Talk:Deadhead

message: The British neurologist includes in his book "An Anthropologist on Mars" (1995) a chapter entitled "The Last Hippie" [sic] in which he describes a man who has suffered blindness and memory loss caused by a brain tumour. The patient is a devoted Deadhead, but is mentally and emotionally stuck in 1969, twenty-five years earlier. When Dr Sacks takes him to hear The Grateful Dead, the patient is convinced that although blind he can see Garcia's Afro, and describes seeing Pigpen on stage. Dr Sacks tells him gently that Pigpen is dead, but a few minutes later the patient describes seeing Pigpen again, due to his short-term memory loss. He knows classic Dead songs by heart and sings along, but more modern songs confuse him. Dr Sacks mentions towards the end of the chapter that he now sends concert tapes to the patient, is good friends with several band members and that when they meet, the patient "greets [him] like a true Deadhead" 
Is Dr Sacks a Deadhead? --Simon (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr Oliver Sacks

message: What's the point of this section? Is it a joke? Or someone seriously wish to promote individuals like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, etc, into (ex-)Dead Heads?!? As about Mr. Clinton, his contribution to the community is really legendary: "When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton
I like the general idea of a section on "celebrity Deadheads," but I think there ought to be a distinction between "Deadheads" and "Dead fans." I do not think it is the place of Wikipedia to judge whether or not a person (famous or otherwise) represents the "spirit" of being a Deadhead. However, I think the same general standard should apply to famous people as to the non-famous.
Examples -- Ann Coulter actually called herself a Deadhead in interviews. I do not remember Clinton or Tony Blair applying that term to themselves. Bill Walton is an avowed Deadhead and friend of the band themselves. Joseph Campbell saw some shows and admired the Dead, but every quote of his I've read about the Dead read like he saw the Deadheads as "them", and didn't consider himself one of them. Etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.139.128 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the section seems fairly self-explanatory--the article itself is about a fandom and the section in question is about famous people within the fandom.  I don't see it as an attempt to "promote" any of the named individuals but if you have a legitimate objection to the section, feel free to post your reasoning here. Seelie 08:02, 29 November 2006
I'll post my reasoning instead, while I am still ambivalent about this section, I will promptly remove mentions of Clinton, Blair and the Gores, these guys fit nicely with the trilater commision, the bilderberg and other "think tanks" but they sure don't fit with the dead heads. Just because someone supposedly attended a concert or smoked pot but didn't inhale, or played for a year or two in a band "influenced" by the dead, is not an avid fan. And having as a reference an illustrated book some publisher got out to serve whatever reasons they might wish to serve is not a citation. If arch conservative, elitist and powerful rulers would very much like to appropriate the dead heads, essentially a peacefull hippy crowd, for publicity reasons they should try a little harder. But they can't have it both ways, bilderberg and non inhalation don't really mix with the spirit of the dead, it's actually a blasphemy.
195.134.69.186 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They are included because they are mentioned in two official Grateful Dead books. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This people are mentioned, discusses, and sourced properly. It you need, check your local books store. Also, the direct links to Amazon.com are here: ,  The pages are sourced in the article after their names. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Not all books are going to found in their entirety for free on the internet because their are copyright issues. I have placed the reliable sources, that is the proof. What you are essentially saying is that these people are too controversial, in your eyes, even though they are sourced? That may be true, but that would be a conflict of interest. As for internet sourcing, I suggest you try any available internet search engine. Heck, even the archives of the New York Times has articles mentioning then if you look. Al Gore, in particular, has a lot of information with his relationship to the GD and their culture. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the section Celebrity Heads  

message: Redirect to Grateful Dead? --Robert Merkel 22:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree.  Deadheads are a separate if linked phenonemon and is notable enough to deserve its own article.  Also noted that WP has a separate article for Trekkie, rather than a redirect to Star Trek.   Wasted Time R 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Grateful Dead?  

message: BTW: perhaps there should be a separate article on all the subcultures that have sprung out of the Dead's odd experiment. There are queer Dead Heads who organized themselves, there are Orthodox Jewish Deadheads, The Merry Punsters (picky Dead Heads with a comical bent), Deafheads (Heads who enjoyed the music via a volunteer interpreter in their own special section that the band provided), the Net Heads, you name it.
Not all of these subcultures still exist, but it was still a fascinating cultural phenomenon.
"Deadhead subcultures" shoould remain subordinate to "Deadhead."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.139.128 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Subcultures

message: Moeron, here's a quote from one of the rules you cited, reliable, published sources:
:This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
So this rule is a guideline, not an absolute rule.  It's not "policy."  And you're supposed to discuss it if there's some disagreement about applying the rule.
You, Wasted Time R, and I seem to be the interested parties.  I say you're applying the rules in a way that's too rigid for this topic.
Michael Trigoboff 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, what sources are in contention? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't understand exactly what you're asking me here. Can you provide a bit more detail/context/information?  Thanks...  Michael Trigoboff 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I guess we are both confused. Why did you start this section and point out WP:RS? What "point" are you trying to make? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says right there in that rule that it's not mandatory.  It's a guideline.  I do not think that your application of these rules is appropriate to this topic.  I think that is what we need to discuss.  You are claiming that every single thing in this article must have some source in published material.  To repeat myself, I do not think that's appropriate in this case. -- Michael Trigoboff 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that applies to pointing out which sources are reliable, but Wikipedia still doesn't allow original thought or original research (ie, statements about on-off nights without sources). -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As Trigoboff has pointed out, you are obsessing over rules that are designed to keep crank scientific theories and libelous biographical articles out of WP. Neither is at play here. There are jillions of articles in WP that don't reference every fact according to the above rules. Many of these articles are full of non-truths, distortions, and the like, and deserve to be gone over. You've never claimed that one thing in this article was untrue, just that it was unverified. I'd suggest you find a more serious article, where your attentions would make a much more positive contribution.   Wasted Time R 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way! I want to help make another article a good article and as close to fact as possible. Again, Wikipedia articles are about verifiablity, not truth. This is a particular high interest of mine, so I will continue to make this article better with yours and Trigoboffs help and I appreciate it a lot. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, it won't be a "good article."  It will be a useless and boring article that captures nothing important about the Deadhead phenomenon.  See my comments in the "sources" topic below. Michael Trigoboff 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying The Rules 

