Talk:Hippie/Archive 2

Origin of the Word

Doesn't the name Hippy come from Hipsters, a type of jeans fasionable at the time?--2toise 10:56, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)

I have to do a lot of reading to find it again, but I recall back in the 80's reading a 1950's Steinbeck novel and being quite surprised that he used the word "hippie" or "hippy" -- just once, and quite casually, as if the reader would know what it meant. I'll browse through my old paperbacks Seminumerical 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

what percentage of america were hippies in the 60s/70s

nowhere says aproximately how many hippies there were back then

Great question! I'm working on this, but from what I can tell so far, it was a very small percentage. —Viriditas | Talk 09:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Approximately zero, I'd venture. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yablonsky comments extensively on this in The Hippie Trip (pp 36-37), published in 1968. Yablonsky admitted that estimates of hippie numbers were a speculative sport, but these are his estimates based on extensive personal research, including some collecting of empirical evidence in the form of thousands of questionaires he had hippies fill out:

-200,000 core, visible and identifiable total hippie drop-outs in the United States.

-Another 200,000 visible teeny-bopper, part-time summer and weekend hippies.

-Millions of hippie "fellow travelers" who had enormous sympathy with the core drop-out and their philosophy and who aided them in various ways. (Yablonsky includes parents also as involuntary participants who were generally unsympathetic to the hippie movement.)

Yablonsky's conclusion: Several million Americans were directly involved. Probably a more informed guess than most. Founders4 05:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please get this in the article? —Viriditas | Talk 06:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

1964 Demonstration Against the Vietnam War?

"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)

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)

Old lead

Hippie, often spelled hippy, is a term commonly used to describe some of the rebellious youth of the 1960s and early 1970s. The word hippie was popularized by the late San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen, whose articles were written with the help of notes and letters from his San Francisco fan base. He is also credited as among the first to include the words beatnik and yuppie in his column.

Though not a cohesive cultural movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos, some generalizations nonetheless apply. Hippies tended to express their desire for change by renouncing corporate influence, consumerism and the Vietnam War; by embracing aspects of non-Judeo-Christian religious cultures (including much Eastern philosophy); by adopting nomadic lifestyles; and by criticizing Western middle class values. Elements of romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy can be seen in their writings and artistic expressions. They also embraced communal living, recreational drug use, free love, sexual liberation, interracial dating, unconventional clothing, long hair for both genders and facial hair for men.

Most hippies believed that the government was corrupt, corporate industry was souless and greedy, traditional morals were askew, and war was inhumane. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man.

The 21st century has brought with it a neo-hippie movement, with an ethos similar to that of the original hippies.

Rewrite

You added "though not a cohesive cultural movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos", back into Hippie after I removed it. In fact, there were well-defined leaders and manifestos, so I'm not understanding this statement. However, this was not a cultural movement, but a countercultural movement that spread around the world. This statement is supported by various sources, including Britannica. —Viriditas | Talk 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the original sentence, but I do believe it conveys an important reality about what the hippie counterculture movement was all about. When you objected to the starkness of the original sentence, I added the qualifier "well-defined" to differentiate between movements that have strong centers and this one, which did not.

The problem with writing about what happened during the hippie era is that the "leaders"--Ken Kesey, Neal Cassady, Allen Ginsburg, Timothy Leary, Owsley Stanley, Steve Gaskin, Stewart Brand and hundreds of others whom I personally knew--did not consider themselves to be leaders at all. It was much more playful than that. They said things, but they did not expect what they said to be taken too seriously. They wrote various things, but these certainly were not "manifestos." Many of the most influential "leaders" were song writers and musicians--hippiedom evolved, much as a musical piece evolves during a jam session.

I've read your current introduction. I really think the previous one, which had stood for a long time, was better. You are correct that it was a "counterculture movement," and that is a good change to make. But some of the rest is inaccurate:

• It didn't just surface on United States college campuses--the base was much broader than that. The Wikipedia "Counterculture" article does a good job explaining this.

• When you say it spread to other Western democracies, citing Canada and Britain in particular, this is much too limiting a statement.

• Hippies did indeed embrace the term "hippie." It was widely used among those who were actual participants, and its use was not limited to outsiders who intended it pejoratively. But, again, no one who was actually involved took it that seriously.

I also think the previous organization was better--a brief introduction to the word "hippie" and who popularized it, rather than spotlighting the first, rather obscure references to the word.

In particular I object to new paragraph that begins "Hippies were said to have rejected the mores of conventional society." The rest of the paragraph does not follow from the lead sentence.

And you have eliminated entirely: "Most hippies believed that the government was corrupt, corporate industry was souless and greedy, traditional morals were askew, and war was inhumane. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man." I think this conveyed quite a lot.

Your edits make me sad for this article. Perhaps we can work something out that would be mutually acceptable, but your wholesale approach seems needlessly aggressive to me. Founders4 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your essay-length reply, but it makes it difficult to reply to your points in context. I'll try, in any case:

• Hippies as a cultural movement. I thought this point was resolved by replacing it with the countercultural movement, but you say you want to emphasize the lack of a "strong center". If you have a source, cite it. Better yet, explain what you mean. As far as I understand it, by its very nature, the hippie movement was decentralized.

• Leaders. Yes, you make good points, and I think something more should be said about the previous point. However, there were leaders, strong or weak, and there were defining texts.

• Rewrite of the lead. What you call inaccurate is either text that was already in the article, or information that can be easily cited:

• College campuses. You're absolutely right, but the campus was the epicenter. The lead needs to be tight and to the point, and if you can do that with a minor change, by all means go ahead, but I don't see a problem with it as it stands in reference to this point.

• Sphere of influence. It spread around the world, but the immediate effects were felt in Canada and the UK for obvious reasons. This can be expanded in the rest of the article.

• Hippie as a pejorative. At what point did "hippies" embrace the term? As I understand it the term was derogatory, and actual "hippies" referred to themselves by other names, such as "freaks".

• Previous lead. You think that talking about Herb Caen for half the lead was better? Take a look at WP:LEAD.

• Rejection of mores. You object to the standard, cited definition of Hippies? The rest of the lead, in fact, does follow from that statement, so I'm not following you. Can you be specific?

• Establishment and The Man. No, I did not eliminate this section. You'll find that I moved it to the politics section, intact. I think it conveys a lot too, but does it belong in the lead? I think not.

• Aggressive. See WP:OWN. I'm willing to compromise. You'll see that I did not revert jpgordon's removal of my addition of baby boomers to the lead, even though I feel that is an accurate statement.

This article needs a lot of work and there's a lot that needs to be done. I agree that the lead should be changed, but it must reflect the rest of the article, which at this point is a complete mess. We disagree on the use of the word as a pejorative. The pejorative connotations section claims this is a recent development, but it's always been that way, from day one. I have no doubt that hippies have embraced the term as their own, like many subcultures. And, the characteristics section needs to be merged back into the rest of the article and expanded. As it stands, it's just a list of stereotypes. There's a timeline waiting to be split; Historical antecedents should be moved to the top section; etymology needs to be separated from origins; and the legacy section should be greatly expanded. —Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your point by point approach reminds me of the linear approach my lawyer friends take. Unfortnately such an approach is antithetical to the hippie spirit.

It's not that the leaders were "strong" or "weak." They just were not "well defined." The leaders, some of whom I named, did not always lead. Often the followers led. My metaphor of a jam band--do you play music, or have you witnessed a jam session?--is apropos. It was a creative process, and no one--not the "leaders" and not the "followers"--knew where it would take us.

You stated that there were defining texts. Which texts might you be referring to? To the best of my knowledge, there really were not any "defining texts" of the hippie movement. A number of published works exerted significant influence, but they were not written by hippies and they embodied no concerted attempt to inspire change. STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND by Robert Heinlein was a good example. Others would be THE PROPHET by Kahlil Gibran, THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER by Eklal Kueshana, THE TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD and many lessor tracts by Leary, Kesey and others that appeared and disappeared in short order. Some of the most influential people--Neal Cassady for example--wrote little that was published during his lifetime. I spent only about a month with Neal, but that exposure changed everything. Steve Gaskin probably wrote more, but his main influence was during his "Monday Night Classes" when he would emanate such a strong aura that EVERYONE in the room could see it. Last New Year's Eve I took my daughter and her boyfriend to hear Phil Lesh and Friends--in the absence of the Grateful Dead this was the closest I could come to introducing them to the kind of learning that occurred during the hippie era. The movement, and the learning associated with it, was mostly not intellectual--not a "mind trip" as we would have said back then. And specific songs exerted enormous influence; we all know them, so I won't name them here.

The campuses were perhaps the epicenters with respect to specific happenings. For example I was at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement. And I helped build People's Park, which was an endeavor connected with the Berkeley campus. But most of the rest of it, in fact a lot of the most important stuff, occurred elsewhere and had nothing whatever to do with college campuses.

To mention Canada and the UK without mentioning the rest of Western (and even Eastern) Europe is a problem for me. Also, the lead as you have witten it is much too America-centric--previous editors have worked hard to eliminate this tendency. For example, when the Beatles visited San Francisco and were turned on to psychedelics this vastly changed their music, but then that music returned to change the evolving U.S. hippie scene. The period between 1964 and 1969 was intense and free-flowing--it's just not accurate to say it was a "countercultural movement which surfaced on United States college campuses in the 1960s, spreading to other Western democracies such as Canada and Britain"--it was much broader than that and much more interactive.

We embraced the term as soon as other people started referring to us as "hippies." I don't remember exactly when I first heard the term, but certainly by early 1967 we called ourselves "hippies," welcoming the term and accepting it warmly. It just wasn't a serious thing. "Freaks" was also used, but not that often...and it applied mostly to drug-addled hippies.

You are right about the section mentioning Herb Caen. I suppose we don't really need to mention that he also popularized "beatniks" and "yuppies," although this does point up how influential he was with respect to the "hippie" label.

"Hippies were said to have rejected the mores of conventional society." My first objection to this sentence is the use of the passive "were said," which begs the question "by whom." I suppose "mores" does encompass most of the rest of the paragraph, but it has strong connotations of moral values. In my opinion, what the article needs to convey is that the hippie impulse for change was generalized and experimental. A lot of things were tried and rejected. Some of it stuck, which is the hippie legacy.

Regarding "standard, cited definitions of hippies"--well I think we can do better referencing sources other than the Britannica.

"Establishment and The Man." Yes, of course you are correct. There were many edits, which I scanned rather quickly, and I missed the new location.

Yes, your approach did seem aggressive to me. This article, as much as you may disdain it, has a rather long history. And it has improved over time--just look at some of the earlier edits if you don't believe me. I think it is better to proceed in an evolutionary way, as this maximizes the gain. Everyone, even previous editors, had a lot to offer in what they wrote. And you have something to offer as well. I would just appreciate it if the changes were less wholesale.

Hold the presses! I just went to the current article, and I see that you ARE willing to compromise. Maybe this will be the beginning of a successful collaborative effort. Thanks for melding some of the old lead back in. Perhaps I'll make a few changes that I think might be appropriate given our conversation.

Regarding the article needing a lot of work: I went ahead and read the Britannica article, which you referenced previously. I believe the Wikipedia article, for all its faults, better communicates what hippies were all about. Part of the reason for this is that the Wikipedia article doesn't try to "nail it." It can't be "nailed." I suspect that the changes you propose would bring the Wikipedia article more in line with the Britannica article; I think that would be a mistake.

The pejorative issue is an important one. You say "it's always been that way from day one." Well, as I have mentioned, I knew most of the primary people, and I was "on scene" from 1964 on. I can tell you that you are mistaken on this one. We accepted the label "from day one," and it was accepted in good humor.

I believe the characteristics section would be difficult to merge into the article, though I do understand your objections. Probably the most important part of this section is the last part, quoting Stewart Brand and alluding to the spiritual and philosophical underpinnings of the hippie ethos.

If you move the historical antecedents to the top section, I think readers might get too bogged down. I understand your reason for wanting to do so, and I considered it myself, but on balance I think it should stay where it is.

Expanding the legacy section is probably a good idea--what do you propose?

Hey--I have to get some sleep :- ) Welcome any suggestions on improving the article in an evolutionary way Founders4 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Made a couple of changes to the lead in keeping with comments above. Probably it's good enough as is, though I would still like to see some reference to the interactive aspect, especially with respect to the British and American music scenes. Not sure how to succinctly express it though. Also couldn't immediately come up with a concise description of how the hippie movement evolved after its campus origins. Substituted "intentional community" for "communal living" to eliminate disturbing (though only apparent) redundancy with "simple living;" that's where the link leads anyhow.

Your reorganization of the history section looks pretty good, though I think it might need some cleanup here and there. As mentioned above, I had considered doing something like this also.

Thanks for your contributions and for being willing to compromise on the lead. Founders4 13:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It would be a good idea to distance yourself from your personal recollections. I know my own personal recollections are somewhat fuzzy seeing as how it was 40 years ago, and I was young and enjoying myself. But even if I remembered quite clearly, it would still be OR. For example, I sure remember the pejorative use of "hippie" being applied to me as early as 1967 (usually in the form "get a haircut, hippie" or "get a job, hippie" or just "fucking hippie", even though at that point I wasn't a fucking hippie, I was a fucking mod; the people using the pejorative didn't have much subtlety or sense of nuance.) I agree that there weren't defining texts or manifestos, though I suppose an argument could be made that commonly enjoyed texts (it was a very literate movement!) were "defining"; we could find someone making that argument, perhaps. And, Founders4 -- big long essays on talk pages rarely get read or paid proper attention to. It's just how things are on the net. Always better to encapsulate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jpgordon. Points well taken, especially the OR thing. Nevertheless, if one reads (or participates in editing) a Wikipedia article and finds it at variance with what one knows to be true, the search is on to find legitimate sources that will allow proper corrections. Yeah, I was called a "fuckin' hippie" too (usually by older women, who accurately perceived our behavior to be obnoxious)--accepting the label with humor and mild pride seemed the best "turn the other cheek" response. I suppose a section should be added on writings that influenced the movement. How'd I do on encapsulation? Founders4 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Way good! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

Moving ahead

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)

You're right. One friend, well-known anti-war activist Jon Read, was hardly a "conservative," yet he referred to the Haight-Ashbury, even in its heyday, as "teenage skid row." I remember once referring to my live-in girlfriend as my "old lady" (she was 25) to his extreme amusement. He thought hippies made "responsible progressives" look bad. I'll try something--see what you think. Founders4 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Too much, too fast

Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist in an interactive play between leaders and followers. Many people who embraced the hippie lifestyle believed that the government was corrupt, that corporate industry was souless and greedy, that traditional morals were askew, and that war was inhumane. Elements of Romanticism and Transcendentalist philosophy can be seen in their writings and artistic expressions. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man.

Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist in an interactive play between leaders and followers. Many of the original hippies shared a firmly held belief that peace and love were far more desirable than war and hatred. They believed that corrupt government and corporate industrial greed had combined to form a souless and inhumane military-industrial complex, and that traditional morals had gone askew. Hippies often referred to the structures and institutions they opposed as The Establishment or The Man.

Hi Pedant. I've copied the old and new versions of the paragraph in question so it will be easier to compare them. In the new paragraph you have focused on government corruption and corporate industrial greed, bringing in statements regarding the military industrial complex, all of which is a reflection of your opinion that the hippie movement was primarily an antiwar movement. Also, you write that hippies believed "that peace and love were far more desirable than war and hatred," which is almost preaching.

There are a few problems I see with this revision. The first problem is that this is the lead-in to a longer article, and it must be concise. It is describing, in very general terms, the hippie outlook, which was actually quite broad. True, Vietnam was a catalyst, but many hippies objected to traditional morals with respect to sexual matters, business and a variety of other matters; the focus of the paragraph cannot be only war. The second problem is the preachy thing--EVERYONE believes that "peace and love (are) more desirable than war and hatred." Even those who favored our involvement in Vietnam believed that our involvement would lead to a more just peace and save many lives that might otherwise be lost in the event of a communist takeover (which DID happen, by the way--about 4 million murdered by the North Vietnamese communist government after 1975). Most hippies disagreed with this viewpoint, but it was far more complex than a "good hippie vs. bad military/industrial complex" thing. Also, you have eliminated the sentence that speaks of Romanticism and Trancendentalist philosophy and moved it to the next paragraph; this doesn't work very well, because the paragraph we are discussing is a general introduction to hippie philosophical perspectives, while the next paragraph introduces how those perspectives manifested in hippie life.

Here's what I would suggest: You want to write about the anti-war aspect as an important expression of hippie beliefs. This would be an expansion of the "war is inhumane" clause in the paragraph we are discussing. Perhaps you might write a paragraph or two discussing only this and create a section similar to the "Sexual attitudes" and "Travel" sections. I think that such a discussion probably belongs in, let's say, an "Anti-war activities" section. I do think, though, that when you use words like "especially," "firmly held," or "souless," you invite objections. If you write something that simply conveys the reality back then, rather than your own passions (then and now), I believe it will be better received. I'd be happy to aid you in this effort, if you wish.

Meanwhile, I do feel the original paragraph was more appropriate. Founders4 04:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've been busy! Can we take it slower please? Some of the many organizational changes work, but others really don't.

Your addition of headings within the lead effectively eliminates it, for example. Felt I needed to take them out.

