Talk:Hippie/Archive 2

message: Doesn't the name Hippy come from Hipsters, a type of jeans fasionable at the time?--2toise 10:56, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sort of come from Hipster, but the jeans came after, not before. I think the best orthographic description of the origins of the word would go approximately:
(1953) "Hep cat"-- (1957) "Hep"-- (1961) "Hip"-- (1963) "Hipster"-- (1967) "Hippie". You could continue with "Yippie" and "Zippie" and "Yuppie" and "Buppie" if you wanted to recount every tiresome transmogrification of the term.--Doovinator 03:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Would that be "hippy" as in "girl with big hips", perhaps? It was used in that way beforehand. Doovinator 18:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the Word 

message: "The first use of the word hippie on US television was on WNBC TV Channel 4 in New York City at the opening of the New York World's Fair on April 22, 1964. Some young Anti-Vietnam War protesters, wearing t-shirts, denim jeans and with long hair like The Beatles, staged a sit-in and were called Hippies by NYPD officers and reporters."
Although the Vietnam War officialy dates from 1957, and the U.S. did have advisers in Vietnam (including a few who were involved in combat), the Vietnam War really didn't get serious until the Tonkin Gulf Incident in August, 1964 and Johnson's subsequent decision to escalate our involvement.  Don't remember ANY demonstrations against the Vietnam War prior to that.  Is this April 22, 1964 date really accurate?Founders4 08:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, as we still need a citation for this in the article.   It is likely that sociologist C. Wright Mills influenced the early antiwar movement, with his critique of the military industrial complex.  SDS was organized at the University of Michigan in 1962, and their Port Huron Statement criticized the polices of war in general, mentioning Vietnam once.  Bob Dylan's 1963 protest song, "Masters of War", is generally considered or was used as a protest against Vietnam; during the late spring of 1963 Buddhists in Vietnam began protesting American-supported government repression by Ngo Dinh Diem, and by this time, the U.S. was being condemned around the world by governments and protest groups alike for supporting the South Vietnamese brutality and suppression of human rights. Diem was overthrown on Nov. 1, and Kennedy was assassinated three weeks later.  Johnson escalated the war, and the Free Speech Movement began at UCB in the fall of 1964; the antiwar movement flowered in the spring of 1965 after Johnson bombed North Vietnam, with New Left and antiwar activists using the campus as a platform, later bringing the movement to the streets. —Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1964 Demonstration Against the Vietnam War? 

message: Much appreciation for the cleanup work happening here. 
Hey Founders4 -- do you think "conservative" is sufficiently broad in the "Pejorative" section? Remember, there was then a substantial straightlaced element among liberals also that had a lot of disrespect for "hippies", and used the the term disparagingly. Maybe they were just my parents' friends, I dunno; certainly conservatives were nastier and more monolithic about it, but the same liberals who were shocked and bothered by the Filthy Speech Movement were shocked and bothered by the hairy unwashed masses. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving ahead 

message: :::Pretty much seems like original research to me.  One question, aren't you 59 years old or thereabouts?  So you attended college at 17 or so... in 1964.  Any involvement with hippies before then?  Because if we are going to discuss the origin of 'hippies' it has to begin before the media dubbed them hippies, they had to exist long enough to be recognised as a thing.  I somewhat agree with the assertion many folk make that the 60's began in november '63 on Elm St., but we are not talking about the sixties, we are talking about hippies, and the original hippies at that... at least in the opening paragraph I proposed.  Which we need one of, an opening paragraph.  About the beginning.  You maybe didn't have any involvement with the antiwar movement at 17 and 18, but we had dead American soldiers in Vietnam when you were 12.  What I'm saying is that you don't seem to have been in on the ground floor, and maybe it sounds harsh but I'd say you were not one of the original hippies, but one of those who "embraced (what you perceived as being) the hippie lifestyle" -- after it was already whatever-it-was.  You have dropped some big names, and all that, but even if your tale is true, it's original research.  Please find some references, and I'll put my references up against yours.  We can swap personal stories some other time.  I still say that the core of the hippie movement from 1959 on, especially after Ike's speeches in 1961 about the military industrial complex, was anti-war.  It wasn't a bunch of folk who wanted free love and then took acid, it wasn't beatnicks who decided to put flowers in their hair, it wasn't moral philosophers who wanted to rebel against morality and smoke pot.  LSD didn't start it, pot, fashion, love, sex, it all came after the rebellion against the war and the fight for civil rights... which is where it started.  Let's compile references for our positions instead of dropping names, OK?  User:Pedant 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sounds like original research

message: "One possible source of the word hippie is the Wolof language of Africa where "hipi" or "hepi" means "to open one's eyes and be aware." Many African slaves spoke Wolof and a number of terms made it into contemporary Black slang.  This slang was adopted by the Jazz scene, then the Beatnik scene, finally influencing the hippie movement. [3]"
(I took this out of the etymology section.)
This appears twice, and I definitely have a problem with it.  The author (of the refernce) states that 'buckaroo' came from 'mbakara' which is not generally accepted among those who study cowboy slang, who state that buckaroo is a corruption of 'vaquero' or cowherd/cowboy... I'd like to remove this unless we can find more than one university professor who has it as his pet theory. Since he is evidently wrong about buckaroo/mbakara/vaquero, I have to say it casts doubt on the rest of his theory.  At any rate we have practically a whole article's worth of Wolof language material, and it's all based on the same source.  I'd like to have that go in a separate article, (and not have it in 2 places if not removed ), and I would probably be pretty insistent that we don't lead off the etymology section with what I consider a dubious assertion from what seems to me not a definitive source. comments?User:Pedant 06:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's explore it and see if there is any substantiation of the professor's theory elsewhere.  How about leaving it where it is for now, minus any mention in the etymology section?  I think the correlation between the Wolof language and Black/Jazz/Beatnik/Hippie slang is at least of interest.  Have you visited the Wikipedia "Wolof language" article?  Founders4 06:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolof language 

message: Image:Nambassa 1978. Photographer unknown.jpg shouldn't be used in my opinion, since the photographer is unknown, the website http://www.nambassa.com cannot license this themselves, the license is invalid.
The pic itself will be deleted in all likelihood.
If it is used nonetheless, the attribution license requires that the url accompany the picture in each use. User:Pedant
The photographs in question are owned by the Nambassa Trust and Peter Terry. I am the Trustee of Nambassa and Peter Terry, and I authorise their use. Please refer to the Nambassa discussion page. Mombas 22:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Image problems 