message: I was thinking, one thing this page needs (other then working out the unsourced, POV statements, haha) is a picture of some sort. I am going to look around for a picture of the "Dead Freaks unite" statement. If not, I was thinking a "steal your face" skull. Thoughts? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures would be great, assuming you get them past the (legitimate) copyright/fair use rules.   Wasted Time R 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A picture

message: I think it is a glaring omision to leave out any mention of the riot that took place at Noblesville IN in 94. It was a major news story and showed a Definite change in the group dynamic.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of  Wiktionary 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Major news story? Change in the group dynamic? This seems like original research as does most of chronilogical portion of the article. --Tom 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have been high or already inside at the time since it doesn't even really even ring any bells all these years later :). If you can dig up some references and post them here I guess it can be included as long as its in some kind of context. What do others think? It just seems that there is so much original research/commentary in this article, but thats just my small opinion. Cheers, --Tom 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh i am sorry, i was thinking of an earlier show at Deercreek. At that point, I had actually slowed down the number of shows i was attending. Also, Jerry died in 1995 not 1994?? Can you link some cites to the riot events? I vagely remeber mention of it? I do remember Bill Graham yelling at a bunch of dead heads (myself included) outside of the SF civic center for not having tickets on NEW YEARS EVE of all nights. That was one of the few shows I did have to "sneak" into :). The problem with gate crashers was a problem, but providing sources is an issue. anyways, --Tom 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it took place on 7/2/95. Google didn't help. --Tom 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: riot at deercreek

message: I added a "celebrity head", but I cannot cite the source the same way sources were cited for the other celebs. Something is really wrong with this section. Footnotes 25-29 are all in footnote 25.
All I know how to do is copy what has already been done. (I find this a more effective learning technique than using the largely incomprehensible WP help pages.) Unfortunately, it looks like I'm copying something that wasn't right in the first place. It sure seems like I did the same thing as the web link to Patrick Leahy, and I tried to do the other web links the same way, but the references from 25-29 are all still listed with #25?
Someone needs to fix this.
.s
X ile 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Do you have to have attended a show to be a deadhead? Did Bill ever see the boys perform? Just curious. Thanks, --Tom 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I know for sure he was at RFK in 94 or 95 (i dont remember)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.47.128.202 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Clinton was a deadhead

message: It seems that there needs major work here. Is it Moeron?, could you chime in, not that you own it, but you seem pretty involved, thanks --Tom 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the touchheads and minglewood council ect was added back with an edit summary about me not liking it. It really isn't about whether I like it or not since I really don't care one way of the other, it just seems like original research and not really notable. Who is doing this research and what makes them an authority on this subject? It seems that alot of the cites are from the same source? Anyways, --Tom 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major original research, commentary, POV, cruff, whatever the hell you want to call it

message: It's common knowledge that Greg Ginn and Henry Rollins are publically anti-hippy, and the source given for their supposed appreciation of the band is some kids high school presentation uploaded to a media-sharing site. I can find no solid evidence for this entry, unless anyone pipes up to the contrary I'll remove it in a weeks time - Al.locke (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You didn't check the Henry Rollins article in Wikipedia?  Hmm, I understand it's quite a widely used source for references to verifiable information.
The source given on that presentation is an entry from Rollins' book "Get In the Van".  I don't have a copy of the book, but it should be easy enough to check.
Rollins has certainly mocked the various excesses of hippie-dom in that some hippies (trustafarians come to mind) can embody the hypocrisy he has spent most of his life battling, but I do not believe that he is "anti-hippie" so much as he is anti-dogma, and specifically hates dogma bred of ignorance.  As such, much of the knee jerk liberalism and soft-minded platitudinalism of the hippie scene would greatly offend him.  But that does not make him anti-hippie.  Just anti-d*&^chebag.
UncleCheese (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, and the quote from the book is correct. My point is that enjoying a Dead show doesn't make one a deadhead - Al.locke (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Black Flag fans of the Dead?

message: I'm uncertain that the writers of the article are correct in stating that the "Dead Head" tag came about in the 1970s. It is absolutely correct to cite the first mention of the term in the album blurb, but I have spoken to several Grateful Dead fans who have informed me that the term was coming into being in the late 1960s and the album appeal for Dead Headers was simply an acknowledgement of an established term. I believe the term was also prevelant for at least part of the 1980s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.244.255  (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Origins Of The "Dead Head" Tag - 1960s, Not 1970s? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Deadhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060514063700/http://www.billwalton.com:80/dead_press_release.html to http://billwalton.com/dead_press_release.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Deadhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083124/http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA010106.1C.FBCrosebowl.carroll.31f5fea.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA010106.1C.FBCrosebowl.carroll.31f5fea.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060601203735/http://leahy.senate.gov/vermont/chats/chat980506.html to http://leahy.senate.gov/vermont/chats/chat980506.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120224959/http://www.gettingit.com/article/35 to http://www.gettingit.com/article/35
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Deadhead. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=5776
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215044024/http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=3344 to http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=3344
*Added  tag to http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=5776
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Deadhead's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "auto":
From Ann Coulter: 
From Steve Bannon: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Deadhead]]