in society to have and express points of view is not, I repeat NOT, just another POV. It need not stand in line with the points of view of Greed, Fear, Pride, Lust or any of the seven deadly sins.
The POV that convenience store clerks and fourteen year olds may destroy the online and meatspace reputations of lawyers, doctors, and teachers who have in good faith contributed free time only to find themselves threatened and attacked isn't a POV. It's behavior, and in some cases it is psychotic behavior as was Wales' behavior when he destroyed the reputation of the actual inventor of the wiki concept and divorced his first wife for her wanting to be a nurse.
Therefore I have none of the considerable amount of compunctions I had in 2006 about altering wikipedia as a user now posting from an IP address.
Go ahead and cheat your neighbor.
Edward G. Nilges
Spinoza1111 03:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacing POV with POV doesn't do the job, to be honest. I've rewritten the sentence to reflect established fact, and removed my own WP:OR that I can't corroborate with a WP:RS. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would prefer to see a WP:RS, but I think the sentence as written is neutral enough to pass muster. Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have revisited this page two years on 

message: The article states,
*** which quickly lost its resonance with increasingly apolitical audiences of the 1970s (the second sequel never made it into theatres). ***
**** Actually, it was the third sequel that never made it to theaters. ****
I am not sure how this can be said, as I myself saw it in a theater in, I think, 1974. To be specific, I watched "The Trial of Billy Jack" in Garberville, CA. Ironically, my mother ran a nearby 'hippie' school, which had recently experienced a no-warrant search by the local sheriffs.  -Paul C
:I would respond only that your memory, unless you can find a reliable source for theatrical release, constitutues original research—for example, I can recall being deeply moved by the first film (which wove its story into an action-adventure setting), sorely disappointed by the second (which served little purpose other than to drive home its point via sledgehammer), and utterly unable to find a host for the third. That said, if you can find a reliable source for even a limited release then, yes, it should be included. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, I just reread this thread, and I believe I made the same mistake that the author of the passage did—forgetting that Billy Jack was actually the first sequel, not the first film. I've rewritten the passage. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In theaters? 

message: The 'free school' in the film was a revolutionary concept that was replicated in teh counterculture movement, leading to the foundation of school's such as Goodman School in Lansing, MI. Article could reflect the concept for the school as shown in the film; this part is almost doccumentary style.
202.82.171.186 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free School 

message: The former often react by nervous laughter and an attempt to categorize the film as some sort of "Sixties" document despite its constant success in the real market. The latter feel like targets when the everyday violence of the town is reversed against the town's leaders, taken as they are from the same social class as film investors, and are confused when the commune members themselves question their own violent instincts, and ask if an escape is possible from an unsustainable world of "hate your neighbor, cheat a friend".
That is ridiculous. This article needs a major rewrite. SensiblePaladin (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About as Encyclopedic as a Novel 

message: The article states that the type of martial art used was Hapkido. With almost exclusive use of footwork, I would have guessed Savate.  --Studio 126 (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hapkido...?