message: This removed:
This page refers to hippies as a group engaged in a certain lifestyle - for the TV comedy, see Hippies (TV series)
Why?
The following text was added:
"The idealism and popularity of hippydom was essentially carried to the whole world by the new music and emerging Creative Arts, which began to develop as early as the fifties. Once the corporate media got over the drugs, hippies outlandish attire and the fact that its youth were rebelling against its long established institutions, hippies became more organised. They further diversified and removed themselves from the narrow mindset that had been created of them by mainstream reacting in a frightened manner against inevitable changes. Hippies evolved into a diversity of loosely identified tight nit social groups encapsulating the new and freer thinking by championing counter culture issues on human and civil rights, free thinking spirituality and religion, self sufficiency and environmental consciousness, Feminism and sexual revolution, free speech and political freedom, Holistic Health and alternative technology."
I think it needs a rewrite for tone and POV, and some references.
phrases I think need work:
"idealism and popularity of hippydom was essentially carried to the whole world"
presupposes that hippydom was idealistic, we need supporting text for that premise before this para. ...
"Once the corporate media got over the drugs, hippies outlandish attire and the fact that its youth were rebelling against its long established institutions, hippies became more organised".
"corporate media got over" isn't very grammatical, or encyclopedic and presupposes a fixation on attire and drugs, and presupposes a cessation of that fixation -- we need supporting text for that premise before this para. as well...
"outlandish attire" is POV, not supported by prev. text...
"They further diversified and removed themselves from the narrow mindset that had been created of them by mainstream reacting in a frightened manner against inevitable changes."
"mainstream" needs clarification / "frightened manner" is POV, describe the reaction don't characterise it, needs prior text to support... "inevitable changes" inevitable why?  no support, new premise... better would be to describe the changes, and what made them inevitable.
"Hippies evolved into a diversity of loosely identified tight nit social groups encapsulating the new and freer thinking by championing counter culture issues on human and civil rights, free thinking spirituality and religion, self sufficiency and environmental consciousness, Feminism and sexual revolution, free speech and political freedom, Holistic Health and alternative technology."
"Hippies evolved" -- individual hippies? or The hippies or maybe hippies generally or hippies, as a group?  --  'evolved' has a specific meaning, maybe a better choice available?
"loosely identified tight nit social groups encapsulating the new and freer thinking by championing" -- prefer 'tightly-knit'/'cohesive' or better grammar... "encapsualating" ?  don't know what is trying to be expressed... "new and freer thinking" needs prior text establishing that hippie thinking was new (which does not seem supportable, we have text in the article that contradicts it) and "freer" is somewhat POV, what is meant by freer, lets say that, whatever it is rather than  freer...
as it stands the paragraph doesn't seem to add to the article, it's non sequitur and POV.  User:Pedant 20:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Information removed

message: Many hippies gave up experimenting with drugs, other than Marijuana, by the early 1970’s. This was due partly to a fundamental shift in what was available on the market with harmful opiate based addictive drugs like heroine, barbiturate and amphetamine flooding the international markets because big business and heavy criminal elements had began controlling access and distribution. Even LSD the once favoured drug among 1960s hippies as an aid to mind expansion and self discovery, was now nothing more than a tablet containing excessive amounts of harmfull speed and Strychnine. Many hippies believed that this market saturation of killer drugs had been orchestrated by the drug knowledgeable CIA, (MKULTRA), as some kinds of political reaction against the hippies successes in its social uprising which among other things stopped the Vietnam war and highlighted global disarmamnet. - Thousands of hippies and other worthwhile people died as a result of drug adiction in the 1970s. Alfred W. McCoy who is a historian and current Professor of History in the "Center for Southeast Asian Studies", at the University of Winconsin-Madison, suggests in his book, The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade the direct link between the CIA and various drug cartells in Asia. Mombas 02:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mombas.  Just wanted to mention that I plan to commit some time to incorporating your drug comments under the "Drugs" heading sometime soon.  We do have to be careful not to go beyond our evidence in discussing CIA involvement in the hard drug trade, which I believe was quite limited before the 1980s, at least domestically. CIA involvement in the Southeast Asian heroin trade probably dates from the late 1960's, but that is somewhat beyond the scope of this article.  There may be some connection, however, between heroin use by American soldiers in Vietnam, and their incorporation into the drug scene when they returned.  I'll be working on it.  Founders4 18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This drug segment moved from main page and to be rewritten 

message: I think the Oregon Country Fair should be added under the festivals category
Done. Thanks for suggesting it!  Founders4 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  festivals 

message: The article needs a two to four paragraph section about intentional communities like Drop City, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I invite you to write same, Viriditas. Founders4 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I have no idea what that comment means. If you participate on enough talk pages, you'll find that editors often make requests to find out what other editors think.  Often times, one editor will make a proposal, and yet another will fulfill it.  More often than not, both editors will contribute.  Hope that helps. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Viriditas, Most editors don't dictate what an article needs, and then expect other editors to write it.  Most good, collaborative editors might say something along these lines: "I think this article would benefit from a mention of intentional communities, however I don't feel qualified to write it.  Would someone else like to tackle it, or work with me to create a useful paragraph showing the connection between hippies and communes?" or like that.  At this point, I am singlemindedly fixated on altering your collaborative style, Viriditas, I seriously recommend you consider whether the style you are using presently is the most beneficial to the project, or whether you might find some better way of communicating with your colleagues that doesn't feel like clay bricks rubbing together.  Please.  Just think about it. User:Pedant 06:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intentional communities section