And the very personal picture of Pat Dailey dominates. Granted the other picture is also contemporary, but it's not personal, it's more to scale and it offers a more generic impression of period hippie dress. A better picture would be from the '65-71 period showing the same sort of thing, if you can find one. Meanwhile I put the other one back since it's been in there for a long time. Hope you find a better one.

The article is mainly about the original hippies, with neo-hippies as an endnote--the article shouldn't lead with an entire section about them. Moved it to near the end.

The headings you added to the "Legacy" section seem a bit much given the content--probably neither necessary nor desirable unless you intend to expand the section (more festivals, for example). Left them in for now and tried to correct the text to make things flow.

There's no rush, how about incremental changes?!

Founders4 05:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate assessment

NO. I do not "want to write about the anti-war aspect as an important expression of hippie beliefs" I wrote about the beliefs themselves, the beliefs created the hippies, not the other way around. It was the shared beliefs that brought people together in the streets, and only then did they become labeled by the industrial/corporate press as hippies. Opposition to the war was the number one core belief shared by those that later began to be labelled as hippies.

I really don't feel that the pic is captioned well 1) it is from a Russian Rainbow gathering, and 2) it's not particularly 'stereotypical hippie clothes' ... it seems more of a costume to me. The Pat Dailey pic I like, because he actually is a notable older hippie, (LA Times article quotes him as saying that those are his 'ordinary clothes') pic is from the USA (where hippies originated) and shows him at a museum (where his Art car is on display, not at some place where one might 'dress up as' a hippie -- contrasted to a very young russian in costume at a rainbow gathering in russia. I think the hippie guitar pic is more suitable for the rainbow gathering section, since it's a picture from a rainbow gathering.

As for the 'government is corrupt' section... it is a historical fact that the government of that time was corrupt, this article is about hippies, hippies did not 'feel the government was corrupt, and that corporate industry was souless and greedy'... corporations are by definition soulless, and it is not industry per se but greed which causes industrial interests to fund and supply both sides to war... and hippies originated in the time shortly after Eisenhauer warned the nation about the military industrial complex (farewell speech 1961) so it was a fresh concept and widely discussed... and hippies were a phenomenon of the wider antiwar movement, and yes, maybe "everyone believes in ' peace and love but these were fundamental to the hippie ethos... far more than putting a guitar strap on one's head as a headband, growing long hair (many, perhaps a majority of the earliest hippies did not have long hair) and 'dressing like a hippie' at a rainbow festival nearly half a century later. I really think this sentence, more than any other change I made to the article is a masterpiece of summation of hippie thought:

"They believed that corrupt government and corporate industrial greed had combined to form a souless and inhumane military-industrial complex, and that traditional morals had gone askew."

"They thought war was inumane" ... everybody thinks that, as you might put it. And it wasn't that traditional morals were askew, rather, that they had recently become askew. As you aptly state 'everyone believes in peace and love', that IS a traditional moral belief.

I think my sentence shows a 'reaction by people to the current history' of the era, which actually created or caused people to become hippies... rather than 'suddenly the hippies arose and believed this or that' and wore long hair and played guitars. (stereotypes of hippies were created without regard to the reality of hippies and soon 'became' the reality -- showing the power of the corporate press to co-opt what was essentially, literally the essence of the hippie, the antiwar part.)

The beliefs in response to the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, the dawn of the supercorporation, the recognition that corporate industry and the military combined with the corrupt government had created a new thing, the military industrial complex, which Ike had warned us about at the very dawn of the 60's... this makes the article more descriptive of the beliefs that actually spawned the hippies rather than vague watered-down expressions of 'what hippies believe', and basing it on media representations of hippies "Many people who embraced the hippie lifestyle" presupposes a lifestyle, implies people joining the hippie movement -- Many of the original hippies shared a firmly held belief" shows more clearly that we are talking about the causative, formative influences that created the hippies.

"Hippie lifestyle" is something that arose subsequent to the binding force of shared belief.

Also I think "Another proposed source of the word "hippie" is the Wolof language of Africa where hipi or hepi means to open one's eyes and be aware." has gotta go, as it's plainly historical revisionism, like saying that "Grateful Dead" 'may have come from a theatrical expression of 'one who sees the show for free' from the practice of giving away tickets to fill seats in the theater'. Clearly "hippie" did not originate in the relatively obscure-at-the-time Wolof language. More helpful would be a citation of the first time hippie appeared in print, and a quote from that source.

And I don't think 'neo-hippies needs so much detail in this article, I merged all the neohippie material preparatory to breaking it out to a main article of its own. As for the 'small sections' problem, small sections can help organise the material and encourage contributions on the sections when editors notice the paucity of material on the relevant subtopic. Not to be argumentative, I really don't think we need an edit war over this article, but I think my edit was pretty worthwhile or I wouldn't have made it. If you don't like my contrib, edit it away as you have done. Eventually the article will be better. I'll work on something else for a while. Comments? User:Pedant 15:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pedant. Not much time this A.M. Will comment ASAP.

Hi again, Pedant. Edit war--heavens no! If we can't accomodate one another and remain at peace over something ephemeral like a Wikipedia article, then what good is the "peace-love" ethos anyway?

I do understand your perspective. Not sure where to begin, as you raise so many points. It's true we disagree, but let's work on some stuff. Easy ones first:

Several African languages were spoken by African Americans who were brought to America as slaves. Quite a few words from these languages made their way into English. And a lot of Black slang had its origins in the Wolof language. Black slang made its way into the 20th century jazz scene, then to the Beatnik scene, then to the Hippie scene. So we go "hep" or "hipi" in Wolof, to "hep" from the Jazz scene, to "hip" from the Beatnik era, to "Hippie." Not so far fetched, really, though more work needs to be done on this. The Wolof information was contributed about a month ago and it has been edited down since then. The much more obscure Greek term, "hippei," got edited out by J.P. Gordon yesterday--appropriately I think. (BTW, the first time "hippie" appears in print is mentioned in the "History: 1963-66" section.)

Regarding the photo, I agree completely that it is lacking and appears as costume, though the Russian guy looks pretty much like a lot of people from the actual '60's hippie scene. To me the one you posted seemed less appropriate. Not period. Clothes difficult to make out. Androgynous person. Personal. Lots of modern, flashing stuff. Just my opinion, of course. I think we need to find a real period photo since the article is centered on the 1960's, perhaps one showing men and women together, --I'll try to find one, and maybe your can too, and we can agree on something. Then putting the existing one in the "Rainbow" section is great.

A "Neo-Hippie" article of its own sounds like a good idea. Can provide a link from the "Hippie" article.

The small sections seem a bit much to me, though I understand your point about encouraging contributions. Not a problem, in any case, which is why I left them. I try to make a point of not simply reverting stuff (except vandalism) and do my best to explain when I change something, especially if the change is extensive.

O.K., now the tough stuff. You believe that anti-Vietnam War sentiment was THE binding force behind the hippie movement. My suggestion was an attempt to arrive at a compromise where you could expand on this theme. Personally I think the evidence is very strong that there were several binding forces behind the hippie movement, among them: the sexual revolution, reaction against the conformity of the 1950's, a desire to explore new spiritual frontiers, rejection of the predominantly materialist interpretation of the American Dream that prevailed at the time (and still does), a desire for a rapprochment among different racial groups (springing from the Civil Rights movement), a rejection of "straight" cultural norms coupled with a love of personalized craftsmanship (a true Arts and Crafts revival), and a hunger for adventure and novelty (in music, in clothing, in artistic expression, and so on) that typifies the youth of every generation. And, yes, I think Vietnam was an important part of it.

Perhaps my experiences don't typify those of most who "embraced the hippie lifestyle." But I knew a lot of people who were there at the beginning, and I am sure that opposition to the Vietnam War was not central to their thinking and behavior: Here's a summary:

Attended Berkeley beginning in 1964 and participated in the Free Speech Movement, which was directly connected to the Civil Rights Movement in the American South. We weren't yet "hippies," but we had begun to set in motion the beginnings of a "counterculture," and our political awareness was rising. Vietnam didn't yet figure in.

Summer, '65. Spent quite a bit of time at Ken Kesey's place in La Honda with Kesey, Neal Cassady, Allen Ginsberg, the Hell's Angels, many Pranksters and lots of "hip" Berkeley folk. "Further," the famous psychedelic bus, was there, as Kesey had just returned from his famous jaunt to the East Coast. Most people were stoned on acid, or speed, or other drugs. It was a lot of fun, there was live music, Neal was tripping and rapping and storytelling, and it was great. The "acid test-party-music" adventure had just begun. Vietnam didn't yet figure in.

Late Summer, '65. Teach-ins began at Berkeley, and started to realize that the Vietnam War was serious business. Lots of marches, some well-attended, some not. Kesey participated for the first time and got Angels stoned on LSD so they wouldn't beat us up. To my knowledge, first hippie-Vietnam War connection.

Autumn '65. Lots more acid tests, lots more stoned people, lots more fun. Owsley moves in with the Grateful Dead on Berkeley Way, just around the corner. We score some gelatin capsules so he can cap some acid. Capping party at the Dead house while they play in the corner. First of several Black girlfriends and connections with Black friends (I'm White). Vietnam didn't figure in.

December, '65. Peyote meetings at Pyramid Lake in Nevada, J.P.'s house in Berkeley. Native Americans, a teepee and the "Peyote Road." Transcendent experience. Vietnam didn't figure in.

January, '66. Everyone is excited. A unique party at Longshoreman's Hall organized by Stewart, Brand, Kesey and Owsley. Everyone is going to dress up, a unique sort of costume party. Visits to Goodwill to buy old mink coats, evening gowns. I buy a pair of knee-high Turkish arm boots, have 3" heals attached. Girlfriend sews a black silk shirt, purple velvet collar, open to the naval, tied with rawhide. Hair is growing longer. Outrageous stoned event with everyone dressed weird for the first time--lots of Native American motifs, beads, strange clothes, colors. Acid in the punch. Dead and the Airplane on stage. Lightshow. Thousands of us partying. Vietnam didn't figure in.

Later in '66. We are starting to be "hippies." Live in a communal house and have my "harem." Drop out of Berkeley and lose my student deferment. Go to the Oakland Induction Center for a physical. Stoned on acid, get a 1-Y deferrment. Decide the moral thing to do is to do "public service" working against the Vietnam War full time.

'66-'68. Life goes on, and hippiedom emerges from the many currents of life in Berkeley, San Francisco and beyond. Trip with Cassady in Puerta Vallarta, lots of happenings, lovers. Despite 100-hour per week involvement, initiatives to end Vietnam bear little fruit. Turn to other things.

'68-'70. Build a hippie truck. Nomad. Travel far and wide, lots of rural settings, back to the land, network of friends in California, Oregon and Washington. Meet Charlie Manson and his girls on the beach in Mendocino. Hair now down to the middle of my back, wild beard. Travel with the Floating Lotus Magic Opera Company. Full-blown hippie. Spiritual quest begins. Vietnam is a sidenote.

'70-'71. Travel to Renaissance Pleasure Faires in L.A. and Marin, into hand craftsmanship for the first time. Spiritual quest intensifies. Sell the truck. Travel to Peru to live with the Quechua tribes and find "my teacher." Return to U.S. and immediately cut my hair and shave my beard. Manson is too weird, too evil--it no longer seems cool to be a hippie. Vietnam doesn't figure in.

Well, probably pretty tedious reading. But my central point is that the binding force behind the hippie movement included A LOT MORE than opposition to the Vietnam War. So I think the article needs to reflect the reality, that's all.Founders4 03:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds like original research

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)

Just sharing my experiences, Pedant. Would never include same in a Wikipedia article--that would be OR. There is no true "beginning" or "ending" to these stories, but the culture that came to be called "hippie culture" evolved around the time of my involvement. I was not a key player, but I knew a lot of key players, I saw it evolve and I participated in a minor way.Founders4 07:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wolof language

"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)

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)

The professor's credentials seem genuine, and he has relevant publications in print, authored in co-operation with others. Doesn't mean he's right, of course. Founders4 07:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Holloway Education: Ph.D. (History), University of California, Los Angeles M.A., University of California, Los Angeles Current Rank: Full Professor, Department of Pan-African Studies Other Professional Experiences: Former Director, The Obichere Library.

Fulbright Lecturer, University of Botswana, Southern Africa.

Recent Publications: Article, "The Significance of Dr. Boniface L Obichere within African Studies in the US. Higher Education," in Journal of Pan African Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1998.

(Co-Author with Winifred K. Vass), The African Heritage of American English, 1997.

Editor, The Noble Drew Ali and Moorish Science Temple Movement, 2000.

Instructor's Manual with Tests, The African American Odyssey, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2000.

An Introduction to Classical African Civilizations, New World African Press, Los Angeles, 2000.

The African Heritage of American English, Indiana University Press, 2000.

Africanisms in American Culture, Indiana University Press, 2000.

Liberian Diplomacy in Africa: A Study of Inter-African Relations, University Press of America, Washington D.C., 1981.

"What has Given America": African Continuities in the North American Diaspora: A Methodological Approach, 2002.

The Significance of Dr. Boniface I. Obichere within African Studies in U.S. Higher Education Journal of African Studies, Winter 1998, Volume 16, Number 1.

African Ethnicity and African-American Culture, Africa in World History: Old, New Then and Now, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, 1995.

The Origins of African-American Culture, Introductory Readings in Afro-American Studies, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1995.

Time in the African Diaspora: The Gullah Experience, Time in the Black Experience, Greenwood Press, 1994.

"Africanisms in the Gullah Oral Tradition," Western Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1989.

"Liberian Foreign Affairs: A Bibliographical Essay," The International History Review, Vol. VII, No. 3, August 1985.

New Image problems

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)

Information removed

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)

Indeed my friend, indeed. Mombas 11:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal that Hippies (TV series) be moved

I proposed that the Hippies (TV series) be moved without delay from the top of the page and added to SEE ALSO- Music, books and films. This British comedy which is entirely POV has no place at the head of the hippie article and should be appropriately listed with other films on the subject. I would also suggest that the person who edited this has a personal vested interest and is using Wikipedia to market this unrelated fiction concerning hippies. Unless there be reasonable basis to have this private film listing at the head of the hippie article I am suggesting that an administrator be contacted. Mombas 21:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Mombas. I don't know who put the entry there, but I assumed it was just for informational purposes so people could find the other article. Perhaps you are correct that it would more appropriately be listed among other films on the subject. Thank you, by the way, for the photos!Founders4 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about Mombas' request, and I visited the "Hippies: TV Series" article, which refers to a very short-lived article about a program that was briefly aired in 1999 and which was lambasted by the critics. Given its obscurity, I do not think it deserves prominent placement in the "Hippie" article. So I moved it to the "Music, Books and Film" section in accord with Mombas' request. Hope that's O.K. with everyone. Founders4 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that was put there as a 'disambig'/'otheruses' thing. It may be that we need something at the top for that purpose, since Hippies is a redirect to this {Hippie]] article. (Not everyone will think to use the search button or add (TV series) to their query, right?)

Like Founders4 said, its obscure... I do agree that its a bit silly to give the TV show top billing in this article, but I don't think it's completely satisfactory to have Hippies redirect here, then bury the link to Hippies (TV series) in the list at the bottom.

I think at some point someone will insist that it be disambiguated, and we may as well make the stylistic choice now on how to deal with it.

Maybe use a simple notice at the top of Hippies (TV series) "This is an article about the TV series. For the topic of hippies, the countercultural phenomenon, see: Hippie, and if we do that, also change Hippies into a redirect to Hippies (TV series) rather than here. This seems to me to be the best way to handle it, it makes both articles easy to find and puts the disambiguation at the secondary article instead of here. (And keep the entry in the culture section where Mombas and Founders4 have it now.)

Is that cool with everyone? And yeah, thanks for the new photos I think this article is moving in the right direction now. I'm up for hanging out on this article until its worthy of being nominated as a featured article. Hope you all are too. User:Pedant 19:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Christ/Jesus controversy, life of Lao Tzu

Hi Pedant. I agree with your change in linkage to the "Ministry of Jesus" article where the list of visionaries appears. There is a problem, however, with the apparent inconsistency of terminology between "time of Christ" and "Jesus." Actually the use of the two terms in such close proximity hints at the theological controversy referenced in two other articles--"Christ" and "Christology." (My own view comes close to the "Esoteric Christian view" discussed in the "Christ" article, but this is not mainstream.) In any case, the controversy is too large to address in the "hippie" article.

I'm not sure how to fix it, other than to use "Christ" (as originally) in the list of visionaries, linking it to the "Ministry of Jesus" article. Or, the previous sentence could be changed to "...the early Essenes who date from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD," which avoids the controversy and allows a smooth transition from sentence to sentence. Think I'll try that for now.

There is also a more substantive problem in this section: unlike the other visionaries, almost nothing is actually known about the life of Lao Tzu, yet his inclusion implies the opposite. I raised this issue with Momba, and he feels differently (see Momba: Talk). What say you? Others want to weigh in?Founders4 16:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On the question of Christ one should consider that hippies rejected orthodox Christianity wholesale, given the view that Christianity never reflected the doctrines and morals of Christ anyway. Yet the notion of the teachings of the historic Christ and not Christianity was adopted by hippydom as better reflecting their beliefs and lifestyle. So whatever links are decided upon, in my view, need to reflect the gospels teachings of Jesus and not Christian religion itself.