message: This requires citations: "At their highest point of awareness, hippies recognized themselves as "conscious creators." What they created during the 1960s was an attempt to avoid induction into a pre-packaged, materialistic culture where they would be reduced to being mere consumers. As the outward manifestations of hippie culture were incorporated into the mainstream package, those who understood the task of "conscious creation" moved on, staying one step ahead of unending attempts to subsume their lives and their spirit." —Viriditas | Talk 01:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be working on this, Viriditas.  Relates specifically to the Stewart Brand quote that appears above it, as well as to Gaskin's discussions of "conscious creators."  Also, in 1970 there was a celebration called "Celestial Synapse" organized by a physicist (don't recall his name at the moment) who was a pioneer in the "new physics;" his teachings regarding the effect of the human thought on matter are relevant.  There was also a book, one of the "defining texts" of the period, THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER by Eklal Kueshana (1963).  "Conscious creation" was discussed in a section called "mental precipitation"--the personal direction of one's thoughts to bring about a desired reality.  I put together the above paragraph as a description of something that became a core hippie belief--that we each create our own realities in accord with the quality of our thoughts.  It's not OR, because I am borrowing terms and descriptions from people who discussed the concepts and wrote about them during the period in question.Founders4 08:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research unless I can verify the information with reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course.  Please keep in mind, though, that none of us are full-time encyclopedia researchers/writers.  It would probably take me weeks of full-time research to completely source this paragraph, as it is based mostly on primary, not secondary, sources that are difficult to access. So my sourcing additions will be piecemeal, as time allows.Founders4 07:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can't source something, or allow others to verify it, then it probably doesn't belong in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I CAN source this paragraph, Viriditas, which will allow you or any other reader to verify it.  I am only saying that it will take me some time.  I'll take care of some of the easy ones first.Founders4 17:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy/ethos sources

message: I object to Viriditas' veiled assertion above (originally posted in the call for consensus section) that a call for consensus is an inappropriate avenue of discussion in this case.  
I am quite familiar with dispute resolution procedures.  
The very first step is to prevent disputes by appropriate discussion on the various discussion pages.  After that, discussion is important, to clarify that there is in fact a dispute, and attempt to reach a consensus to as to what the dispute is.  The next step is discussion to resolve the dispute.  I am moving all discussion in the consensus section to this new section to maintain a separation between the call for a consensus and the assertion that there is a dispute, discussion on what the dispute is and how to resolve it. User:Pedant 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Dispute' and resolution 

message: I've placed a cite request for the statement that states, "Hippies were ethical libertarians and believed that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution guarantee the rights of individual citizens to do as they wish with their own persons and property, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights of others."  Sounds great, but the references in the article do not support that claim. —Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bill of Rights doesn't say that?  I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what the 9th and 10th amendments do: guarantee hippies those rights.  User:Pedant 06:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ethical libertarians

message: This seems to be one of the greatest success of the Hippies, yet there is very little if anything on this page about it.  It would be quite lengthy, so eventually it would have to be split to just one or two paragraphs.  The section should include the following seven publications:
# San Francisco Oracle
# Berkeley Barb
# Los Angeles Free Press
# The East Village Other
# Chicago Seed
# Rolling Stone
# Whole Earth Catalog
—Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  The article needs this.Founders4 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative press

message: From the Wikipedia article "Tertiary source":
:"Encyclopedias and textbooks are examples of materials that typically embrace both secondary and tertiary sources, presenting on the one hand commentary and analysis, while on the other attempting to provide a synoptic overview of the material available on the topic. For instance, the long articles of the Encyclopædia Britannica certainly constitute the kind of analytical material characteristic of secondary sources, whilst they also attempt to provide the kind of comprehensive coverage associated with tertiary sources."
As I understand it we are writing an encyclopedia.  We must provide sources for the facts presented in an article, preferably a selection of primary, secondary and tertiary sources that help establish some consensus as to what the facts are.  However this does not preclude the inclusion of limited commentary and analysis that help knit the whole thing together.  Without an intelligent, synoptic approach the articles that emerge will be worthless.Founders4 19:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the above comments. —Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing in General 

message: There is reason to believe that the "hippie" appellation can be equated with book-making schemes with regard to prevalently documented roles as informal experimentors and "patsies".  04:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone understand what this is all about? Founders4 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a clue. —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe something to do with people wagering on the success of Project MKULTRA ?  Or maybe 'bookmaking' means authoring? User:Pedant 06:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  existential role of hippies in academic cultures 

message: Dear friends: I have no ax to grind, only the desire to improve this article, among the others I am working on. As you will notice (or may have noticed), I have considerably shortened the introductory section, reducing it to its basics. None of the material has been deleted — just moved to its natural place in the rest of the piece.
I've read some of the comments in this Discussion section, and I believe all the participants have one goal — to improve the article so it is useful to the person who is seeking information (think of a kid in middle school or someone in Japan or South  Africa who wants information about the Hippie movement of the 1960s). The objective is to write both clearly and accurately, and I might add succinctly, because this article is already too long, as the Warning cautions at the top.
Anyway, as I move through this fine work in progress, I intend to be bold in editing, but I hope to make changes (if needed) in small chunks so each of you can examine them piecemeal and see if you agree with them or not.
Yours sincerely, and in great good faith, GeorgeLouis 17:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, GeorgeLouis.  Just noticed this note.  I agree that "small chunk" changes are best as they lead to incremental improvement over time. Founders4 09:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being bold 

message: :"Outside the United States, hippie culture has remained more visible as a countercultural movement. Especially in Britain, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia, the hippie movement as a distinct social phenomenon continued to develop and thrive. "
Just noticed that you deleted this paragraph, Viriditas, after allowing only a couple of days for editors to provide sourcing.  I initiated a source request from Mombas, who has been instrumental in informing everyone as to the continued vitality of the hippie movement in New Zealand.  And I'm sure we will be hearing from the Christiana folks in Denmark as well.  There is another fellow in Britain who objected strenuously to an earlier contention (not by me, though I initially supported it) that "1971 was generally considered to be the last year of the hippie era."
This is related to the many voiced concerns that the "Hippie" article is too America-centric, because others insist that the decline in hippie visibility and influence was far less steep abroad than here in the U.S.  I tend to believe them, especially since the Nambassa festivals in New Zealand continued through 1981, and some of the late 1970s events were attended by tens of thousands of people.
How about leaving the paragraph in for a while until we see what can be provided in the way of sourcing?Founders4 20:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it on the talk page under a unique section header and ask for help developing it.  Do not place original research in the article.  —Viriditas | Talk 06:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain how the "citations" you added support the claims that are made. This is a reasonable request. —Viriditas | Talk 19:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's interesting, but how does that support the claim that "hippie culture has remained more visible" than the states?  All of these hippie festivals had literally hundreds of analogs in the states on an annual basis.  How does a few concerts in the UK translate into a "comback"?  —Viriditas | Talk 02:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of paragraph referencing hippie action abroad after 1973, Section title 