On the question of the Taoist founder Lao Tzu (again a central figure or symbol of hippydom) one could also speculate that very little is known about the real life of Jesus too. There is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed at all other than a few words uttered by the historian Josephus, and the authenticity of these are are disputed by many scholars. The gospels accounts are not supported by history and indeed are universally accepted as accounts by different people from different periods that have been carried from antiquity by sectarian religion.

I am happy to go with the consensus; however the bottom line in my view is that all these visionaries were integral players whose idealogies helped define the hippie movement. Mombas 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree, Mombas, with your statements about the hippie relationship to Christianity. With respect to Lao Tzu, the basic problem is that although we have mention of his existence in ancient scrolls, "the details of his life were not contemporaneously recorded," as the relevant Wikipedia article states. While there are inconsistencies in the various gospel descriptions of Jesus and his life, we do have a bit more to go on.

I agree that the Tao Te Ching has from the beginning exerted a strong influence on the development of the hippie ethos. No argument there. It's just that when we imply that we know Lao Tzu "exemplified...the cherished hippie ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship" in his life, we have essentially nothing to go on, thus I don't believe we can support such a statement.

Points up the need for another section--"Defining influences." Certain literary works, speeches, ancient texts, and so on had significant influence on the hippie movement. The Tao Te Ching certainly belongs here, as do Stranger in a Strange Land, the Baghavad Gita, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Ultimate Frontier, some of Leary's early writings while still at Harvard (don't recall the names of his published articles, but I know they influence me), transcripts of some of Steve Gaskin's Monday Night Classes, and so on. Founders4 08:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. Would you think that Tao Te Ching would offer the kinds of unconditional support for Lao Tzu if he considered him a person of suspect morals? On the question of the account of any historic Jesus existing in the gospels, you do realise that the Catholic encyclopedia now concedes that there is no historic base to any of the events and saying by Christ.(It is because of the Catholic religion that we have the bible). I guess it’s far easier for us to believe tha a real Jesus existed because Christianities evolution of doctrine is so close to our own culture. While Christians accept that Abraham is the original father of Judaic-Christianity, why can we buy into the notion that Lao Tzu too is the father of Taoism? Mombas 08:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer we use Jesus rather than Christ in all references from this article to avoid addressing the controversy involved in the whole Jesus constellation of articles. (whether or not he was a historical figure/whether or not he was divine/whether or not he was resurrected, etc)

Since 'christ' comes from 'chrism' (anointing oil) the word christ takes the stance that Jesus was 'the anointed one' which isn't necessary regarding the influences of his life and teachings... which is why I changed the link to point to the ministry article, which focuses on the life and teachings rather than the religion.

He wasn't called Christ until the founding of the church, (I think), traditionally occuring at the moment that Jesus told Peter "you're the rock on which I will build my church", AFTER his crucifixion and resurrection, so referring to him as Christ in this context opens the whole POV can o' worms that he was in fact resurrected, and was also 'the anointed one'.

I much prefer Jesus, (in this context) because without reference to whether he was a holy man or an actual historical figure, everyone knows who Jesus was, or are at least familiar with who he was said to be and the controversy doesn't apply as much to Jesus before death. And of course, pretty much most of the teachings relevant to Hippies are teachings from his life, and his example of nonviolence etc.... prior to his execution by 'the Man'.

Even if Jesus were thought by someone to be fictional, his teachings can be acceptably referred to without much controversy, like we could refer to the teachings of Valentine Michael Smith, or the example set by The Lorax. Even fictional characters have influence. (I'm NOT suggesting we put fictional characters in the list). I think 'Jesus' is preferable to 'Christ' here in this article. It avoids the question of 'which brand of Christianity' influenced Hippies.

About Lao-tse/Lao Tzu, yeah I think he's gotta be included, maybe not much known about his life but 'the teachings of Lao Tzu' are definitely part of the source of many of these ideas, I know Alan Watts is influential in the hippie culture, and he definitely draws a lot on Lao-tse. I'm not sure I'm following the controversy about Lao-tse, you both want to include him, right? Maybe we can include these teachers, without dissecting what their teachings were, because everyone gets something different from each of these teachers. It would take some very nice editing maybe, but I think it's do-able. User:Pedant 19:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pedant. I think we have to be a little careful here. In the main I do believe that hippies rejected traditional Christianity in the sense of the religion, and its various doctrines that evolved through the mainstream churches from around the period of the Council of Nicea. Rather, hippies adopted the notion of a universal and non religious vision of a nonsectarian Christ, which they believed was the historic person who walked 2000 years ago. We need to remember that Christianity universally condemned the early hippy movement, which they declared to be modern heretics. It appeared to me that hippies looked to reform orthodox thinking about Jesus Christ, who was accepted by many in the early movement as a very early hippie himself. The name Jesus tends for me to hold too many connotations towards orthodox religion? What do you think? Mombas 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see some references. If I was to posit original research and violate NPOV, like say for example claiming the Hippie movement was a political response to Eisenhower, I could easily argue that the Krisna movement was as important an influence as Christianity. It's time to stop speculating and pay the piper. Show me the cites. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have references supporting that hippies referred to a monolithic entity: " They often referred to this monolithic entity as "The Establishment," "Big Brother," or "The Man."" and we have historical juxtaposition with the Eisenhower speech warning of the same thing, what more do you want? Eisenhower brain autopsy reveals fossil origins of hippie movement... User:Pedant 06:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference you refer to has not been verified because Founders4 won't provide page numbers nor a quote of the passage in question. However, it is not unreasonable to make the claim; what is a distortion is the claim that the Eisenhower speech is connected, and the source used to make this claim does not refer to Hippies in any way. Keep in mind that the New Left movement is treated as a distinct dissent group. We should replace the now removed section with a new section entitled, "Cultural Dissent" and go from there. I've got some good cites, and I'm sure you can supply some as well. For further discussion, see Talk:Hippie#New_Left. Oh, and regarding your use of edit summaries to attack other editors, that could be construed as a personal attack. —Viriditas | Talk 06:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition to "Drugs" section

"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."

Personally, I was glad to see this paragraph deleted, and now it has been put back. It is full of spelling errors, punctuation errors, and wildly inaccurate statements ("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.") offered with no qualifiers whatever. Then it devolves into speculative paranoia that has very little to do with hippies, whether we are discussing the 1970s or later periods. I might try a rewrite, but really I think it just doesn't belong.

Corruption of the illegal drug market, including CIA involvement, is a subject that does deserve discussion, perhaps even mention in the "Hippie" article--but not like this. Founders4 07:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Was it you who deleted this article in the first instance? Mombas 08:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No,not me, Mombas.Founders4 08:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame Founders that you wont reconsider by taking a second look at the last paragraph of the Drug segment. If anyone can present it in a better light better its you. I happen to believe that the advent of hard drugs in part heralded the destruction and influence of the American hippie movement? Mombas 10:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Mombas, that hard drugs increasingly became a problem among American hippies. Personally, I knew to stay away from meth, cocaine and the opiates, and almost all my friends felt the same, but hippies failed as a group adequately to differentiate between beneficial and destructive protocols when it came to drug-taking. Also, I agree that LSD quality suffered, though not to the extent this paragraph implies--the really bad stuff began to arrive in 1967 with illegalization, though even earlier one had to be careful to vet one's source. With due caution, pharmaceutical grade LSD has been continuously available since at least 1960, through Sandoz, Owsley and a succession of Owsley's successors.

A parallel development that contributed to the demise of the American hippie movement was the trial of Charles Manson, which spotlighted the bizarre (and destructive) aspects of his cult. It was particularly jarring to hear one's most cherished ideals twisted and bent beyond recognition to justify brutal murder. Since I knew a number of people close to Manson, and had met him and his girls just prior to the Tate/La Bianca murders, this affected me personally.

Something along these lines does need to be written. Thank you for thinking that I might be the one to do it. If I were to write something, I would not mix in talk about CIA "orquestration" of a plot against hippie "successes." Whatever successes we enjoyed came to fruition much later than the advent of the hard drug scene, and the worst of the drug damage occurred during the crack epidemic of the 1980's, in which the CIA was certainly involved.

Anyway...out of time, as I do need to earn a living. Meanwhile I think this paragraph needs to go until something better can be devised. Thanks for your thoughts, as always, and for your contributions. Founders4 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we pull that section, put it here on the talk page or even a subpage of its own and rewrite it. Some of it is valuable and some inaccurate, some POV. Let's take it apart a word at a time if necessary, and find some references to support everything we put in the finished product. A lot of what I would have to say about the section is my personal opinion and original research, so I'm not prepared to wade into it at this point. Can we agree to work on it, and remove it from the article until it's really true instead of partly true? I think the topics addressed are important, but I don't see the section standing a chance of being stable unless we rigorously fact-check it. And remove anything not directly relevant to hippies, where possible. We have at least 3 active good editors discussing it right now, I think between us we could shape it up nicely. Would that plan suit the rest of you? User:Pedant 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree Founders, the Manson event also contributed greatly to a generalized nasty corporate media campaign against all hippies in general. The establishment thought all their Christmases had come at once after the Manson murders and anything hippie was suddenly stigmatized with the Manson factor. Ironically, Manson whom some view as a Judas of the time, was NOT even a hippie. In fact he has claimed in some publications that he actually despised hippies. Bottom line: hippies don’t kill innocent humans, much as true believers in Christ or Buddha contravene Christ’s ethical codes if they too become violent. Your views on the changing drug scene are quite right in my opinion.

Founders and Pedant. I do have some reservation with the “End of an era” chapter. Hippie era did NOT end in 1971 and assumed into mainstream; we just got off the front pages of the tabloid press- that’s all. In fact hippydom shed itself of a few dregs and went threw some kind of metamorphoses or renewal and reinvented itself due to bad press (Manson) and hard drugs. While American hippies have dealt with all kinds of adversities, internationally the movement has boomed since 1971 and continues even today to expand significantly in parts of Europe and downunder. And many of the people behind this expansion come from the early 1960s hipsters. Most hippies no longer dress in the attire of the early sixties; this former dress code is what has now become main-stream. What constitutes a hippy today is not what you physically look like, but what’s behind consciousness and ones perception that one has of oneself and that relationship to people and the rest of the planet. Counter-culture better describes the hippie movement since the 1971. Facts are most people behind the so called new age alternative movements, the greens revolution. etc etc, are mostly foundation hippies who can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s. There are not neo hippies, the movement continued, the issues remained to be resolved, and all that changed to a minor extent were dress codes. Mombas 02:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Mombas. Though I have not been called a "hippie" for at least thirty-five years, the values that I internalized during that period continue to inform. Perhaps symbolically, about a year ago my father returned to me a present that I had given to him in 1971--a leather-bound ponytail of long blonde hair that I had a friend snip off when I dropped the "hippie" label. As I have engaged in editing this article, it has become apparent to me how much the hippie ethos has influenced the way I have chosen to live and how I have raised my children.

At the risk of editorializing, I added the following paragraph a while back:

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.

What I think we need to do is to write a good segue from the early hippie beginnings (which I do think were largely American), mentioning the factors that caused the movement to go underground (as per the above paragraph), specifically Manson and hard drugs, and highlighting the continuing vitality of the hippie movement worldwide. As time allows, I will attempt something, though this IS very ambitious!

Regarding the Christ/Jesus issue, in general most hippies I knew rejected conventional Christianity, and I think you are correct that conventional Christianity rejected them. The Charles Manson debacle was connected with this, as well as with the shift in some circles to the "Jesus movement." I had two friends whose entry point into hippie life was through "Charlie," as they called him, and after the Tate/LaBianca trial they went "Jesus."

While I agree that Manson was NOT a hippie, he exhibited many of the outer trappings of hippiedom. He played the guitar rather well and could charm a crowd. His raps were enticing, and he used terms like "The Man" and "The Establishment" throughout. He maintained a harem of "Charlie's girls" and talked of "free love." They lived communally and, when I met them, they traveled around in a schoolbus--just like a lot of hippie folk. But Manson was a petty criminal and a thug; LSD did not improve him, it just brought out his base qualities. Manson really was/is an evil man.

Back to Christ/Jesus, there is an important twist that I think we need to consider. If we refer to the Jesus article, there is a section called "Other views arising from early Christianity." In that section, the Gnostic perspective is offered, which is very similar to the point of view of the Rosicrucians and the Masons. In brief (and with variations among the various groups) this point of view says the following:

1./Jesus was a man of considerable spiritual advancement who was born to Joseph and Mary and who spent the first thirty years of his life perfecting his physical body in preparation for a certain event. His advancement was known to his parents and to various of the wise men of the community where he lived, and they oversaw his education, including a trip to Lhasa, Tibet where he could study with other teachers and access an enormous library of ancient texts.

2./Jesus worked as a carpenter and cabinetmaker, as did his father and brothers, however the main event of his life was pre-planned to take place when he was thirty years of age. When he was baptized by John the Baptist, he abandoned his physical body while he was underwater and a much more advanced spiritual being, Christ, entered his body. For the next three years Christ, as the in-dwelling spirit, used Jesus' body to teach and, literally, to "bind evil." Among his teachings were love, peace, and human fellowship as primary values, along with the specifics of reincarnation, karma, and the eternal nature of the human soul. In the Gnostic tradition it is Christ, not Jesus, who was the "Savior."

3./After the agony of the crucifixon, which Christ experienced as the in-dwelling spirit, Jesus' body was resurrected by higher beings working on Mental, Astral and Etheric planes (I know this is getting a bit much, and I promise to conclude soon). When he appeared again before the diciples, Christ had departed Jesus' body, and it was JESUS who did the rest.

4./As an afterward to the story of Jesus/Christ/Jesus, the Rosicrucian and Gnostic tratition is that Jesus traveled extensively after the Resurrection, first to the British Isles, then to the Americas. The oral history of many Native American tribes--in North America, Central America, and South America--supports this point of view. Paul of Tarsus was instrumental in the development of what became the Roman Catholic Church, and he arbitrarily excluded Christ's teachings regarding reincarnation and karma because he wanted to be able to promise salvation in one lifetime to his new converts. The exclusion of Christ's early teachings regarding reincarnation and karma was formalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.; the Roman Catholic Church and its Protestant derivatives continue in this tradition.

OK. Done. This Gnostic/Rosicrucian/Masonic perspective has a direct connection to the hippie relationship to Christianity because of at least one book, THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER, by Eklal Kueshana, which became quite influential in hippie circles and which tells the above story in considerable detail. I believe we should leave the word "Jesus" in the "Hippie" article pretty much as it stands, as this is a simple and relatively accurate way to refer to the historical/spiritual personage who figures so large in the development of Western civilization. Founders4 19:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on "Hippie: Drugs"?

I don't think it was vandalism, Mombas. The section that was added was full of spelling errors, errors in language, errors in logic, and in general it was just very poorly done. Also, much of it was untrue, and some parts were wild exaggerations. I applauded its demise and am sorry to see it back. I think it detracts from the article in a serious way. Would you consider reverting the revert?Founders4 07:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think it inappropriate and unworthy of a fix up, even though it would appear you won’t say why it’s inaccurate, then you delete it yourself. It would appear that it’s difficult to get anything past the self appointed gatekeeper. Right mate ;-)? And while we are on the subject, I must admit many of the articles which make up the hippie inclusion are woefully inaccurate anyway, and reflect only that minor aspect of the 1960s and 70s social revolution involving the social dramas caused by American youth desperately seeking to find some political solution against serving in that debacle the Vietnam war. Can’t blame them really, and from down-under we helped stop this war too. The articles seem to be dominated by issues essentially covering events which the corporate media deemed important to have on their front pages at that time. But I know there was much much more happening all over the world. Mombas 07:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We are all gatekeepers here, Mombas. We define ourselves as such when we take on a concern for accuracy and good quality. I mentioned an inaccuracy or two on the "Hippie: Talk" page; could have mentioned more. I wasn't the one who considered this addition unworthy and deleted it, but I was relieved when it happened. And disappointed when it reappeared. Its poor quality is so apparent, I thought I'd leave it to someone else this time.

You are right that the "Hippie" article tends to be America-centric. Regarding the origins of the movement, I think that's mostly appropriate and reflects the reality. As it progressed, the development of hippie culture was much more interactive and involved many other parts of the world--for example, the interplay in music between Britain and the United States was especially important and has not been mentioned.

I was previously unaware of Nambassa, and I was glad that you added the information, the photos and so on. Sounds like the hippie movement in New Zealand maintained its freshness longer than did its American cousin. Founders4 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mombas"

I am the first one to accept that what ever contributions I make to this or any other article in Wikipedia needs as much help as it can get and qualify this by saying that you do a good job in editing. We all have different skills, right. In the final analysis I agree that accuracy is paramount. On the drug article if someone does not feel compelled to correct what ever anomalies exist in it then I guess it will be deleted. Should this happen then I may even reconsider a rewrite myself at a later date.