message: :"For many people, the characterising feature of trolling is the perception of intent to disrupt a community in some way. Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The greater the reaction from the community the more likely the user is to troll again, as the person develops beliefs that certain actions achieve his/her goal to cause chaos. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in Internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."
Viriditas, you have turned a rather good article (always needing improvement, of course) into an overchewed, regurgitated piece of mush.  You make radical changes on a daily basis, refusing dialogue with other editors. You initiated an RFC request that resulted in the following response:
:"If this summary is correct then my initial guess was pretty near the mark. While verifiable sources always help an article and while it would be good to take down doubtful statements when requesting verification, this particular instance seems to be overzealous. Rather than delete material that is probably true, please tag it with a request for citation and/or discuss it on the talk page and give a reasonable time frame for verification before deleting. To my eyes the article seems to have been pretty much on target. Harmonious editing means respecting existing consensus unless there's real reason to believe the article is distorted in some way. Regards, Durova 05:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please enjoy your break.  I hope when you return, you will respect my repeated suggestions to stop speculating about my actions, desires, emotional state, and stick to the topic.  I have not "refused dialogue", nor have I "ignored" Durova or anyone else. You've had thirty days to get this article in order, and you have spent that time adding original research and presenting a non-neutral view of the hippie movement.  Recently, you added a series of citations that do not appear to reflect the content.  Demanding accuracy, neutrality, verification, and reliable sources is not "trolling"; It is the very basis of Wikipedia  policy. —Viriditas | Talk 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep making the same assertions without ever providing evidence.  So, I wiill repeat what I've already said to you: if I am trashing this article as you continue to claim, it should be simple for you to show, with links, examples, etc.  Why can't you do this?  I can only conclude that you can't do this because it isn't happening.  The real reason you are upset, is because I keep removing original research from the article, primary research of which you are the author.  —Viriditas | Talk 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't feed the troll 

message: I just joined Wikipedia and came to see the hippy article.  I have read most of the recent additions to this talk page, and one thing stands out -  quite a number of different people are frustrated with you, Viriditas. 
Yet you seem unable to understand their frustration, and you take no responsibility for it. You remind me of a guy  from NYC I once dated  - talented and brilliant, but unable to empathize with others.  In many instances this lack of empathy meant he didn't even hear what they were saying.  And he couldn't seem to escape being in conflict with those around him despite the fact that he was actually a nice guy.
I don't care to enter into the details of this discussion.  But if you will just assume that you might - just might - bear some responsibility; if you make a concerted effort to hear,  and relay your new found empathy to others so they can feel heard; if you occasionally concede a point and offer thanks for a correction; if you congratulate others for their fine contributions (they can't all be faulty or worthless) - you may just find that others react differently to you.  Apologies are nice too.
It takes real effort to overcome our shared human tendency towards narcissism.  Saphiraf 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a little bit of advice: when you use a sock puppet, make sure you have more than one edit in your contribution history, and try to make an effort to change your writing style.  —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a little bit of advice: when you accuse someone of being a sock puppet, make sure you have tell us who it is you are accusing, so that whomever it is can have a chance to defend themself. User:Pedant 07:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem very interested in this discussion, Pedant.  That's sad, because I'm going to have to remove it per talk page guidelines.  Please focus on the topic, not the editors.  —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You bet I'm interested.  You've made an accusation of sockpuppetry, and you've done it in such a way that you seem to be impugning the good name of a good editor... by which I mean one of the other editors on this page who aren't you.  Who exactly is it you are accusing? User:Pedant 07:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is used to discuss the topic of "hippies", not "Viriditas".  Please keep that in mind the next time you go off topic. For what its worth, why do you automatically assume that an editor on this page is currently using a sock? Feel free to keep the answer to yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 13:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you were the one making accusations of sock puppetry, so I'm asking again, who were you accusing? In fact, I am demanding an answer that states who you were accusing.  You can't go off topic yourself and then quell all discussion on it by saying it is off topic.  User:Pedant 19:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are getting more and more bizarre.  Off-topic threads should be removed and ignored. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion to Viriditas re: conflict 

message: Hi GeorgeLouis. An editor is currently claiming that I "chased" you away from the "Hippie" project.[1] True or not true? I do agree, by the way, that the lead needs condensing, just not as radically as you proposed. Founders4 08:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: George left this page because you continued to revert his edits, just as you did to me a month ago.  You then went to George's talk page to find out if this was true, and he denied it.  If I was George, I doubt that I would want to get involved in any controversy, so I would probably deny it as well.  Some users might even feel intimidated by Founders. It is my opinion that George stopped editing this page due to Founder's ownership behavior.  Perhaps Founders will ask George why he no longer edits this page, but I think George has made it clear that he has no interest in this dispute.  I can only go by what he has written on talk, especially in reference to the material he wrote and its reversion by Founders.  I would like it if Founders would make a good faith effort to invite George back to this article.  —Viriditas | Talk 22:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You must assume good faith: Not assume GeorgeLouis is lying.  I would like it if you stoped telling your fellow editors what to do and actually discussed the article instead of telling us it needs to be shorter, and then adding irrelevant sections such as the charles manson section you added, contrary to the discussion on the subject. User:Pedant 05:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinions are my own.  Perhaps you might ask George why he left the article.  In any case, I never added an "irrelevant section" on Charles Manson.  The text was there all along, I merely added a header.  And, if you think a discussion of Charles Manson and Marijuana is irrelevant to an article about Hippies, I suggest you need to take a break from edting and do some actual research. —Viriditas | Talk 05:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slander--Please remove it 

message: The current New Left section, to paraphrase Pedant, has no connection with the Hippie article, and should summarize the most relevant points from the main.  Founders has not provided page numbers for verification, nor has he supported his claim with a quote of the supporting passage.  The external link provided does not mention anything about hippies.  While the content does not make an unreasonable claim, it is a distorted one.  The backstory is more accurate and better represented by the facts presented in the New Left article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no comment about the section so your paraphrase is inaccurate. User:Pedant 05:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said you commented about this section, but you made the same comment about the Marijuana section that you removed,  which is why I paraphrased you in the first place.  I'll be removing this section from the article for the same reason.  In the interim, I've added  the protest image to New_Left#New_Left_in_the_United_States until we can create a section entitled, "Cultural dissent" (or something similar) that addresses the actual role of hippies in the political movement.  Remember, they are treated as a distinct group from the two other dissenting groups, namely the New Left, and the civil rights movement.  Those three distinct groups make up the core of the counterculture of the 1960s. —Viriditas | Talk 06:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and this article is about hippies, not the new left or the civil rights movement (I agree with you there) except the protest picture is still suitable for the article on hippies, remember that the first time they were referred to as hippies on tv was at a antiwar demonstration. User:Pedant 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hippies were one of three groups actively engaged in cultural dissent in the U.S. during the 1960s.  This is important, and needs to be in the lead. The interplay between the three should be developed in a new "Cultural dissent" section.  —Viriditas | Talk 11:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural dissent?  No, I rather think political dissent is the common thread.  I do agree that the dissent needs to be discussed, and that it needs to be in the lead, but in the lead it should (since as you say the lead 'needs' to be smaller) focus on dissent from hippies.  The new left and civil rights connections could quite well be introduced somewhere else.  I knew if we could get some discussion going that we might find an intersection between our ideas.  Maybe if the discussion were less antagonistic and condescending, respectively, we might create an atmosphere in which other editors besides ourselves might feel welcome.  Would you be willing to put some effort towards that possibility? User:Pedant 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We agree on the need for a smaller lead; I've been encouraging brevity in order to facillitate a welcome atmosphere.  Please don't read things into simple statements.  As for your contention that political dissent is the common thread, that's just not true, nor reflected by my research.  Many authors emphasize that hippies were anti-political, such that they dropped out of the establishment and formed their own communities.  As long as we cite reliable authors, I don't have a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh?  I followed your example, placing the comment above the removed text.  You must have noticed this. —Viriditas | Talk 11:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the comment, sorry.  Would you mind re-iterating what you find objectionable about the above text re Eisenhower's speech?  Thanks. User:Pedant 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research unless you can show how it is directly relevant to Hippies.  The citations failed to do that. —Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Left 

message: In his 1961 Farewell Address, President Eisenhower had warned that the Cold War "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" had led to the formation of a "military-industrial complex" that might come to exert "unwarranted influence…in the councils of government."  For the complete text of Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 'Military-Industrial Complex Speech', see Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035 - 1040.  For audio of the 'Military-Industrial Complex Speech' (mp3, flac or flash), see Dwight D. Eisenhower Farewell Address — 1961 (January 17, 1961) at http://www.archive.org. Many Americans saw the dawning of the Vietnam War as a fulfillment of this prediction. http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111str8.html  Taking Eisenhower’s warning to heart and believing that corporate industry, driven by greed and served by corporate media, had corrupted government to an extent that it could no longer be trusted, hippies increasingly embraced terms expressive of this distrust, such as Big Brother, The Establishment and The Man.Yablonsky, Lewis. The Hippie Trip. iUniverse, 2000. 
Why no comment here?  Just remove the text and no explanation? User:Pedant 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  I followed your example, placing the comment above the removed text.  You must have noticed this. —Viriditas | Talk 11:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see the comment, sorry.  Would you mind re-iterating what you find objectionable about the above text re Eisenhower's speech?  Thanks. User:Pedant 20:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research unless you can show how it is directly relevant to Hippies.  The citations failed to do that. —Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Text removed

message: This can possibly be moved back once the lead gets smaller, but as it stands, it's already in the antecedents section: The roots of the hippie movement can be found in Europe, in the naturalist movements of the late 18th century, and the 19th century back-to-nature movement. Please see Hippie Roots & The Perennial Subculture. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Hirsch's definition, it appears entirely accurate.  Hippies were members of a movement of cultural protest.  This movement, or counterculture, was a protest movement by American youth, along with two other movements, the New Left and the civil rights movement.  Placing hippies in this historical context is essential to understanding the origin of the hippies as well as their philosophy. —Viriditas | Talk 12:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever.  You do with this article what you want, you're the only one editing it. Go ahead and remove everything that will let someone who doesn't know what a hippie is learn something, and remove the politics from the equation, and make it seem like hippies were a purely cultural phenomenon and ignore the fact that the culture of the US then and now is a culture of war, and remove reference to Eisenhower's warning people of that fact.  Hippies were just love beads and flowers and drugs and long hair, right? no politics at all? User:Pedant 03:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The political section needs to be written, so please write it.  Earlier, I recommended calling the section, "Cultural dissent"; start with an introduction about the individual rebelling against the values of the parent, comparing this with the group rebelling against the policies of the state.  This was, at its heart, a youth movement. —Viriditas | Talk 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, how about Dissent, and subsections on Political dissent and Cultural dissent, since though they are related, there is enough distinction to have 2 separate sections, I think... do you agree?  I'm not adding anything to the article until you finish pulling out the unreferenced material, it would really be helpful if you finish stripping that all out first, before we try to add more text, and remove the tags at the top of the article.  It's easier to build on a solid foundation, and I don't really have time for a fight, if you should remove something good that I've added, which just happens to be in the same sentence with something you remove.  So if you don't mind, would you let us know when you've finished stripping the article down?  Thanks User:Pedant 21:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestions for sections sound great, but I'm not sure what you mean by "stripping the article down", as you've removed quite a lot of material as well.  —Viriditas | Talk 01:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roots removed from lead

message: Pedant, could you please stop making personal attacks in the edit summaries?  I admit I find them amusing (I've never been referred to as "Satan" and "butt" before) but it sets a bad example for others.  Thanks for your attention. —Viriditas | Talk 13:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sure will try.  It would be nice if you would stop being so inspirational. Did you miss the 'dill-hole' one? User:Pedant 03:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but I just caught your "viriditass", one.  Sneaky. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPA 

message: Section needed as an east coast parallel to the Haight-Ashbury section. —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly.  There are other 'hippie enclaves' that deserve mention as well, I think. User:Pedant 21:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drop City needs a subsection, but I mentioned NYEV since that was allegedly a significant hippie scene on the East Coast. —Viriditas | Talk 01:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York's East Village 

message: I added "Though the Bantu and Wolof languages have certainly provided the origin of some English words, linguists are in disagreement regarding some of the following:" since there is a clear dispute, and the consensus seems to be to keep the Wolof section.  I would support its complete removal as marginalia, but we need a disclaimer if kept, 'also but': Wolof and Bantu have contributed some words to English.  User:Pedant 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good.  I like this qualification, Pedant.Founders4 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, just visiting this page. Didn't the Wolof words come into Hippie slang via African-American English? Certainly "hep/hip", "dig" and "OK" were in use before the mid-60s. Itsmejudith 22:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct.  This should be stated so that the Bantu/Wolof--African-American English--hippie slang connection is more clear.Founders4 05:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolof revisited 