I am not intentionally rebuking the domination of Americans in the spawning of hippydom, (give credit where it is due), but more so drawing attention to inaccuracies of the early accounts of what actually transpired at the dawning of the movement. It appears to me that most detail we see in this hippie articles I’ve seen before. Even you have to admit that much of this source has been lifted from various stereotyped blogs and raves from internet sites that have been circulating on the subject for some time. That does not necessarily render the information correct, right? To offer two minor examples:

(a) My understanding is that the word hippie did not come from Herb Caens popularizing it in the San Francisco Chronicle. In HIS Wikipedia site which is linked to hippies it’s claimed he in fact invented the word “hippie" during San Francisco's 1967 "Summer of Love". In my view this is factually incorrect as I have always considerd that the word evolved as part of the swinging music scene of the earlier sixties and derived from hipsters (long trousers worn on the hips by new groovers) which went onto to be coined by the British band The Swinging Blue Jeans hit song of 1963 'Hippy Hippy Shake'. Even Elvis went onto to further develope the ‘hippy hippy shake’ which sent conservatism into a head spin. To simply change the spelling of the word from hippy to hippie does not give one the right to claim he invented it for a whole generation of rebelling youth ? The essential or initial spawning of the hippie movement was music and dance, which came out of the US and Britian. What do you think?

(b) I disagree with the first paragraph that the “movement initially surfaced on United States college campuses and then then moved beyond academic settings etc etc”. I would have considerd that the movement first developed out of the new emerging music rebellion and later it was the anti Vietnam war movement which developed out of the campus? As you probably remember Universities in the 60s were not only centres of accademic learning but places where disgruntles music freak and others hung out. Many unis were free because our parents generation were still getting over the legacy of the great depression and WW2, believing that education would improve life for their siblings. Downunder the Government actually paid you a wage to go to Uni.

Just circulating a few ideas. Mombas 10:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As Mombas said "while we are on the subject, I must admit many of the articles which make up the hippie inclusion are woefully inaccurate anyway, and reflect only that minor aspect of the 1960s and 70s social revolution involving the social dramas caused by American youth desperately seeking to find some political solution against serving in that debacle the Vietnam war. Can’t blame them really, and from down-under we helped stop this war too. The articles seem to be dominated by issues essentially covering events which the corporate media deemed important to have on their front pages at that time. But I know there was much much more happening all over the world."

User:Pedant speaking: I heartily agree that this article shows a bias toward the U.S. and its role in the Hippie movement. I would say that the word 'hippie' has an American origin, and perhaps the first people referred to as hippies were people in the U.S. (not just Americans either), but the hippie movement was quite certainly a worldwide event and I wholeheartedly agree that this article needs much much more of an international scope.

The origin of the word hippie, and the initial impetus of the movement may very well have been solely American, but I simply do not know. It would be nice if I could get that info from this article, so seems to me valuable to address the topic.

The information available is dominated to a large extent by American media interpretations of events, and thus it is difficult to come up with a true account. Even hippies were greatly influenced, from the very beginning, by media representations of who they were/what they were.

As I seem to recall, the first hippies seemed to almost universally deny that hippies even existed, and rejected the term 'hippies' as being a product of commercial media. Life and Look magazines horned in on the hippie goldmine very early on for instance, and Playboy magazine as well. I'm sure there are other examples.

I'd like to 1)actually dig deeper, as Mombas suggests by implication, into the world outside the US, and the 'hippie' movement in other cultures, as well as what seems to me to be equally important, the nature and extent of the corporate media's influence on the genesis and growth of the hippie movement. If anyone has some sources to suggest or information to include, regarding those two topics, I heartily support its inclusion.

Meanwhile we should continue improving what we already have. It may not seem that there is much appreciation for the work we've been doing, but I for one very much appreciate how seriously the active contributors to this article are working on it, a topic many would consider to be mere fluff. Let's all hang in there, and try to avoid taking any of our discussion personally. Remember, we are working together on a topic which we all are interested in, and the goal is to make it the best we can. Let's try hard to, well you know, all the stuff we should be doing here. User:Pedant 20:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A good wrap mate. ;-) Mombas 02:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This drug segment moved from main page and to be rewritten

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)

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)

festivals

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)

Herb Caen coverage

Herb Caen is mentioned twice; in the intro and then again in same context in “Pejorative connotations”. This is unnecessary that an employee of the corporate media whose attitude towards a burgeoning hippie insurrection may have been considered by some as negative or to say the least condescending. Mombas 08:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I sort of think it works, Mombas. The initial mention is just a note as to Caen's popularization of the term. The second note explains how Caen's rather gentle, bemused treatment of hippies led to their acceptance of the term. This section was added because there had been objections that "hippies didn't call themselves hippies." True before 1967, but increasingly untrue after that.

Perhaps he was a bit condescending, but that was his style generally. Most hippies I knew thought the "hippie" label kind of funny and harmless, so they started to call themselves, and each other, "hippie" as kind of a joke.

By the way, Herb Caen was quite independent, hardly a pawn of corporate media.Founders4 08:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, I know you have a soft spot for Herb ;-) and while the discussion has traveled this road in previous edits where it has been suggested (might I add incorrectly) that Herb actually coined the word "Hippie", I still think the substance behind his contribution to the early hippie scene is thus warranted to be only mentioned just once in this entire article. As it stands his both mentions are repetitive and are saying much the same thing about his popularization of the word “hippie”.

Incidentally, I like the way you handled the Manson issue and I couldn’t agree with your sentiments more. I do wonder though, to what extent Herbs employer the San Francisco Chronicle unjustifiably used the Manson saga to demonise a hippie movement which was essentially quite spiritually and politically devoid from anything surrounding Manson and his lackies. Mombas 11:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes enjoyed reading Herb Caen's column, though I wasn't a regular reader of his column, or newspapers in general for that matter--just when I happened to pick a paper up on the bus or in a restaurant. There is no denying that he had a lot of influence in the Bay Area, and that influence continued for many decades. He could make something "cool," or not. Neither he, nor any careful person, would claim that he "coined" the word "hippie." But he does deserve credit for popularizing it, which is what the lead says.

As I see it, the purpose of the lead is to briefly introduce the rest of the article, a summary of sorts. This is standard practice in journalism, where the "who, what, when, where, how" questions are answered up front so that readers who have limited time or interest can inform themselves without reading the entire article. When I was writing for a small weekly publication, we were taught to expand on the themes in the lead, in more and more detail as the article proceeded, so that if an editor needed to conserve space he could drop the last paragraphs of the article without making the rest of it unintelligible. This is not considered redundant.

It's not that I want Herb Caen in the lead, and also in "Pejorative Connatations," because I have a soft spot for him. He is in the lead because he is very well-known, his influence was great, and we probably wouldn't be using the word "hippie" if he hadn't popularized it. The "Pejorative Connatations" section provides more detail and context. This section begins by explaining why hippies took up the label themselves (following Herb Caen's lead), and it is the repository for the various reasons different groups didn't like hippies, and still don't.

As I mentioned, Herb Caen needs to appear in the "Pejorative Connations" section to answer the false charge that ALL reference to hippies during the 1960's was pejorative. To drop him from the lead, where he has resided for a very long time, would deny important information to readers who choose not to commit sufficient time to read what has now become 14 pages of text.Founders4 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We agree to disagree on this....given especially the doubt which remains whether Herb Caens use of the word hippie was significant other to a small scene out of San Francisco. Mombas 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

1970s

I don't get how it is suggested in this article that hippie culture was dead by 1970. The 70's look is just as similar to the late 60's look. The early-mid 70's is pretty much known as the hippy era as well. I don't see how it died in 1970. Maybe 1977-1979 possibly, but not 1970.

It's a matter of semantics, I suppose. When you refer to "the 70's look," you seem to be implying that a certain "look" defined what a hippy was.

What the article says is that 1971 is generally considered to be the last year of the hippie era. The Altamont and Manson factors are mentioned in some detail as catalysts for the waning of the hippie movement in the United States (but not abroad). I'd have to spend some time to look up sources on this, but perhaps you have some alternate sources that place the end of the hippie era later--1977-79. Can you name them please? Happy to fix anything that is in error. Founders4 05:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders- it is nonsense to say that the hippie culture was all over by 1970. In fact the very first sentence in this article correctly speaks of hippydom in terms of the 1960s and 1970s. May I say that the hippie culture took a severe blow in the LA- San Francisco region late 1960s due to various scandals to which the corporate media manipulated to stigmatize hippies with? Such as Manson, Johnstown, the Jesus Children of God sex scandals and the end of the Vietnam War. Furthermore may I suggest that the initial student uprising of the early 1960s was more political than social *rise up & drop out* and had more to do with reaction against the US Gov sending its youth to die at the unjustified Vietnam War. So when Vietnam war finally over, so did much of the hippie movement dissipate and former hippies, sell out so to speak, and rejoined the system and complete their degrees? However, the true believers moved on and hippydom recreated itself, and the back to the land movement and spiritual communities thrived throughout the US and overseas in the 1970s. Who do you think the Whole earth catalog (1968-1989) was serving, thin air? Mombas 23:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When I make the time I will fill in these gaps as well as create a sub-heading for the hippie movement down-under. Mombas 23:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mombas. No need for the confrontational tone here. I never said that the hippie era was "all over by 1970." I did say that by 1970 it was on the wane in the United States, which I do believe is rather accurate--and not just in California. I have no stake in whether the article mentions 1971, or a later date, as the point where the hippie era in the United States ended--didn't write that, and waning is a gradual process, impossible to pinpoint specific dates.

When you say that "corporate media manipulated (scandals) to stigmatize hippies," that seems at the very least unsupported, and I believe such blanket statements are spoilers. You have mentioned this sort of thing with respect to drugs as well; frankly, sounds a bit paranoid to me.

With respect to the above paragraph, I might suggest you clarify your timeline and thinking. Some specifics:

-The Manson murders occurred in 1969, the trial took place in 1970, and the convictions came in early 1971. As I have written these events were quite relevant to the waning of the hippie movement in the U.S.

-Although the Paris Peace Accords took place during early 1973, the last American casualities in Vietnam were in 1975. Hard to see any real connection between these events and the waning of the hippie movement, though I suppose war protests no longer brought people together as much.

-Jonestown was settled in 1975, and the mass suicide occurred in late 1978. Any connection to hippies seems tenuous at best.

-The Children of God had very little to do with hippies, except that some former hippies took up with David Berg.

The hippie era was full of a lot of magic, and there were also things that went wrong; many of us decided just to move on and did not consider that "selling out." Nor did the corporate media have anything to do with such personal decisions.

I hope you will add something regarding the development of the hippie movement down-under. You seem familiar with it, and it would be a good addition to the article--perhaps even an appropriate subject for another article, with appropriate linking, as this one is getting rather long. Founders4 06:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, I apologize if you thought I was being confrontational but I can assure you that this was not my intention, and so perhaps you shouldn’t take criticism so personally. You have been criticized in other discussion pages for being too one eyed in your edits and while I think you have contributed a lot of work in hippie, in my opinion you have become too emotionally involved in this subject which you seem hell-bent on defining on the basis of what you personally saw within the limited time frame of your own hippie experience.

There would appear to be developing some kinds of consensus that the hippydom did NOT end or even start to wane in 1970, and you must respect this view irrespective of your own personal feelings on the subject.

I agree that the article is becoming large and that oversized photo thumbs are contributing to its extending kilobytes. I also think that some of the content can be edited out as its too long winded on some subject matter. Mombas 10:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But when you use the word "nonsense" it does come across as confrontational. If you didn't mean it that way, so be it.

"You have been criticized in other discussion pages for being too one eyed in your edits..."

What discussion pages are you referring to, Mombas? Whenever disagreements have arisen, both here and with respect to other articles, I and the parties involved have arrived at consensus through discussion and reason. To my knowledge all such disagreements are currently in a settled state. Two assertions that the dating is wrong does not constitute "consensus." Nor can consensus be achieved through argument by assertion.

Someone (not I) long ago wrote that "1971 is generally considered to be the last year of the hippie era." Perhaps we should avoid debating the validity of this sentence by describing what actually happened. I like the word "wane" because it describes a gradual process; the moon, for example, reaches full brilliance, and just at that point it begins to "wane." It looks nearly full for quite a while, then fades out over a period of time.

I do think that in the U.S. the full brilliance of the hippie "moon" was achieved sometime during 1969-70, then it began to wane. Did that mean that, suddenly, there were no more hippies?...no, of course not. But as a movement, it seemed to lose steam, and it became less compelling as an ethos that young people were attracted to. This can easily be documented by tracking the frequency of newspaper stories, magazine articles and so on; pretty easy to demonstrate that as a visible movement hippydom began to fade away in the United States around that time. Hippies even became the subject of ridicule among American youth with the advent of punk.

I have no desire to impose my view, nor should anyone else impose their point of view. I gather that is what "one-eyed" means in this context--though it's not a familiar term to me.

So, let's discuss it rationally, Mombas. What would YOU like the article to say, and what are your reasons for wanting it to say that? I've given mine, here and previously. If the dating of the waning is wrong, let's figure out why it's wrong and fix it. Founders4 03:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is the appropriate format to be finger pointing, so let’s agree to deal with one issue at the time.

As has been intimated by another concerned editor, the idea that the hippie movement ended or even waned for that matter around 1970 is clearly in dispute. Where some editor says in (End of hippie era in the United States), “1971 is generally considered the last year of the Hippie Era in the United States” is without foundation and clearly a POV issue. Perhaps for those in California there was good reason to move towards another scene, however, as I have said numerous times before this period heralded a new direction for hippies who began leaving the dead meat of cities in droves and the advent of the hippie back to the land movements, fostering the new age of thinking and the simple lifestyle which were conducive to hard won freedoms. To suggest that hippiedom died in the US from 1971 just because the media had lost its infatuation with the drugs and kids standing up and being heard, is ill-informed to say the least. Perhaps hippiedom waned in the big cities, yes. With the advent of the post 1970s alternative lifestyles or counterculture, hippies simply adjusted to the new political climate of the day and moved forward, gaining rather than diminishing.

This aspect of the article should be re-evaluated and changed accordingly. You can not depict the exact period that this movement died in the US because it exists in strength today. And of course most hippies today no longer wear the traditional attire of long hair and beards and second hand clothing. I know for a fact that hippies (former and new) continue as we speak to be the people behind the International green movements, civil rights movements, ecovillages, alternative-holistic health movements, Permaculture, environmental movements, anti-war movement..... etc etc. These are not neo-hippies but the continuation of a movement which began to consolidate in the US and England from the late fifties.

This brings to mind another point to which I think you have already had some discussion with another editor in the counterculture pages. Clearly there is little indication in the hippie article that Great Britain had any influence on the movement that developed in California. In fact kids were already organising and rebelling in public demonstrations in the streets of London against the Nuclear issue as early as 1958.

Oh and by the way…those images in dispute are too large and should be reduced in keeping with the rest of the images in this article. Perhaps you may have made some agreement with the photographer so that he can sell his photographs, but I’m afraid that if this be the case it controvenes Wikipedia rule. Get the drift ;-)Mombas 09:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mombas, what an angling comment! To imply that Robert Altman, who out of pure generosity allowed us to use copyrighted images so that the hippie article could be improved, has made some kind of "deal" with me so that the photos would appear larger and he could sell photos--outrageous! Quite the opposite; he risks losing income because others might download the photos from the Wikipedia site and attempt to use them commercially. My interest in sizing is purely artistic.

Regarding the discussion with the other editor on the counterculture article, he is working on additions to the article that would clarify the British role, though his time has been limited so it hasn't gone too far. We have become good friends and are not the least in dispute. Our communication these days is by e-mail, and I have been encouraging him to enlarge discussion of the interactive nature of anti-war, music and other counterculture activities on both sides of the pond. Founders4 14:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed a couple of things in the "End of an Era" section regarding 1970's issues. See what you think. Founders4 16:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those changes look very good to me. I reworded the subtitle because 1970 wasn't the actual "end" of the hippie era but rather heralding the dawning of a new beginning, so to speak.Mombas 09:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Title looks good Mombas. I've been thinking about the drug paragraph you introduced recently and will attempt incorporation of some of the concepts in that section this coming week. Founders4 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of original research

I removed the quote about Essenes as the source cited does not appear to be reliable, nor does it mention anything abut the Essenes. I also added a citation request and removed the statements, " The cherished hippie ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship were exemplified in the lives of Jesus and many other visionaries, among them Krishna, Lao Tzu, Buddha and Francis of Assisi", and "Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved in a complex interplay between leaders and followers as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist", as this has gone unreferenced for many weeks now. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The first referenced sentence reads in full:

The roots of the hippie movement have been traced to the back-to-nature movement that surfaced in Europe during the nineteenth century, to the naturalist movements of late eighteenth-century Europe, or even to the early Essenes, who date from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD.[3]

Citation [3] referenced the back-to-nature and naturalist movements mentioned in the beginning of that sentence, not to the Essenes. We do need another citation (or several) regarding the Essenes. Don't think this justifies removal of mention of the Essenes.

The cherished hippie ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship were exemplified in the lives of Jesus and many other visionaries, among them Krishna, Lao Tzu, Buddha and Francis of Assisi"

It is not possible to discuss hippies without reference to their cherished ideals of "peace, love, compassion and human fellowship." These themes are present in all works dealing with hippies, and the same themes appear in all discussion of the historical figures cited--discussions of their lives, their teachings, their influence, their works or the religions they inspired. The Wikipedia articles themselves provide adequate citations, though more can be added here if you think it is necessary. I don't think removal of this entire sentence is justified on the basis that it represents original research.

"Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved in a complex interplay between leaders and followers as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist",

Whether we are talking about Dwight D. Eisenhower, Neal Cassady, Ken Kesey, Timothy Leary, Alan Ginsberg, Jerry Garcia, Chet Helmes, Owsley Stanley, Alan Watts, Stephen Gaskin, or any other assortment of people who influenced the evolution of the hippie ethos, the aspect of interplay between leaders and followers has been mentioned repeatedly. Some consensus has developed that this particular way of stating it conveys the reality--it has been changed from what you objected to previously (don't even recall the previous version, it was so long ago), so thought we had answered your objections. If your objections have not been answered, we can work on that and add whatever references you think are necessary. Many leaders (Eisenhower and Watts, for example) surely did not consider themselves "hippie leaders," yet they exerted influence nonetheless. Most of the other people mentioned above did not consider themselves "leaders" at all--just participants in the process. Pedant suggested we add a section called "defining texts," and I agree the article could use that; these were not, however, "manifestos" and some of the works (Heinlein's STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, for example) were fictional. I do believe this sentence adequately represents the reality and is not original research. How can we provide references that you would consider adequate?Founders4 09:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Start with WP:CITE and WP:RS. Please also note the length of my reply. —Viriditas | Talk 09:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas, I have to agree with Founders here. Your assessment has no foundation and is made up of your own personal opinions. Mombas 12:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to contribute to this article, but it would be helpful to discuss substantial redactions and reorganisations on the talk page first as there are several people working on this article very actively. I personally prefer the Eisenhower material and reaction vis the Vietnam war nearer the front of the article, the Vietnam War shouldn't come in in 1963 (Ike's speech was written 1960, given 1961) and first American casualties in Viet Nam were 1959. Sticking the references to this seminal material into a section labelled 1963-1966 is IMO ridiculous, by 1966 the hippie movement had begun to peak, what might go better in the 1963 section is death of Kennedy, and the impact on the civil rights movement, integral with the hippie movement, and Reverend Doctor King shortly thereafter...

I'm reluctant to add refs to Kennedy and MLK lest this article be descended upon by the 'anti conspiracy theorist crowd' who remove anything they want to brand as conspiracy nut-liness.

It's simply not original research though, to say that peace and love and a distrust of government were instrumental in the creation of the hippie movement. What might better be removed is the numerous references to 'disaffected youth' which connotes a high-school aged group of lazy slackers... if the movement was composed of such, it would never have become notable enough for a scholarly article, let alone half a century of dramatic impact on world history. User:Pedant 18:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, what sources are you using? Can you add them to the article? Is it POV to make this request? Should I be severely disciplined for making such a reasonable request for over a month? —Viriditas | Talk 00:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Sequential edits to "Hippie" page

Hi Viriditas. During the past month I and several other editors (Pedant and Mombas, in particular) have carefully worked out several compromises regarding the lead to the "Hippie" article. Many of these changes were made in response to objections you registered a month or so ago. When you last entered into this discussion, you wanted citations for other items, stated differently, not the lead as it appeared (until today) in its present form.

I would appreciate it if you could make your approach a bit less precipitous. Some of what was written was sourced, and some was not--more a function of limited time than an unwillingness to do the sourcing work. To simply eliminate whole sections seems rash. And moving the Eisenhower quote and discussion of the seminal impact of the dawning of the Vietnam War to the 1963-66 section weakens the lead, making it choppy and causing a failure in transition.

Finally, fifteen or sixteen sequential edits (rather than a single edit worked out in preview) makes the changes nearly impossible to track and compare. I've reverted to a previous edit for now because I believe the article has been damaged by these edits.

Can we discuss this please and move a bit more slowly, answering your specific objections and incorporating some of the changes you have made in a more incremental manner? Founders4 08:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your essay-length opinion. I have removed unsourced comments and I have brought the lead inline with WP:LEAD, although it needs further trimming. I am sorry that you feel policy "damages" the article. I would address your points one by one, but you'll just accuse me of being a lawyer as before. Furthermore, I would like to see this talk page refactored, since you are still posting long responses that drown out relevant points. —Viriditas | Talk 08:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I and other editors have had some long discussions, Viriditas. No one has drowned out anyone though. We have just discussed the various points rationally, sometimes arriving at considered conclusions, sometimes not. When you use the word "refactor," I don't know precisely what you mean. Founders4 09:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RTP. In case you have any doubts, I want to make it very clear that I both respect and admire the good work you and others have contributed to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas, for your appreciation of our efforts.

To my mind respect would better be demonstrated by discussion and suggestion rather than the elimination of whole sections of the lead. I just reviewed "Wikipedia: Lead section," and I believe the lead as previously structured better conformed to policy. In particular, and as I have already mentioned, the elimination of the Eisenhower quote makes it difficult for the lead to stand on its own--Pedant was especially insistent that this was primary to any introduction of who hippies were.

BTW, I didn't "accuse" you of being a lawyer previously; I did say that your terse, point-by-point approach reminded me of the way my lawyer friends like to argue. Founders4 09:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the quote, it has no place in the lead, and unless there is a good source drawing a connection between it and the topic, it probably has no place in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 09:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical juxtaposition draws the connection: one of the most beloved Presidents in history, an expert on government and military matters, warns the nation and the world about the military industrial complex, and within a matter of months a worldwide antiwar/anti-government movement begins, and survives for a generation. Vietnam war was only one of the first wars to be recognised as intentionally created (see Gulf of Tonkin) by the Establishment for the benefit of the Establishment, but note that we left out as much as possible about that and focused on the origin of the Hippie movement, the article is Hippie not War is a tool to make the rich richer.

Without mention of Ike and Vietnam, the article is flat-out worthless, a puff piece on styles and culture. Hippies were not mere disaffected youths. Unless this article can hold together as a true and unbiased historical record, dozens of other articles which reference this one fall, and the last half of the 20th century is reduced to a costume party. I assume anyone editing this article is aware of its importance, and I would hope that all of my fellow contributors would work together to make it worthy of inclusion on its merits. User:Pedant 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Without mention? You mean, in the lead, as it hasn't been removed from the body. If you have a good source for the above, then add attribution. —Viriditas | Talk 00:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A source? How about a source for 'hippies were disaffected youths'? Yes, in the lead, the info is fundamental to the origin of hippies, and integral to what hippies were. And you stuck it into "1963-66" care to provide a source for why it goes into that belated dated section? User:Pedant

Did I write that "hipies were disaffected youths"? If I did, then I would be happy to provide a source. If I didn't, then I suppose it's up to you to decide what to do since it you find it controversial. As for the movement of content from the lead to the chron section, it was far too large for the lead. You can try to summarize to the point you want to make and add it back in, but I'll remove it if it draws an analogy without a citation. —Viriditas | Talk 06:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your emphatic statement that the paragraph that introduced the Ike quote and made the connection to hippie identity "was far too large for the lead." What makes it too large? I know no more concise way to define this essential aspect of hippie identity. As Allan Cohen, founder of the San Francisco Oracle, has written there were TWO equally important aspects to hippie identity--1./ Hippies were outraged at the corruption of govermment by Ike's recently defined "military-industrial complex" and its early expression in the dawning of the Vietnam War, and 2./Hippies sought freedom from governmental interference in their private lives. As the lead stands, after your edit, only the second aspect finds mention. Ike's "military-industrial complex" phrase appears repeatedly in hippie statements opposing the Vietnam War--this phrase is so specific to Ike's 1961 "Farewell Speech" that no further referencing is required. What we do need is additional discussion of Ike's speech and its connection to hippie political beliefs, which should probably appear in the "Politics" section. An interesting sidenote: Ike originally wanted to call it the "military-industrial-congressional complex." Founders4 06:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas, this in my opinion is one of the worst examples of POV and vandalism I have seen for some time. You have not sufficiently made your case to simply revert. It’s not recommended that recklessly barging your way into an article where a number of other editors have spent some time collectively assessing content, without first discussing at length your personal views on the talk page, thus allowing time for other contributing editors to either support or disagree. As you will see by the extent of the content on talk page that much of the information which makes up the hippie article has been derived through consensus by the various editors who have worked tirelessly on this subject. I would suggest that you retract the bulk of the edits made by yourself, and to first discuss the changes you recommend. If you are not happy with a particular citation then good manners recommends that you first allow time with {fact}, before you make your changes.

In particular you did not leave the {fact} on; “The roots of the hippie movement have been traced to the back-to-nature movement that surfaced in Europe during the nineteenth century, to the naturalist movements of late eighteenth-century Europe. The cherished hippie ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship were exemplified in the lives of Jesus and many other visionaries, among them Krishna, Lao Tzu, Buddha and Francis of Assisi”, sufficiently long enough for other editors to deal with, which suggests that you have no hands on experience in 1960-70s hippidom and are offended by this particular inclusion because of personal religious convictions?

Based upon discussions in this talk page the consensus is against your recent edits and would strongly suggest that you take the time to discuss edit recommendation. Mombas 12:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Then the consensus is to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines. —Viriditas | Talk 00:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The official policy is to ignore them, in service of a better encyclopedia, and by extension a better article, a better intro, a better sentence. Not every article can be served by dictating how the subject is to be introduced. User:Pedant 10:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, Viriditas. What we choose to ignore is your apparent belief that your interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is the only CORRECT interpretation. Arrogance deserves to be ignored. Founders4 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no interpretation; either a statement has a source or it doesn't. —Viriditas | Talk 07:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas.May I suggest that you reinstate the content which you deleted, and let's look further into supporting the inclusion with further sources? Mombas 08:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be specific. Are you asking me to add unsourced content back into the article? Please notice that the Greenfield source I have recently mentioned provides both the religious and political justification for the points you are trying to convey. —Viriditas | Talk 08:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What statement has no source??? And are you at the same time saying you have a reference for what you want removed for being unsourced? Well why not add the reference instead of argue about it being unsourced??? User:Pedant 10:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted content was unsourced, and has been discussed throughout this and several previous threads, so you may want to look above your reply. Greenfield's book has only recently been brought up in relation to the points concerning religion and politics. We still need cites for the more specific claims, such as those made about the Essenes and others. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous discussion re: the lead section

User:Pedant/Collaboration has an archive of a long intercourse on the topic of the lead to this article. I've saved it in one place because it is a good record of the efforts that have gone before, just in discussion between 2 of us on our own talk pages. If you don't have time to read long discussions, that is no excuse to make sweeping changes without discussing them. I would propose as a truism that one cannot write an encyclopedia without reading extensively. User:Pedant 18:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with talk page maintenance by summarizing topics for other readers. Similarly, the lead needs to summarize the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead, as previously structured, DID summarize the article, Viriditas. Now it has a big hole in it. You have voiced disdain for "essays" (as you describe reasoned discourse), but I see your tendency to employ terse assertion as a transparent attempt to seem authoritative and avoid the burden of supporting your arguments. I find your approach very discouraging, enough to reconsider my investment of time in Wikipedia articles. I am sure other talented editors must feel similarly discouraged by your approach.Founders4 06:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading Greenfield's hit piece on Leary, when I came across a brief description of hippie culture, namely the "split between those who favored psychedelic spirituality and those who believed in the politics of revolution". This can be expanded and sourced, and might work well in the lead. —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First, sorry if my tone expresses my annoyance... that quote looks fine to me, but why in the lead? Is that really introductory material? Would that help someone unfamiliar with the concept of hippies? Or is it more detailed material that might be more suited to a more detailed section on what hippies didn't have in common, and keep the lead for stuff they did have in common?

The summary, Viriditas, is we spent a little over two weeks honing the intro to the article until we were all real pleased with it and you changed most of what we thought was good about it without any discussion, and I'm of a mind to let you rampage around however you like for a week and then come back and look it over.

I don't have a problem with collaboration, but I appreciate more discussion per change than what you seem to appreciate. Let's see what you want the article to look like, and then get together and discuss what we like and what we don't like about it.

and "Please familiarize yourself with talk page maintenance by summarizing topics for other readers" has somewhat of a superior I'm-taking-charge tone to it. I am quite familiar with summarising topics, and you are welcome to do whatever summarising you want done. Everyone I've been working with lately seemed happy with long drawn-out discussions. If you don't like them, you summarise them, how does that suit you? All my contributions are available to be mercilessly edited, so go right ahead.

I think the lead needs to show the one major thing all the original hippies had in common and it was not youth or disaffected-ness. It was anti-war and pro-peace, anti-goverment-repression, pro-freedom. Like that. It was a beautiful lead that wonderfully expressed that, with all the ideas in support of each other and in a good flowing readable style. Now it's not. But let's see what you have in mind, maybe we like it better. I'm going to be working on other stuff for about a week. User:Pedant 10:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The answer may be found at WP:NPOV. We don't portray one single perspective of cultural groups, mainly because there isn't one, and we use reliable sources to represent these views. —Viriditas | Talk 11:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Neo-hippie split and 60's template

Due to size, Neo-hippie is ready to be split, and the entire see also section should either be merged into an already existing decade template for nav or converted. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Discussion too short. Oppose merge. Oppose split. User:Pedant 03:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pedant. The changes involve improving the article; splitting is needed when articles/sections get too long; the current see also section is more useful as a navigational template linking related articles; we don't use see also the way it is used in the article at present. If you can justify why the article should not be improved, it may be interesting to read, but in the end such a position undermines the project. But, I want to thank you for your comments. If you have some insight into splitting sections or using see also/nav temps, I would like to understand your view. —Viriditas | Talk 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no stake in this Viriditas. But why do you always state your opinions as though only your viewpoint is consonant with some higher authority? If you do in fact have some special status, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't talk down to those of us who don't. If you have no special status, your attitude comes across as a power play--deceptive and irritating.Founders4 05:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on splitting the neo-hippie section and merging the see also section into a navigational template? If so, I would like to hear your view. —Viriditas | Talk 06:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Just reviewed the "Neo-hippie" section. I think it is useful to the "Hippie" article as it stands. Splitting it would make sense to me if it were likely to grow; I doubt there is much more to say about neo-hippies, so I don't see that happening. No strong opinion either way.

I have personally referenced quite a few of the items in the "See also" section. It isn't clear to me whether merging it into a navigational template would make the items listed more, or less, availabe to the interested reader. As it stands, anyone with an interest in this topic can easily use the list to learn more about specific topics. Wouldn't want to lose that facility.Founders4 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Converting the see also section into a navigational template wouldn't change the hippie article but instead link all the related articles together, with the template appearing on every linked page instead of just hippie, so it would in fact surpass your expectations. Regarding splitting sections, this needs to occur sooner rather than later as the page is already too long. In other news, McCleary's The Hippie Dictionary appears to support my claim that the term wasn't originally used by the countercultural movement-a claim you deleted from the article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As you describe the way the navigational template would work, it sounds fine.

If by "originally" McCleary means 1963-66, he is correct. In response to your previously stated concerns I attempted to clarify this issue (see "Pejorative connotations") through discussion of Herb Caen's use of the term "hippie" in his columns:

"In popularizing the term, columnist Herb Caen's daily references to hippies mostly expressed fascination and mild amusement rather than disapproval. Following his lead, many participants in the movement accepted the hippie label and used it in a non-pejorative sense."

By at least mid-1966 hippies had begun referring to one another as "hippies," using the term rather playfully. In Stephen Gaskin's Monday Night Classes, which began in 1967 and were attended by thousands of Bay Area folk, he used the term--again, accepting it playfully and warmly. Perhaps some recordings exist of those classes; I'm not sure--Mombas knows Gaskin personally, so he may be able to inquire. In any case, some of Gaskin's writings employ the term non-pejoratively. Would take me a while to dig them up. Founders4 17:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Hippie Museum, you may wish to reference a 1968 Berkeley Barb article called "Police Riot--Love Holds Fast" in which Priscilla's poem states, in part:

"I saw young hippies kneeling to comfort a fat well-dressed bald white guy, whose shoes shined almost as much as the jewels on his fingers."

http://www.hippiemuseum.org/policeriot.htmlFounders4 18:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another nice piece by a self-described hippie lady:

http://www.hippiemuseum.org/intamacy.html Founders4 18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, at 03:02 on 25 August 2006 (UTC) you wrote, "A "Neo-Hippie" article of its own sounds like a good idea. Can provide a link from the "Hippie" article." Is there any reason you suddenly changed your mind? —Viriditas | Talk 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a huge change of heart, just a reconsideration. No strong opinion either way. When you asked me my opinion, I went and re-read the section. It brings in some criticism of hippie assumptions that I think are valid--the assumption that rural living is more ecologically sound, for example. If the neo-hippie article splits, the relevant points can be made independently in the hippie article. Don't think a separate neo-hippie article is likely to grow, but this is not a serious objection to splitting it. Founders4 07:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

I would like to see a more even distribution of images throughout the article. Two images in the lead section is one too many. —Viriditas | Talk 01:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The two images in the lead represented the two main aspects of hippie identity--the cherishing of personal liberty and political expression with respect to anti-Vietnam war demonstrations. The third image, How Do! was chosen as a visual demonstration of the ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship.

You have arbitrarily deleted primary reference to the anti-war aspect of hippie identity from the lead, Viriditas. And any mention of the ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship have also been deleted. I strongly object to these deletions; do you doubt that they can be supported by adequate references?