message: Is this the consensus: No connection between Charles Manson and hippies, which demonstrates his relevance to the subject matter, has been substantiated, and we should, failing such substantiation, omit the Charles Manson section. ?  Please comment... User:Pedant 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a comment, but NPOV has nothing to do with relevance. Stop citing policy at me, I am completely familiar with ALL wikipedia policies... WP:NPOV means wikipedia doesn't take a stand on the issue of whether he was a hippie or not, if there are conflicting sources.  Where does Paul Krassner state that Charles Manson is a hippie?  And if he was a hippie, what makes Charles Manson relevant to an article on hippies? What is the connection to the rest of the article?  There were thousands of hippie notables, (or people who were said in some media to be hippies) do you propose the insertion of unrelated text about each one of them?  The text about Manson doesn't connect to the rest of the article.  If you are insistent about adding mention of Charels Manson, I am equally insistent about the text having some relevance to the article: it needs to actually make the article a better article or it doesn't belong.  User:Pedant 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your own beliefs on this talk page, your "comment" shouldn't be made in response to my poll entry, and furthermore, my opinion was not made in response to you, but stands as my vote.  I would be happy to answer your questions (and I have addressed most of them before in previous discussions) but I would like it if you stop making things personal and work on civility by respecting my right to have an opinion that in no way refers to you personally.  Thanks.  Putting aside NPOV for a moment, Paul Krassner states that Charles Manson was not a hippie in an article he wrote for High Times, later expanded and included in Russ Kick's Everything You Know is Wrong. Charles Manson is relevant to an article on hippies due to the reasons explained by the Thomson Gale citation, as well as the explanation Founders4 has laid out above, so I won't repeat them here.  The relationship between the media, the Hippies, and Manson have already been explained in that cite: "Mainstream Americans who had once looked on these countercultural movements as fairly benign began to see in them a real threat to the social order...the media attention on the case seemed to confirm the worst fears of those who believed that the hippie lifestyle of drugs and sex could easily lead to crime."  The Manson incident, whether media-inspired or not, was one factor that led to the decline of the hippie movement. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with everything Pedant just said... Blockinblox 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you would be in error.  Looking above, a connection between Charles Manson and hippies has been established by Gale, a reliable reference work which demonstrates direct relevance to the subject of Hippies, and has been substantiated in the article "Sixties Counterculture: The Hippies and Beyond", in the Sixties in America Reference Library by Thomson Gale.  But, don't let the facts get in the way. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be able to provide some links or quotes that support your point of view on this, Viriditas? I have yet to see anything authoritative that suggests that Manson was a hippie. Manson doesn't fit any definition of a hippie that I've seen. He is a criminal psychopath, and it is a characteristic of some psychopaths to assume a particulare identity that suits their purpose. The media, of course played that angle (it sells). Please point me to a citation that shows differently. Sunray 07:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Vincent Bugliosi, Manson was not a hippie, and Paul Krassner agrees.  The original section made this point.  And, even though he disagrees, Bugliosi describes the popular POV that the Manson case "sounded the death knell for hippies and all they represented."  He quotes Joan Didion and Diane Sawyer, as well as Time in support of this POV.  Bugliosi admits that although the Manson murders "may have hastened" the end of the hippie era, the era was already in decline (according to him).  More importantly, Bugliosi makes it very clear that hippies "disavowed Manson, stating that what he espoused...violence, was antithetical to their beliefs."  There are many other opinions, however, with some elements of the counterculture embracing Manson, not to mention Manson's history in the Haight, as the "gardener" who "tends the flower children".  One cannot deny that this topic is relevant and should be mentioned.  —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I see where you are going with this, Viriditas and I think it works. In fact, you and Founders4 have convinced me that a carefully-qualified section on Manson along these lines would be a reasonable addition to the article. Sunray 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty much with Founders4 on this one. —Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus poll re: Manson