Your move of the anti-Vietnam war demonstration photo is quite inappropriate, and the photo is only effective when sized so that the faces of the participants can be discerned. You are making me increasingly angry, Viriditas, as I believe you are butchering the article! Founders4 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Choose one image and put it in the lead section. Or use a table to align multiple images of the same size. The lead section usually has one image. —Viriditas | Talk 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another example of Viriditas telling his fellow editors what to do, as if he alone is the sole arbiter of what needs to be done. User:Pedant 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of reading V's exceedingly proprietary and warped view of this article, and what really happened. I suggest he take a wiki-break from this article for a little while, before it degenerates into a cyber-riot.

"Usually" is not a rule. In the case of Hippies, one photo simply does not cover it, nor does your redacted version of the lead text. Hippies were not simply anti-authoritarian hedonists, as "Dancing Hippies" might imply. Hippies were not simply strangely dressed, good-hearted, friendly folk, as "How Do! Fellowship in Golden Gate Park" might imply. And Hippies were not simply principled objectors to one of the most unnecessary wars in modern history, as "Anti-Vietnam War Demonstration" might imply. Only a triad of primary identity factors, both in the text and in the graphics, adequately introduces the topic to readers who have only sufficient time to read the lead.

I'll experiment with a table (no time this a.m.) aligning multiple images of the same size. However each of these three photos is an art piece, each with a powerful message. As such each demands a certain scale to effectively convey that message. Robert Altman donated these photos to the article because it is a subject close to his heart, and because he recognizes that a current weakness of Wikipedia is very poor graphics. Your demand for consistent sizing is arbitrary and does not serve the reader. Founders4 16:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Intentional communities section

The article needs a two to four paragraph section about intentional communities like Drop City, etc. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to write same, Viriditas. Founders4 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Philosophy/ethos sources

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)

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)

It's original research unless I can verify the information with reliable sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Sick -- call for consensus

I'm sick of the damage done to this article. I think we need to revert to this and then edit from there. I don't object to some of the stuff added recently, but I object to the wholesale disruption of the article since the above edit. The article has been completely restructured with a heavy hand. One editor in particular has taken it upon himself to make declarative statements about what the article needs rather than discuss changes, especially major changes. Can we get some sense for if there would be a consensus to revert to either the above mentioned point in history, or to some other appropriate point? User:Pedant 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

1. support reverting as above to this point User:Pedant 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am also very upset by the damage that is being done to this article. Every day brings new deletions (please see topics below), and many of these deletions are completely arbitrary, purely the expression of a single editor's point of view.

Particulary disturbing is the high-handed attitude of this editor, who goes by the tag "Viriditas." Viriditas exhibits a complete lack of collaborative spirit, a disappointing anomaly in the Wiki world. And, as I have mentioned below, I believe his heavy-handed pattern of deletions constitutes a clear violation of the 3-revert rule.

Some of the Viriditas edits, as well as edits by others during the past few days, are worthwhile. Perhaps we can identify which edits are objectionable and do a partial revert of the affected sections. In particular I would favor reinstatement of the lead to the form prevailing through September 17, 2006.

Some of Viriditas requests for sourcing are valid and need to be honored. Other requests for sourcing seem frivolous at best. Viriditas claims to have removed material from the article only after sufficient notice, but he ignores that many changes were made to the relevant sections since his original objections were raised. Founders4 07:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote YES. I support reverting as above to this point or to any point prevailing on September 17, 2006.Founders4 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Please pursue dispute resolution through the appropriate channels. —Viriditas | Talk 10:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

'Dispute' and resolution

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)

From Wikipedia:Resolving disputes:

"Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. In contrast, sustained discussion and serious negotiation between the parties, even if not immediately successful, shows that you are interested in finding a solution that fits within Wikipedia policies." User:Pedant 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Drugs--Kesey's Introduction to LSD during the CIA's MKULTRA program

Earlier today Viriditas removed in its entirety the last paragraph of the "Drug" section. It read:

The psychotropic drugs that were adopted by hippies were introduced in part during CIA project MKULTRA, which tested the effects of various drugs and other treatments on numerous Americans, often without their consent. While a student at Stanford University, Ken Kesey himself was a volunteer subject in one of the many drug trials promoted by the MKULTRA project, and it was during these trials that he was first introduced to the use of LSD.

I wrote the following to Viriditas:

Ken Kesey's introduction to LSD during MKULTRA experiments while he was a student at Stanford had a major impact on hippie history. In fact it is hard to imagine hippies becoming what they became without LSD, and Kesey was intrumental in popularizing its use. I see no justification for removing this reference--once again Viriditas, it is an arbitrary deletion. Please reinstate it. If you do not reinstate it, I will. There is no excuse for not including relevant information in the article, your own prejudices aside.

Viriditas responded:

Thank you for your concern, but if you want to discuss articles, please use the talk page of that article. You may use my talk page to notify me of things of interest, however. I'm quite familiar with the subject, and there most cetainly needs to be a section in the article about it, but the paragraph in question has little to do with the topic. Stay focused on hippies, and you will find the article writes itself. To start with, if you want to write more about this subject, try to expand the Timothy Leary paragraph first.

First, Viriditas, I am focused on hippies, and the manner of Kesey's introduction to LSD is directly relevant to hippies. It is relevant because without Kesey, his Pranksters and his Acid Tests, the use of LSD might never have become widespread among hippies. It is also relevant because hippies were convinced that the United States government had become corrupt and was running roughshod over the rights of ordinary Americans; the abuses perpetrated by MKULTRA, including the administration of LSD to unsuspecting Americans, is directly related both to the topic of drugs and to the general theme of corruption in government.

Second, you seem adept at deleting things, but so far I haven't seen you contribute to the article. Several editors, myself included, have gradually built the article up over the past few months. We have endeavored to include all relevant content submitted by other editors, welcoming their contributions and incorporating them to the fullest extent possible. When disagreements occurred, we have worked diligently to construct compromises. While some of your deletions are fine, many have not been based on specific objections (sourcing, for example); they have in fact been arbitrary, purely expressions of your personal point of view. When we have objected to these deletions--as I, Mombas and Pedant have repeatedly done--you have not answered our objections; rather you have responded in a high-handed, dismissive manner. I do not find this approach acceptable.

Your response here is similar. You agree that there needs to be a section discussing MKULTRA in the "Hippie" article, but rather than writing such a section, or suggesting where you think the information would better be located, you simply deleted the information. Then, rather than discussing the points I raised, you arbitrarily dismiss them and direct me to "expand the Timothy Leary paragraph first." Very much like a teacher instructing a somewhat misdirected student.

Well I'm not your student, Viriditas. I am a co-editor of the article. And I believe your constant deletions, especially given the fact that you have repeatedly ignored objections by myself and other editors, constitute a violation of the 3-revert rule.

So once again I will ask you politely. Please reinstate the information you deleted regarding Kesey's introduction to LSD during the CIA's MKULTRA program. 06:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep your comments brief and to the point. This article is about hippies. The tangential narrative regarding other issues should be incorporated into the article. There are articles about human drug experimentation, as well as Kesey's drug use, both of which are not relevant to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

You write: "The tangential narrative regarding other issues should be incorporated into the article." Isn't this exactly what the deleted paragraph did? Since Kesey was such a primary figure in introducing LSD to the hippie scene, his use of this drug IS relevant to this article. Founders4 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement you added back in is not substantiated, focuses on only one aspect of drug distribution, and places importance on content that lies outside the scope of this article. The drug was being used by academics and professionals, and was legal for some time. Leary, Owsley, Kesey, and others were important, the CIA much less so. Kesey's own experience is interesting in the context of his life and career as an author, but less so in an article about the Hippie movement as a whole. You would do well to find a citation in Storming Heaven to support this aspect over the others I mentioned. For the purposes of NPOV, isolating and inflating one aspect over a multitude of others is POV pushing. —Viriditas | Talk 19:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The statement I reinstated was well-substantiated in 1977 Senate Hearings during which the CIA acknowledged testing the effects of LSD, mescaline psilocybin and many other drugs on unsuspecting Americans, leading to at least one substantiated death. More legitimate CIA drug testing occurred during voluntary drug trials conducted at facilities near many universities, including the Menlo Park Veterans Hospital near Stanford. Kesey has written extensively about his introduction to several psychotropic drugs, including LSD, at the Menlo Park facility.

Had Kesey been only a well-known author, I would agree with you that the manner of his introduction to LSD would be unimportant to the "Hippie" article. As it was, however, his prominence during the early hippie years, especially his promotion of the Acid Tests, elevate the importance of this particular aspect of his life. I purposefully used the term "in part" and kept it short so as not to exaggerate the importance of MKULTRA.

I agree that the "Drug" section needs expanding to include discussion of other seminal players. I agree that LSD was widely used among academics and professionals--having grown up in Berkeley, half of my parents's upper-middle-class friends had taken LSD by 1965, and my stepfather threatened to synthesize a batch at his UC Berkeley Rad Lab. But, since I have been acquainted with him for forty years now, I also happen to know that Owsley began to produce LSD only after Kesey introduced him to the drug. (Wouldn't write this, of course--too OR.) His girlfriend, Melissa, was a chemistry major at Berkeley, and she provided instruction. Owsley probably did more than any other individual to bring LSD to the "hippie masses," but he probably wouldn't have done that without Kesey, and Kesey probably wouldn't have dropped acid without MKULTRA.

I would prefer to de-emphasize the importance of MKULTRA by adding to the "Drug" section rather than deleting information that is both true and relevant. I'm not pushing anything.Founders4 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of a specific point about drugs.

Viriditas, you removed the following sentence:

The use of these drugs became common in hippie settings, both because of their psychopharmaceutical effects and to express disaffection with societal norms.

You attached a comment:

Remove obvious statement (Yes, drugs have effects, no need to sat it unless we are describing it). Rm unsourced speculation re societal norms.)

I believe you may be missing the point this editor (not I) was trying to make, or perhaps his point was not stated clearly enough. The editor was trying to emphasize that hippies sometimes took drugs not just to get high but also in a spirit of conspiratorial rebellion agains "societal norms." It may not be a major point, but neither do I see any reason to delete it.

Also, is there really any doubt that smoking marijuana and taking mescaline, psilocybin, LSD and other drugs were contrary to "societal norms"? This is hardly "speculation" and does not require sourcing. Founders4 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If so, it should be easy for you to find a good citation. I know of many sources that claim that hippies were taking drugs to pursue happiness, get in touch with themselves spiritually, and to experience altered states of consciousness. If you are going to give reasons for a particular type of behavior, it's best to give attribution. —Viriditas | Talk 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood. You were not asking for sourcing of what societal norms were; you were asking for sourcing regarding the assertion that hippies used drugs "to express disaffection with societal norms." As I've mentioned, I did not write this sentence, though I did edit it to make the point more presentable. My general policy when someone takes the time to contribute to this, or any other article, is inclusion wherever possible.

I do think what this editor wrote is true, though to what extent I don't know. Probably a hard one to source though. If you leave it alone for awhile, I'll keep my eyes open.Founders4 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Politics

Pedant added the top-level Category:Politics to the article for some reason. [1] The other category, Category:Hippie movement is already a member of Politics through the appropriate cultural categorization, namely Category:Social movements > Category:Activism > Category:Politics. There is also a message on Category:Politics that asks editors to "diffuse articles into relevant subcategories as needed..If an article exists in both this category and a relevant subcategory, or it simply does not belong, remove its category marker," which has already been done with the use of Category:Hippie movement. It is also interesting to note what E.D. Hirsch says about the Hippie movement: "Their movement was fundamentally a cultural rather than a political protest." Other writers, historians, and academics tend to agree. I would ask at this time that Pedant revert his addition of this category. —Viriditas | Talk 03:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Most assuredly the hippie movement was both cultural AND political. Some hippies were apolitical, while others were intensely political. As the "Politics" section states:

The degree of political involvement varied widely among hippies, from those who were completely apolitical to Yippies, the most politically active hippie sub-group.

The [Bob Fass] article (see "Midwife to a Movement") gives a good summary of East Coast hippie poltics. His WBAI New York "Radio Unnameable" program spotlighted many key events, among them Abbie Hoffman's August, 1967 anti-capitalist demonstration at the New York Stock Exchange, the October, 1967 proposal to levitate the Pentagon during a mammoth anti-Vietnam war demonstration in Washington, DC, and the Yip-In at New York's Grand Central Terminal in March, 1968. Of course there were also the August, 1968 Democratic Convention protests in Chicago, the May, 1969 People's Park protest in Berkeley and innumerable other events.

One might say that West Coast hippies were less political than East Coast hippies, however even West Coast cultural happenings--such as Berkeley playwright Daniel Moore's Floating Lotus Magic Opera Company performances--were imbued with deep political meaning. Floating Lotus' "Bliss Apocalypse" (http://www.danielmoorepoetry.com/theater/blissApocalpyse.html)was a deeply moving statement against the Vietnam War.

I think Pedant was correct to add the top-level Category:Politics to the article. Founders4 06:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

What SF Oracle founder Allen Cohen said in his 1995 essay, "A New Look at the Summer of Love" (http://www.net.info.nl/cohen/) is quite relevant here:

"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."

You have written that hippie politics was "gentle and non-doctrinaire." True, as far as it goes, however this did not apply when it came to opposition to the Vietnam War. Normally gentle and non-doctrinaire hippies were also, as Cohen wrote, ardent political activists. Your edits of the lead continue to de-emphasize this important aspect of hippie identity.Founders4 08:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I did not write that; it is a sourced citation. Please stop accusing me of doing things and stick to the topic. Furthermore, you have provided absolutely no justification as to why the category should be duplicated. This article is about Hippies, not the Counterculture of the 1960s. They are two separate articles, and it might be wise to keep that in mind. —Viriditas | Talk 00:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not "accusing" you of anything, Viriditas. If the "gentle and nondoctrinaire" sentence is a quote, you need to put it in quotation marks. Otherwise I, and others, will assume you wrote it, employing your own choice of words, BASED ON the sourced material. That's what I mean when I cite a source without using quotation marks or some other device to indicate that it is, in fact, a direct quote.

Yes this article is about hippies. And we know that this distinct group of people came into existance before the word that generally describes them came into common usage. By 1966 Caen had begun to use the word to describe them, and by 1967 the word had become the preferred word for describing them. That does not mean that an earlier source is not legitimate just because it does not use the word "hippie;" the issue is who is being described. Even the counterculture article states:

"The most visible radical element of this counterculture was the hippie."

My only point here is that there is some overlap. And I would maintain, as I have previously, that the hippie movement began during the early to mid-1960s. Lots of folks agree. Apparently some don't. There are sources to support both points of view.

Incidentally (and I'll be commenting more on this) just referenced Gaskin's website and he lists his religion as "Hippie." Founders4 02:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a direct quote, and even if it was, I would not be required to use quotes per MLA guidelines, as long as proper attribution and a correct citation are provided. Direct quotes are useful in most instances, however. —Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking of paraphrasing. Founders4 is of course, 100% correct, and the Time-Life quote requires quotes in some places. —Viriditas | Talk 04:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethical libertarians

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)

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)

Alternative press

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:

1. San Francisco Oracle
2. Berkeley Barb
3. Los Angeles Free Press
4. The East Village Other
5. Chicago Seed
6. Rolling Stone
7. Whole Earth Catalog

—Viriditas | Talk 04:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The article needs this.Founders4 06:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Change of sourced content

Founders, your last edit changed the meaning of two sources I added earlier today to contain content that cannot be verified in the original. [2] If you have new content to add, please do so, but do not change the meaning of sourced statements. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 11:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with your rewrite of the lead paragraph.

Hippie, occasionally spelled hippy, is a term used to refer to members of a countercultural movement that began in the United States in the late 1960s, eventually spreading to Europe before fading in the late 1970s. [1] Initially surfacing on United States college campuses, it moved beyond academic settings to most major cities in Canada, Great Britain, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. To a lesser extent hippie influence was felt worldwide, particularly in Eastern Europe, Mexico and Japan.

The first problem is internal inconsistency, in that the lead sentence now says that the hippie movement began in the United States and then spread to Europe. Then the paragraph goes on to say that the movement moved to most major cities in Canada, Great Britain, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Then it mentions the other places where the movement had significant, though lesser, impact. This way of stating things is awkward at best; saying it spread only to "Europe" in the first sentence, then immediately adding in all the rest, creates significant cognitive disconsonance for the reader. Of course "Europe" can be construed to mean Great Britain, Western Europe and Eastern Europe, but not Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico and Japan.

The second problem, perhaps more serious, is that the article now says that the hippie movement BOTH "began" during the late 1960s and "reached its height" during the late 1960s. These two statements appear further apart in the article, however the alert reader will rightly wonder what might be the reality.

The third associated problem is that, despite your sourcing, the statement is flat out wrong. A "movement" requires time to gather steam. If we define the late 1960s as approximately mid-1967 to the end of 1969, we are saying that this movement began, spread worldwide and reached its height during a 2 1/2 year period. That is not the way it happened, and anyone familiar with the period will say "Nonsense." The beginning of the hippie movement is difficult to pinpoint because it evolved from the beat movement of the 1950's. But we can at least say the beginnings were there during Kesey's 1964 summer trip in "Further," which combined elements of both beat culture (Cassady, Ginsburg, Kerouac) and hippie culture (Kesey, the Grateful Dead)--with no clear line drawn between them. Some would put the "beginning" earlier. There is a lot of room for interpretation with respect to the beginning, development and peaking of the hippie movement, but if your source says that the hippie movement began in the late 1960s it is an unreliable source.

I intended to change the meaning of what you wrote, because it is wrong. It still needs to be changed, because it is wrong. Founders 18:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, please change, modify, delete, and expand the article, but do not alter the meaning of sourced content, as that defeats the purpose of verification. If you have competing sources, by all means provide them on talk or add them to the article; competing viewpoints are encouraged by the NPOV policy. If you need further help, please ask an administrator. —Viriditas | Talk 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Viriditas, you refuse to engage in discussion regarding the points I raise regarding internal consistency. I don't need to provide "competing sources" to raise objections that have to do with internal consistency or logic. Then you resort to your usual condescension. Pedant is correct; your approach really is quite maddening and makes it difficult to assume good faith. Founders4 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, you are referring to unsourced material that I didn't write. If you need to remove unsourced material, do so, but do not modify sourced content. Please add competing viewpoints to the article that are sourced. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 19:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I am referring to the article as it presently appears. Unless you copied the sourced material, you wrote the first sentence of the paragraph in question and it has to work with the rest of the article. No one questions that the hippie movement began in the 1960s--early to mid-1960s is open to question, but the "late 1960s" is nonsense! Especially since the article also says that the movement "reached its height" during the "late 1960s. Please see my comments under "Sourcing in General" below.Founders4 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, it is a historical fact the hippie movement came into its own in the late 1960s. Please don't continue to falsify citations and include your own original research within a citation that does not claim what you say it does. —Viriditas | Talk 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The hippie movement "came into its own/reached its height" during the late 1960s. It did not BEGIN in the late 1960s as you previously wrote. You have now accused me of falsifying citations--I have not done so. Writing something that references a source, or partially references a source, is not original research. Sourcing is not the same as quoting, as you seem to imply.Founders4 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The counterculture began earlier than the mainstream Hippie movement, which was recognized in the late 1960s. Reminding you again, I did not write it. I quote Hirsch, who wrote a dictionary with an entry on Hippies. I have consulted other sources which all make the same claim. Regarding my observations about your use of citations, if you reference something, you better make sure that it says what you claim it says, because I am going to find every citation and check it. See WP:V for further information. —Viriditas | Talk 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that you edited your initial comment after I had already responded to it. You added "or add them to the article; competing viewpoints are encouraged by the NPOV policy." Sounds more inviting, perhaps even less condescending. But competing viewpoints in the lead would destroy the credibility of the article, especially with respect to the basic issue of when the movement happened. Such competing viewpoints are best worked out in talk. I am attempting to do this.

Even competing viewpoints have to be acknowledged as such within the context of the article. Statements that create cognitive disconsonance--such as the one I mentioned above regarding the movement's spread to "Europe"--are just bad writing. Founders4 19:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad citations

Founders, please stop speculating as to my emotional state, my motives, or how you think I act. Please stick to the topic, keep your comments brief and to the point, and stop falsifying citations. I have noticed that you have falsified at least four different citations, possibly more. I will assume good faith, and chalk your edits up to ignorance, but if it continues, I will escalate this to the appropriate administrator. We are not stupid, Founders. We are wikipedians who are actively fact checking every bit of data, comparing and contrasting it with other reports, and weighing, sifting, and verifying information. Your actions are either a result of ignorance of the relevant policies, which I have continued to ask you to review, or deliberate dishonesty. I will choose the former until there is reason to think otherwise. To recap, on September 3, you added a reference making it seem like mention of the Essenes was cited when in fact it was not. [3]. On September 23, you added a reference to the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy, making it seem like the source drew a connection between hippies and MKULTRA. There is no such connection at the source, nor is there any mention of a notable connection in any historical research I have done. [4] In your favor, there are two popular books, Storming Heaven and Acid Dreams, which discuss this topic, but you have not made use of them, nor is there any way to verify the notability of the relationship between hippies the subgroup, and human experimentation. On the same day, you changed a sourced definition by E.D. Hirsch, and added information that is not contained in the original source. [5] You engaged in the same falsifiation of sources by editing the same passage, this time you failed to pay attention to the source (a personal web site about Rock music), as it is not relevant to the context, nor is it as reliable as Hirsch, and in point of fact contradicts your claim altogether. [6]. Since that time you have continued to add sources, of which I fear do not represent the claims in any way. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] This is a very serious problem, Founders, and I will be reverting the most egregious errors to prevent this article from turning into your personal essay again. I suggest you take a break from Wikipedia and review the citation policies, because if this behavior continues, you give me no alternative but to escalate the dispute resolution process. —Viriditas | Talk 00:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas I have never speculated as to your emotional state. I have said it is sometimes difficult, given your actions, to assume good faith on your part. When I read your comments to Pedant (on his talk page, not in this discussion) I commented that you seem to "pretend innocence" in your bafflement as to why you have offended him (and me and Mombas); this may have been slightly over the line, though not much because we have repeatedly told you what we find offensive and you have not in the least changed your behavior.

I have never falsified a citation in my life. I have written one full-length book with scholarly attribution and I consider your charge a serious one. As I have written before, I am not a full-time researcher and encyclopedia writer. I source what I can as time allows, taking care of the easier things first. You invited me to add to the article in order to correct what I perceived as a serious error; I did so, and I cited a source that, contrary to your assertions, pegged the beginnings of the hippie counterculture movement to the early 1960's. I did so without trying to disturb the Hirsch source that you say (I haven't checked) pegs the beginnings of the hippie counterculture movement to the late 1960's; my intent was to convey that there is some difference of opinion as to when the hippie counterculture began. I notice you have changed the lead to avoid this controversy and to clarify the geographical issue; I previously requested these changes, however you refused any discussion and deflected my concerns. I am glad you finally decided to make this change.

The September 3 "falsification" you note was nothing of the sort. The reference I provide was in support of the first part of the sentence, not the last:

The roots of the hippie movement can be found in the naturalist movements of late eighteenth-century Europe and the back-to-nature movement that surfaced in Europe during the nineteenth century.

There was no intent to mislead the reader, and I readily agreed with you that we would need more sourcing on the Essenes (not my idea to include them, by the way, as I realized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to source).

The September 23 cite was in direct response to your specific objection that there was no substantiation for the first sentence of the paragraph, which read:

The psychotropic drugs that were adopted by hippies were introduced in part during CIA project MKULTRA, which tested the effects of various drugs and other treatments on numerous Americans, often without their consent.

If you read the transcript of the Senate hearings, you will see that they directly support what this sentence says. That the drugs in question (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline and others) were adopted by hippies is common knowledge and no reasonable person could dispute this. I put the cite at the end of the sentence where it belongs to support the fact that the CIA MKULTRA project "tested the effects of various drugs and other treatments on numerous Americans, often without their consent." There was no intent to mislead, and neither the sentence nor the cite mislead the reader.

The sources I have added today are, in some cases only partially support the sections to which they apply. As I mentioned with respect to the "Philosophy/Ethos" paragraph it would take me a week of full-time work to do the research necessary to fully source this paragraph. I can provide the sourcing you requested, however I told you I would do the easy sourcing first, then move on to the more difficult items. Citing Kueshana's Ultimate Frontier is an example of this. This book was widely read among hippies and frequently discussed during the era. Kueshana writes of the power of the human mind to affect material reality through the process of "precipitation," or "conscious creation." This paragraph is my work, a summation of various works (including some primary sources) that date from the 1960s. When I cite a source, I am not claiming to QUOTE that source--if I were to do that I would put the material in quotation marks. This is a perfectly legitimate way to present the material, and it is relevant to this section because it directly supports Stewart Brand's Whole Earth statement, "We are as gods, and we might as well get used to it." (Incidentally, Stewart later changed this in later editions to read "We are as gods, and we might as well get good at it.)

I have no desire to make this article my personal essay, and I have drawn a clear line between original research and the inclusion of permissable material. Please be sure that YOU have no desire to make it your own personal essay.

Meanwhile I demand a retraction of your charge that I have falsified citations. If you choose not to retract your charge, I demand that you refer our conflict to an appropriate administrator. Founders4 01:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my comments 100%. Once again, I see that you cannot stop speculating as to my emotional state, my motives, or how you think I act, nor can you stick to the topic, and make comments brief and to the point. This is not about me, nor what you think of me, nor what you think I am thinking; it is about an article entitled "Hippie". Your personal essays are very interesting, and some of your original research has merit, but Wikipedia has strict policies regarding these things. There is one way to set the record straight; we create a subpage for citations only, with page numbers and actual text used for each source. I want to see every single citation used, I want to verify it, and I want others to do the same. As I said above, I am assuming good faith. If the diffs above do not show you falsifying citations, then what do they show? I am willing to change my wording. Misuse of sources? For what it's worth, I find this latest comment of yours very troubling: [12]. Are you claiming that you are deliberately adding sources that do not match the content? I want the page numbers immediately, or I will remove the text. —Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If the diffs above do not show you falsifying citations, then what do they show?

They show that I am citing sources that SUPPORT THE CONTENT of the passages I write. An exact MATCH between a passage and its source would be a quote. I am not QUOTING the sources. Writing a sentence or paragraph in one's own way and using the source to support the facts it is based on is perfectly legitimate, and no one in any venue, including the strictest academic settings, has ever questioned this practice.

Once again you accuse me of speculating as to your emotional state. What are you talking about, Viriditas? The most I have said is that it is hard to assume good faith on your part BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS. I am not speculating about how I think you act; I am observing how you act.

I am sticking to the topic; perhaps you define the topic more narrowly than some of us former hippies who have expanded our consciousness through the use of appropriate drugs. :) Founders4 02:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing in General

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)

Read the above comments. —Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

RFC request

WP:RFC/SOC —Viriditas | Talk 11:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to get a handle on this dispute. The article itself appears to be mostly accurate and balanced, although some sections could use better citation. I think citation requests would be more appropriate than content deletion for passages where editors agree the existing text is probably true. Durova 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree it's hard to get a handle on this dispute. Will one of the disputing parties please explain what their issue is? AndyJones 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• The issue is that several editors have been working together on this article for weeks and then Viriditas suddenly with no discussion made extensive changes to the article; deleted material without discussion; complained about the length of comments made by other editors attempting to discuss his edits with him; made declarative statements about what the article needs and refused discussion; generally acted in a high-handed uncivil manner, advised us to 'familiarise ourselves' with dispute resolution procedures, while at the same time ignoring foundational steps to the dispute resolution process (primarily the 'prevent dispute'/'discuss disspute'/'disengage from dispute' processes); prematurely brought this to an RfC in an abuse of process, skipping preliminary steps of resolution, citing WP:OWN and editing the policy content at WP:OWN in an apparent attempt to tailor the policy to this discussion. Incivility. Disruptive mass edits. Responded to a call for consensus with "Please pursue dispute resolution through the appropriate channels." Viriditas placed the RfC, he should have made it plain what the dispute was. As far as I'm concerned the entire thing hinges on Viriditas' refusal to discuss major changes to what was a stable article. User:Pedant 05:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

During the past week Viriditas has pursued a relentless policy to restructure the "Hippie" article so as to eliminate primary elements of hippie identity, in particular the political aspect of that identity. Prior to September 17, 2006, several editors (myself, Veriditas and Mombas to name just a few active editors) had carefully worked out compromises that resulted in a balanced lead we could all be happy with. Some of it needed sourcing, true, but nothing in the lead we constructed was manifestly untrue.

Viriditas had offered extensive criticism of the article about a month ago, and a lot of that criticism had been answered with constructive changes during the past few weeks--expanding certain sections, qualifying statements that were too broad and so on. When Viriditas returned on September 18, 2006 he began with wholesale deletions of many sections, completely ignoring our objections and demonstrating NO willingness to discuss the issues or collaborate. His approach was high-handed, and he repeatedly implied that his views were uniquely consonant with Wikipedia policy.

I would be happy to work with Viriditas on any of the points in question, but I do not think it is appropriate for him to continually talk down to the other editors of this article. The single most important thing he can do, in my opinion, is to stop deleting things we have worked so hard to construct. The other thing would be to stop ignoring our objections when he trashes things.

I have tried to refrain from personally attacking Viriditas, but I must second Pedant's short comment--oh yeah, http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick too. Founders4 08:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thank you, Durova, for reviewing this matter. I agree that we need to resolve our differences through discussion and compromise, and we need to cite sources as quickly as possible whenever verification is requested. My own personal preference is to facilitate the inclusion of new material and viewpoints whenever possible, deleting material only when absolutely necessary. Seems to me that taking the time for adequate discussion saves time in the long run and ensures a general spirit of goodwill among the contributing editors. Founders4 09:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Durova means by "if this summary is correct." The POV being offered belongs to the respective editors. Has Durova taken the time to investigate their claims? If so, I predict he will find that Pedant and Founders4 have been engaged in primary research. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I am concerned it’s futile for editors to spend copious amounts on time on reaching consensus concerning content for Wikipedia articles , and then for the likes of Veriditas to simply mussel his way in and make fundamental structural changes to the article without first seeking to discuss what he has in mind. I for one have resigned myself to accepting that this article has in the main now lost its original flow, and is now reduced by Veriditas’ contributions which he makes without seeking consensus. Unfortunately you will find that editors will simply throw in the towel after spending months meticulously working on content, and then the agreed content is trashed by editors like Veriditas who manipulate Wikipedia guidelines to control the article within his/her personal criteria. If Wikipedia administrators do not act upon complaints of the majority we stand to loose worthwhile contributors. Mombas 07:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Mombas. Could you provide some diff links supporting your allegations or are you just speaking your mind? After all, if what you say is true, it would be very easy for you to show that I have trashed the article. Are you aware that Founders4 feels differently and has said as much on my talk page? I know why you are really upset with me. It's because of these edits you keep making [13], edits that I remove due to the policy on original research. Regarding your point about losing worthy contributors, are you aware that I left the project for one month because Founders4 would not allow me to edit this article, and now another user, GeorgeLouis, has left for the same reason? —Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I wrote some sincere, concilliatory remarks on your talk page when I was still hopeful that collaborative editing efforts were possible. Your final acts of bad faith--accusing me of fraud after I spent an entire day adding citations you requested, in conjunction with your final disruptive edit--forced me to conclude that your actions constitute a form of trolling. You have editing skill, which I acknowledge. It is not, however, coupled with a willingness to work harmoniously with others. Founders4 17:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, as I have explained in the section entitled "Bad citations", your addition of sources to the article in at least four instances do not reflect the content you are citing. More recently, you add many new sources, many of which I doubt. I have asked you for page numbers, which you refuse to provide. You made a comment to another user about this, making me think that you added the sources without actually looking at them. I am very interested in fact and reference checking, and I expect to be able to verify your sources. Please help me improve the article, not weaken it. —Viriditas | Talk 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not refuse to provide page numbers. On the contrary, I promised to provide page numbers as time allowed. That work continues apace.Founders4 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas. I would have thought that a quick read throughout these talk pages would be sufficient evidence for any editor or administrator to realise that the general consensus of opinion in here validates any criticism I have made of your editorial methods in this hippie article. On the question of your personal and unsupported views concerning the citations I have provided which clearly demonstrate that while hippydom may have waned in the US soon after the 1970, the movement is still alive and well in NZ and Australia, your clear editorial belligerence continues to further make a make a fool of yourself. Just for the record sake, this particular edit that you are referring to, [14], was not originally my own but that of Founders4, to which I know clearly support. So don’t delete it because yet again the editorial consensus is against you. Furthermore, when I find the time I will be initiating a supporting article, Hippies Down-under, which will appropriately link from Hippies. I reiterate my original assertion that you are not always a team player and I think you have great potential to be so. While I have found Founders4 to be a little editorially stubborn like you, in the final analysis I have found him to be reasonably fair and inclusive. Mombas 11:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

So when asked to support your allegations against me, you respond with "look at the talk page"? When you accuse other editors of something, I suggest you provide links. Otherwise, I will assume that you are now recanting what you have said about me. I will repeat what I have been asking you in multiple sections; you recently added a paragraph back in to article that does not appear to be sourced appropriately. Could you please explain how the cites you added support the content in question? Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 20:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, this talk page right here, the one you just posted on, just read this page, because that's the one you did all the lack of discussion/unresponsive discussion/feigning of innocence on. And this page is the one where everyone has told you what sort of an utter butt you have been behaving as if you were. Right here, this page, you don't have to look around, it's right here. Read this page, the one you are reading, ok, got it? This page. User:Pedant 06:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This RFC is not about me. I would like to provide an update as to the dispute: original research has been greatly reduced from the article; citation requests have been made and research is ongoing; ownership issues have all but vanished with Founders4 on break; footnotes and external links need work; removal of content is still occurring; talk page maintenance is required as the page has grown over 250 kilobytes. —Viriditas | Talk 21:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Viriditas. The overwhelming consensus among editors is that you should leave the hippie article. Take the hint. We have lost Founders4 who I would have considerd the best balance editor in this submission, due to you belligerance. Mombas 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction: ownership behavior is still a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

existential role of hippies in academic cultures

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)

Does anyone understand what this is all about? Founders4 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a clue. —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Being bold

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)

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)

Organization

How would you feel if the Etymology section were moved downward? Seems to me that we should get to the nub of the article before talking about the origin of the word itself?

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 18:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, the "Etymology" section was located after the "History" section, and I was comfortable with that location. Then another editor moved it to the beginning, which is certainly more logical--though as you say it does make the article get off to a slow start. I voiced that objection at first.