message: *No connection has been established. Omit the section. User:Pedant 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: ::Just a comment, but NPOV has nothing to do with relevance. Stop citing policy at me, I am completely familiar with ALL wikipedia policies... WP:NPOV means wikipedia doesn't take a stand on the issue of whether he was a hippie or not, if there are conflicting sources.  Where does Paul Krassner state that Charles Manson is a hippie?  And if he was a hippie, what makes Charles Manson relevant to an article on hippies? What is the connection to the rest of the article?  There were thousands of hippie notables, (or people who were said in some media to be hippies) do you propose the insertion of unrelated text about each one of them?  The text about Manson doesn't connect to the rest of the article.  If you are insistent about adding mention of Charels Manson, I am equally insistent about the text having some relevance to the article: it needs to actually make the article a better article or it doesn't belong.  User:Pedant 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to your own beliefs on this talk page, your "comment" shouldn't be made in response to my poll entry, and furthermore, my opinion was not made in response to you, but stands as my vote.  I would be happy to answer your questions (and I have addressed most of them before in previous discussions) but I would like it if you stop making things personal and work on civility by respecting my right to have an opinion that in no way refers to you personally.  Thanks.  Putting aside NPOV for a moment, Paul Krassner states that Charles Manson was not a hippie in an article he wrote for High Times, later expanded and included in Russ Kick's Everything You Know is Wrong. Charles Manson is relevant to an article on hippies due to the reasons explained by the Thomson Gale citation, as well as the explanation Founders4 has laid out above, so I won't repeat them here.  The relationship between the media, the Hippies, and Manson have already been explained in that cite: "Mainstream Americans who had once looked on these countercultural movements as fairly benign began to see in them a real threat to the social order...the media attention on the case seemed to confirm the worst fears of those who believed that the hippie lifestyle of drugs and sex could easily lead to crime."  The Manson incident, whether media-inspired or not, was one factor that led to the decline of the hippie movement. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with everything Pedant just said... Blockinblox 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you would be in error.  Looking above, a connection between Charles Manson and hippies has been established by Gale, a reliable reference work which demonstrates direct relevance to the subject of Hippies, and has been substantiated in the article "Sixties Counterculture: The Hippies and Beyond", in the Sixties in America Reference Library by Thomson Gale.  But, don't let the facts get in the way. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be able to provide some links or quotes that support your point of view on this, Viriditas? I have yet to see anything authoritative that suggests that Manson was a hippie. Manson doesn't fit any definition of a hippie that I've seen. He is a criminal psychopath, and it is a characteristic of some psychopaths to assume a particulare identity that suits their purpose. The media, of course played that angle (it sells). Please point me to a citation that shows differently. Sunray 07:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Vincent Bugliosi, Manson was not a hippie, and Paul Krassner agrees.  The original section made this point.  And, even though he disagrees, Bugliosi describes the popular POV that the Manson case "sounded the death knell for hippies and all they represented."  He quotes Joan Didion and Diane Sawyer, as well as Time in support of this POV.  Bugliosi admits that although the Manson murders "may have hastened" the end of the hippie era, the era was already in decline (according to him).  More importantly, Bugliosi makes it very clear that hippies "disavowed Manson, stating that what he espoused...violence, was antithetical to their beliefs."  There are many other opinions, however, with some elements of the counterculture embracing Manson, not to mention Manson's history in the Haight, as the "gardener" who "tends the flower children".  One cannot deny that this topic is relevant and should be mentioned.  —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see where you are going with this, Viriditas and I think it works. In fact, you and Founders4 have convinced me that a carefully-qualified section on Manson along these lines would be a reasonable addition to the article. Sunray 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty much with Founders4 on this one. —Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: How can a group be "nonpolitical" and simultaneously seek "to champion and implement change by opposing the Vietnam war" and "embrace the civil rights movement"? 
It seems that almost any perspective can be supported by a "hippie" quote from somewhere.  A while back the lead of this article said that "the hippie movement began during the late 1960s." That was nonsense too, yet the sentence sported a perfectly legitimate quote to support it.
I've commented on this before, quoting Oracle founder Allen Cohen's essay, "A New Look at the Summer of Love" http://www.be-in.com/history/allen-cohen/:
:There were two aspects to the experience of the 60s: the resistance to the war, and the "psychedelic experience", personified as political activists and hippies. For the most part these two vectors overlapped in the same individuals, so that many of those who actively resisted the Vietnam war had used LSD and smoked marijuana. As a society we have tried to understand the sixties mostly as political resistance to the war, but have mostly ignored and denied the changes in values and culture brought about by "psychedelic experiences". 
What has been consistently ignored is Cohen's clause, "For the most part these two vectors overlapped in the same individuals..."  And the lead has become increasingly simplistic, using selective quotes to present the idea that the counterculture was comprised of three separate, self-identified groups.  First all reference was deleted to hippie outrage at the Vietnam War as a fulfillment of Eisenhower's "Farewell Address" warning against the "military-industrial complex."  Then Altman's photo was deleted, which showed plenty of hippies among a crowd of anti-war demonstrators in San Francisco circa 1970.  Now hippies have become quite "nonpolitical."
Yet one definition of "political" is:
:Of or relating to one's views about social relationships involving authority or power"
By this definition, ALL hippies were intensely political.
Then there is a somewhat narrower definition of "political": 
:Relating to the government or public affairs of a country.
By this definition, MOST hippies were intensely political, particularly with respect to one particular "public affair" of the United States of America--the Vietnam War.
Then there is the narrowest defintion of "political":
:Of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics.
Even according to this definition, SOME hippies were political.  How else to explain the large hippie presence at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago?
But feel free.  Go ahead.  Pursue the "non-political" thing until the group you are describing becomes completely unrecognizable, especially to those who comprised it. 
It does make Wikipedia look bad though.  Comments anyone?Founders4 05:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Founders4, could you please keep your comments brief and to the point?  I have requested this of you for some time with no results.  I can address your points, but your essay-length responses do not help.  Please refactor your comment above for brevity.  As it stands, citing reliable sources does not harm Wikipedia in any way.  From the source in question:  "...hippies sympathized with the political positions of their fellow dissenters yet rarely used politics as a means of expressing their rejection [of] mainstream values. Politics, they claimed, was the game played by conventional adults, and they wanted no part of elections, lobbying, protests, and other common ways to bring about social change. In fact, they wanted no part of what they called "establishment" culture at all, believing that permanent legal and civil organizations were too concerned with material goods, too competitive, and too dominated by anxiety and corruption. Hippies wanted a new society based on peace, love, and pleasure. Members of the hippie counter-culture expressed their dissent through personal expression..." —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, repeated requests for brevity over many weeks is not "lecturing".  Every source I've found describes the hippie subgroup as nonpolitical.  Even hippies who were part of the diverse antiwar movement in 1967 offered nonpolitical solutions.  Hippies are seen as cultural, not political radicals, who rejected middle-class values and advocated dropping out of society like the Beats.  A smal vocal minority wanted to reject the entire establishment, and proposed the creation of a new one.  In this regard, the 1968 "Declaration of Cultural Evolution" should be discussed in the article.  One could compare the cultural dissent of the hippies, who preferred to work outside the system  with the political dissent of say, the 1966 SNCC position paper on Vietnam, which explicitly frames its political dissent within the establishment, encouraging "those Americans who prefer to use their energy in building democratic forms within the country." —Viriditas | Talk 18:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Question About "Nonpolitical" 

message: There is general agreement that the lead is too long and must be cut in half.  I will be working towards that goal. Similarly, the external links section is useless and I will attempt to incorporate the most informative links into the body of the article, with links in the notes section.  —Viriditas | Talk 21:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found the links useful.  Links considered for removal should be posted first. Founders4 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you help me out by specifying which links you found useful?  Notable intentional community links, for example, will be moved to that section.  Your help is appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 06:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning sections

message: This is in reply to the request for a third opinion at WP:3O. There, the problem was described as:
:Dispute between editors regarding removing substantial portions of an article without discussion. WP:OWN Removal of unsourced text. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing Disagreement regarding relevance. Sockpuppetry allegations. Big mess. 
My third opinion is that WP.3O is an inappropriate venue for this problem, because what is being described is a user conduct issue, which requires dispute resolution, not a content issue, which requires an opinion. Moreover, per WP:3O, "This page is for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. More complex disputes should be worked out on article talk pages, or by following the dispute resolution process." I've accordingly removed the opinion request. Sandstein 19:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:3O request 

message: Many of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College (later renamed San Francisco State University) who had "dropped out" after they started taking psychedelic drugs and began living communally in the large, inexpensive Victorian apartments in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.  Young Americans around the country began moving to San Francisco, and by June, 1966, around 15,000 hippies had moved into the Haight. This constituted the original core of the hippie movement, comprised of people with historical roots and the beginnings of a political and social analysis.  A second wave, larger, younger and without an analysis and commitment that could sustain their rebellion, but nevertheless affixed with the same appellation - hippie - flooded major cities around the world in response to the publicity that followed the world's first "Human Be-in" or "Gathering of the Tribes".  Knowing this basic distinction between these two sociological demographics is essential for understanding the further history of the movement.  For example, it is likely that it was mostly the second wave that "copped out" and became yuppies. Many or most of the originators are probably still among us, scattered across the country and the world, having had and continuing to have a profound influence in a thousand different ways on mainstream society and culture. Tompkins, 2001, Vol. 7 Founders4 07:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no.  That cite was added by me to support the number of hippies that moved into the Haight.  It does not support the newest personal essay and original research added by the anon.  Please stop encouraging this behavior.  —Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You would be more successful in communicating this "spirit" quantitatively; why haven't you added Yablonsky's data regarding the strength/weaknesses of the numbers?  That would help develop a demographic section where we could group the statistics in one location. —Viriditas | Talk 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grunt, grunt.  Sorry, you don't speak bonehead so please permit me to  translate from my native neanderthal tongue.  You made your point the first time around, and the second time I distinctly heard the sound of a dead horse being beaten by a magnificent, battle-hardened club of authority.  Why you find the cliché of history being written by the winners, novel in some way, escapes me, but if you would care to apply your expertise to the topic of this article, commenting critically and pointing out the gaps (chasms really) in the fragmented history of the hippies, and offering suggestions on how to improve it, that would be wonderful, but I see you have set down the battle club only to start grinding the axe head.  Let me know when you are finished.  —Viriditas | Talk 00:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, what's stopping you from adding more of the "hippie voice" to the article, in the tradition of sources like Zinn's "people's history"?  And since you're an expert on 'nam, why not describe in detail, the relationship and interactions between hippies and the antiwar movement?  There's a lot you could contribute to this article, none of which involves the clubbing of boneheads. —Viriditas | Talk 19:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yeah, that's what we're talking about!  Many thanks! 

message: Okay, so I see my paragraph on 'Holier Than Thou Hippies' was removed.  Fair enough.  However, it wasn't a joke or vandalisation,  these people ARE a sub group of hippies and in the UK there are millions of them, they are a shame to the word Hippie and I feel there is a need for this to be included.   Am I right in thinking this is open for anyone to edit?  If not, accept my apologies and I will go elsewhere.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.207.196 (talk • contribs) 10:20, October 22, 2006
*Yes, it's open for anyone to edit. You edited it, and then someone else edited it, removing your original research. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretentious Hippies. 

message: :These authors believed modern, material desires led to an imbalance in the relationship between humanity and the natural world, resulting in spiritual and physical maladies.  (Removed--statement too general, thus inaccurate.)
:The movement embraced many lifestyles, including vegetarianism, fasting, raw food diets, nudism, organic farming, and  communal living. (Needs attribution)
I believe this was in reference to the German Hippie movement at the end of the 1900s.  For this you can refer to: Children of the Sun, by Gordon Kennedy.  I would also like to see the statement about the European movement of the 18th & 19 centuries reincluded. Skipstone 16:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  German back-to-nature movement. 

message: :After 1971 the hippie movement gradually became less visible as a distinct social phenomenon. No longer the focus of urban mainstream media attention,  Hippies moved to rural locations to pursue simple living.  The conclusion of U.S. involvement in Vietnam after the 1973 peace accords meant that many hippies felt less compelled to engage politically.   
:Many Americans who had once accepted the "hippie" label chose to adopt more conventional outer personae, while holding fast to the timeless ideals that had fuelled the hippie movement from its beginnings. 
The above sections are unsourced.  Also, there is a confusion in the second sentence, which implies that hippies moved to rural locations because they were no longer the focus of urban mainstream media attention--suspect many hippies decided to move to rural locations, and in those rural locations they were no longer the focus of urban mainstream media attention.  No reliable secondary source is offered that would allow attribution of the last sentence.Founders4 08:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not original research, easily sourced in the secondary literature, and in fact, summarizes previously sourced information in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 21:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waning of the hippie movement 

message: :Hippie tolerance fell short of full inclusiveness; many hippies were not particularly comfortable with homosexuality when it came to communal living arrangements. 
:In fact, hippie domestic life seemed largely to default to traditional gender roles, with women doing most of the work— cooking, cleaning, child care, and so on—while the men engaged in creative, artistic pursuits. Images of women in hippie art abound, generally as innocents, goddesses or muses. Most hippie entrepreneurs, philosophers, commune founders and leaders, writers and artists were men.  A notable exception was Lenore Kandel, whose Love Book got her busted for pornography in 1967. 
:Traditional gender roles gradually changed as hippie culture embraced modern feminism and egalitarian principles. In 1970, Germaine Greer, Australian feminist and active member of the hippie movement, published The Female Eunuch, in which she expounded on free love, sexual liberation and the nonsensical nature of women's bras; hippie women were among the first to remove theirs.
The above paragraphs are unsourced, and consist of original research with some synthesization of ideas. Founders4 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is not original research, is easily sourced in the secondary literature, and is attributed appropriately.  While verification is important, and should be encouraged, the editor who wrote this section is going from the historical record, however there is nothing wrong requesting sources for statements deemed controversial.  Please read the original research policy, again. —Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual attitudes 

message: :Hippies were simultaneously criticised for being both 'too idealist' and 'too shallow'.  The reason in part is that the early hippies wanted society to become more idealistic, but as hippie style began to enter the mainstream, the very elements hippies were rebelling against became attracted to superficial aspects of the movement.  This resulted in a watering-down of the culture, fashion and philosophy of the hippie movement. 
Obvious synthesis of ideas constituting original research.Founders4 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what the policy says, so read it again.  This is not so much a synthesis as a summary of conclusions easily referenced in the secondary literature, however I agree that this requires sources. —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too idealistic, too shallow?