Just revisited the "Etymology" location and went through the article, trying to imagine it being relocated. Couldn't do it. Don't know if that's just because I'm used to the current location or not. Basically I think it's OK where it is. Founders4 08:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I support defining the word before explaining where it came from per User:GeorgeLouis, provided it reads well in the new spot User:Pedant 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Radical Edit of Hippie Lead

Hello GeorgeLouis. The lead of an article is intended to provide casual readers with the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the subject matter without reading the entire article. It is a summation of the rest of what the article says. The lead should answer, as succinctly as possible, the who, what, when, where, why and how questions of traditional journalism. Readers who wish to learn more can then move on to the rest of the article as they see fit.

Your radical edit of the "Hippie" lead does two things:

1./ It deprives the casual reader of this opportunity. 2./ It introduces the material (thanks for not deleting most of it, by the way) into the rest of the article in a rather disjointed way. In particular, since the lead as previously written summarized aspects of the rest of the article, it creates redundancies.

You deleted most of the first paragraph of the lead:

Hippie, occasionally spelled hippy, refers to members of a countercultural movement that began in the United States during the 1960s. Initially the movement surfaced on United States college campuses, then moved beyond academic settings to most major cities in Canada, Great Britain, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand. To a lesser extent hippie influence was felt worldwide, particularly in Eastern Europe, Mexico and Japan. There is general agreement that the movement had significantly faded by the late 1970s, especially in the United States.

This first paragraph answered many of the who, what, when and where questions (why and how were addressed later in the lead). I understand that it is unsourced, however that is because of its concentration--nearly every word has been carefully worked out among various editors to represent their concerns for inclusion. This is very much a work in progress. In particular those who live in other parts of the world--I have corresponded personally with folks in Great Britain, New Zealand and Eastern Europe-- have complained that the "Hippie" article is too America-centric. The geographical scope of the first paragraph of the lead is a preliminary attempt to answer their concerns, though much more needs to be done.

I'm not sure how to answer your objection about sourcing because forty or more citations (just guessing) would need to be inserted to fully source this paragraph. Pretty awkward. In any case, a specific request for sourcing is usually more appropriate than immediate deletion. This gives the involved editors time to honor your request.

I understand that you believe that much of the information contained in this paragraph is doubtful. Personally, I would not have thought to include many of the geographical references (Japan, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand and Eastern Europe for example) before doing my own research on the subject. Nevertheless, a lot of thought has gone into this paragraph and I believe it is quite accurate.

For the reasons I have given, I believe the lead as previously written should be reinstated. It can, of course, be improved and refined--that is happening all the time. Thanks for participating, now and in the future. Founders4 18:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Do you have a source for exactly what a lead should be in Wikipedia? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 19:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just did a search and couldn't find a Wikipedia-specific source. I know I've seen it before, just can't seem to find it. I'll continue looking and get back.

I did find a Wikipedia article that does a pretty good job discussing the topic and relates expository style to encyclopedia writing. When I wrote the above, I was speaking from previous experience as a journalist. An interesting sidenote--the article proposes a new spelling for this type of lead, an attempt at disambiguation--lede. I've never seen that before. Founders4 19:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A guideline for writing a good lead is contained in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, in Section 3.2. Founders4 has given a pretty good summary of the style, above. Sunray 20:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sunray, both for the compliment and the WP link.Founders4 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we go back to the previous lead with modifications based on verifiable information. John Bassett McCleary in his book The Hippie Dictionary gives a pretty good overview of the origins of the movement:

hippie a member of a counterculture that began appearing in the early 1960s, which expressed a moral rejection of the established society. Derived from the word hip, meaning roughly "in the know," or "aware." Numerous theories abound as to the origin of this word. One of the most credible involves the beatniks, who abandoned North Beach, San Francisco, to flee commercialism in the early 1960s. Many of them moved to the Haight-Ashbury area of San Francisco, where they were idolized and emulated by the young University of San Francisco students in the neighborhood. The beats (the hip people) started calling these students “hippies,” or younger versions of themselves. Actually, the counterculture seldom called itself hippies; it was the media and straight society who popularized the term. Most often, we called ourselves freaks or heads. Not until later did we begin calling ourselves hippies, and by then we were "aging hippies." An alternate spelling seldom used by people in the know was “hippy.” (See: freak and head)

McCleary's description squares with my own recollections and with other commentary I've read about the movement from people who were there. So how about we revise the original lead along these lines. Sunray 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sunray. I've read McCleary's book, and I think his particular discussion of the etymology of the word "hippie" deserves inclusion in the "Etymology" section rather than the lead. I also think McCleary is correct when he says that it was the media and straight people who popularized the term, especially Herb Caen between late 1965 and 1968. I suppose it depends on what McCleary means by "aging hippies" (the hippie thing did pretty quickly get old for many people!), but I know that after Caen's column popularized the term those of us who were participants started calling each other "hippies," at first with humor and then with a certain pride in identity. That began in late 1966. Although Stephen Gaskin usually referred to himself as a "beatnik," he began to embrace the term during his Monday Night Classes, which began in earnest in 1967. The thousands of people who attended the classes started using it too. So, I think we need to be more specific than McCleary has been. I wrote the following, which still needs citation:

"In popularizing the term, columnist Herb Caen's daily references to hippies mostly expressed fascination and mild amusement rather than disapproval. Following his lead, many participants in the movement accepted the hippie label and used it in a non-pejorative sense. [citation needed]"

What I will need to do to provide a citation is visit a library where microfiche files exist for issues of the San Francisco Chronicle from late 1965-68. I also need to get my hands on a copy of Gaskin's Monday Night Class to see if that contains appropriate references to the term. I've initiated a request to be put in touch with Gaskin to see if there might be other published sources to confirm what I wrote. (I notice that on his current Web page he lists his religion as "hippie.") I do think it is accurate; just need time to do the work.

In general I think our collaborative effort here at WP will yield a result superior to The Hippie Dictionary, which occasionally seems less than precise and which lacks sufficient depth. It's a large topic, as it turns out, and the impact of the hippie ethos on world culture continues to be felt.Founders4 21:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Founders4. I didn't mean to imply that we should copy McCleary's words, and am in complete agreement that they can be improved upon. However, I do think that his version is closer to the "truth" of the matter than the previous lead. No doubt the hippie phenomenon grew out of the interaction between the beats and the increasingly radicalized students. Your approach of checking the S.F. Chronicle will no doubt give us some sources. I also think that the Monday Night Class will shed some light. I'll do some research too. This could make a real contribution if we get some decent sources. As to "aging hippie," the term is technically a misnomer as it was widely accepted that the hippie was buried in '67 (I have the pictures to prove it). So the term is often used with a nudge and a wink. Sunray 00:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I remember "Death of Hippy"! You know what's missing from the article--humor! Jerry Garcia said it best, I think, when the Dead started to gain some mainstream acceptance. I'm paraphrasing here, but basically he said, "Hate to disappoint you. But we're just not that serious about this whole thing." Like the yippie attempt to remove the hands from the clock at Grand Central Station in NYC ("The Rape of Time"), we were pretty much playing at it, making it up as we went along. I wrote a sentence a while back:

Hippies did not create a cohesive political or social movement with well-defined leaders and manifestos. Rather the hippie ethos evolved in a complex interplay between leaders and followers as a social manifestation of 1960s zeitgeist.

Of course it got deleted in the last great purge, which Viriditus initiated on September 18. The fact is that whether we are talking about Leary, Alpert/Ram Das, Gaskin, Owsley, Chet Helmes or any other list of hippie "leaders," they all ducked the label. The "movement" wasn't exactly leaderless, but sometimes the "leaders" led, and sometimes the "followers" did. All in good fun. Like children, joyful in the game....Founders4 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been refered to as a "leaderless revolution." And yeah, humour would be cool! Sunray 07:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Can you give me a source for the "leaderless revolution" thing? I need to gather some sources that verify the veracity of what I wrote. Founders4 09:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph referencing hippie action abroad after 1973, Section title

"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)

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)

The citations are provided and this paragraph is not to be removed thank you. Mombas 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hippiedom of course made a massive comeback in the UK for a while. Castlemorton Common Festival, one of the biggest events in that revival, had an estimated 30,000 attendance, and Glastonbury 92 was well over 100,000. --kingboyk 13:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Don't feed the troll

"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)"

Apparently you choose to ignore this response. For the other editors of this article you have turned an inspiring, creative effort into an unpleasant, full-time exercise in confrontation. Since there is no way to satisfy your appetite, I choose to stop feeding you. To quote another editor who left the project a few days ago, please feel free "to flail about by yourself" for a while. Goodbye. Founders4 17:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Indeed you are doing a good job in here Viriditas..NOT. That now makes three competent editors you have managed to frighten off the project and this issue must now be settled by an administrator. Mombas 11:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Amazingly verbose introduction

I want to thank the person who offered a link to WP:1SP, the guide to writing better Wiki articles. Just as I suspected, the advice there is to keep the Introduction short. It suggests one or two paragraphs. The current Intro rambles all over the place and brings in information that is better left to the main part of the piece. I offered a comprehensive way to improve the Intro (move entire sentences and emphases to the rubrics below), but it was immediately reverted.

You can see how improved the Intro is in my version by going to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippie&oldid=77563377.

This article is really not important enough for me to continue playing, so I am picking up my marbles and leaving.

I can only suggest that your efforts be turned to (1) paring down the Intro to one or two opening grafs and (2) deleting any statements (within the entire article) that are not immediately sourced within the same paragraph. I will return in a month or two to see if you have made any progress. And I wish you all good luck in developing an article that the average middle-school student (in any country in the world) can easily comprehend.

Sincerely yours, I leave behind my legacy at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippie&oldid=77563377, GeorgeLouis 18:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I support trimming the lead down to the essentials: who were the hippies, what did they do, where did they do it, when did it occur, why did they do what they did, and how did they accomplish their goals? I think the present lead tries to address these questions, but it can certainly be summarized. —Viriditas | Talk 20:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

George, just so you know, you aren't the only user Founders4 chased off this article. I encourage you to stick around if you can. —Viriditas | Talk 21:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, a citation for that statement User:Viriditas. Who has been chased off, and how did Founders4 do that? Because I wouldn't mind being able to do that too, if it were possible. User:Pedant 07:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

George left because Founders reverted all of his edits. This is in the edit history, and Founders comments about it are on my talk page. If you need any further help, please do not hesitate to ask. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

From GeorgeLouis Talk Page:

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)

Not true. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George. Good to know.Founders4 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders, why isn't George still editing this article? If you chased me down to my talk page and demanded to know if you were responsible for my departure, I might deny it too, if I felt intimidated by you. I'm sure George has better things to do with his time. —Viriditas | Talk 20:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe nobody wants to work on the article because of you Viriditas... that seems more likely to me. User:Pedant 07:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's be civil, please. George and I were online at different times, nor have we communicated with each other. I did respond to his comments on talk, but that's about it. —Viriditas | Talk 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion to Viriditas re: conflict

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your comments are getting more and more bizarre. Off-topic threads should be removed and ignored. —Viriditas | Talk 02:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with sections needed

The article needs sections on Religion, Alternative media, Hippie fashion, and intentional living (communes). Subsections on Altamount and Charles Manson should be added from the main articles. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First you say that this article is too long and 'needs' shortening... (I wish you would stop telling us what the article 'needs' and actually discuss whether it does or not) ... then you say that various sections 'need' to be added. Which is it? Is the article too long or does it 'need' to be bigger? And just what does Charles Manson have to do with 'hippie ? or Altamont? You really are bent on turning this article inside out aren't you? You know that it will eventually be good, and accurate no matter what you do to it. That's the beauty of "anyone can edit", all articles will eventually become good again.

We had a consensus discussion above, and the consensus was to revert to here but since there were only two editors expressing their opinions, I thought I might point out how the lead was before the whole Viriditas conflict/RfC/Viriditas' ignoring of the comments he requested, etc... which was this if any one is interested. User:Pedant 07:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Charles Manson doesn't have the word hippie in the whole article. User:Pedant 07:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment to review civility policies, and please also do some research on the 1960s, and the role Manson and Altamont had to play. This is already discussed on talk as well as in the article, so again your comments seem designed to be disruptive. I helped work on the lead you refer to above, and I also helped reduce the article by around 4 kilobytes. As for discussion, I see no analysis or critical attempts to represent multiple perspectives. Just OR, and very little actual research. —Viriditas | Talk 11:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please take a moment to stop telling other editors what to do. You've no idea what civility means, you merely play at sounding civil while arrogantly and rudely bullying your fellow collaborators. Don't pretend to innocence.

There is no consensus reached to include Charles Manson in the article. This article isn't about the sixties. It's about hippies, that's why it's called 'hippie' and not 'the sixties'. You want to remove references to hippies being against war and the military industrial complex, but include references to a serial murder done at the behest of a non-hippie , by other non-hippies, to a group of non-hippies, that has nothing whatever to do with hippies besides making hippies look bad to people who ignorantly connected Charles Manson with hippies. And you want to add reference to Altamont too... Manson and Altamont have the common thread of violence, and the only connection I can make to Manson and Altamont is that hippies deplored violence. User:Pedant 07:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to be having problems with the NPOV. Manson and Altamont, no matter what you think about them, are topics relevant to an article about hippies. And please, keep your accusations and conspiracy theories to yourself. —Viriditas | Talk 13:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you are the one making accusations. Name one thing I've said that has anything whatsoever to do with 'conspiracy theories'. I'm stating facts. Charles Manson was not a Hippie. Show a reference saying that he was. Altamont was a rock concert, not a hippie concert. Include Altamont and you open the door to any rock event of the era that had hippies in attendance. You are saying that Manson and Altamont are relevant (to the extent of having a separate section rather than a mere reference) to this article and I am saying you should show the relevance if it exists. Sugar is relevant to hippies too, but would it make any sense to put a summary of the sugar article into this one? Lots of hippies had Lava lamps but we don't just stick in a paragraph about lava lamps unless there is some narrative text to show a relevance to the subject matter. You keep making broad changes to the article that suggest to me that you are unable to separate the concept of 'hippie' from the concept of 'the sixties'. NPOV has nothing to do with relevance. Please stop making condescending remarks to your fellow editors. I'm not having a problem with NPOV, I'm having a problem with the changes you are making to the article and the fact that you aren't willing to engage in substantive discussion about the article. You simply make your decision on your own and make a pronouncement on what the article 'needs' or on what policies your fellow editors 'lack an understanding of'. User:Pedant 20:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You claimed that I was "making hippies look bad to people who ignorantly connected Charles Manson with hippies...you want to add reference to Altamont too... Manson and Altamont have the common thread of violence", hence my reference to your conspiracy theory. I'm sorry that you don't understand that Manson and Altamont are relevant to an article about Hippies. I'm also sorry that you fail to see how NPOV allows for multiple perspectives on these topics. —Viriditas | Talk 02:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Mombas

Mombas, I appreciate that you are trying to increase the geographic scope of this article, but I would like to verify the following information that you added back into the article:

Outside the United States, hippie culture has remained more visible as a countercultural movement.

Is there a citation for this?

Especially in Britain, Denmark, New Zealand [11] [12] [13] and Australia [14] [15] , the hippie movement as a distinct social phenomenon continued to develop and thrive.

None of the references listed above support this claim. What they support is the existence of neo-Hippie festivals, and if they are notable, they should be mentioned. However, the content you added is not supported by the cites you've included, so I must remove the text. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the source that documents that the said festivals are "neo-hippie festivals?" User:Pedant 07:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are claiming that the hippie movement lived on in the above, then are you also saying that the majority of the people attending the festivals are over the age of 55? If so, you may have a point, but again we will have to see actual, reliable cites. —Viriditas | Talk 08:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I restored the first part with a cite request, mainly due to NPOV. The hippie POV should be represented, but when claims like this are made, they need to be sourced. How do we know this movement has remained more visible outside the states? —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What is the source that documents that the said festivals are "neo-hippie festivals?" You keep making unreferenced assertions and then ignoring requests for the source of your facts. Kinda funny for someone who keeps asking for citations for everything except what you decide 'needs to' be put into or taken out of the article. What is your source for hippies all being over 55? What is your source that says who a neohippie is? Who a hippie is? What the hippie POV is? User:Pedant 07:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You're being intentionally difficult. The questions are, how do we know the hippie movement was more visible outside the states, and how do we know it continued to develop and thrive as a distinct social phenomenon? The first is probably not true, while the second is partly true. I have no idea how the author is measuring visibility or what that entails. But, if one is discussing intentional communities, it should be possible to find some form of the movement in practice. Both statements need to be modified. —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It is you who is being difficult: You stated as part of your reasoning above, "What they support is the existence of neo-Hippie festivals" and I have asked twice, and am now asking for the third time: What is the source that documents that the said festivals are "neo-hippie festivals?. Please answer the question. User:Pedant

See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms, your use of the term neo-hippie in this context is nebulous, and you are using the term as a basis for casting doubt on the continuing existence of hippies and hippie culture in Britain, Denmark, New Zealand and Australia. The statement made by Mombas has good citations, your counter statement does not. Were I to adopt your condescending style, I might say to you "please acquaint yourself with the policy regarding original research". User:Pedant 20:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are distracting from the point again: How do we know the hippie movement was more visible outside the states, and how do we know it continued to develop and thrive as a distinct social phenomenon? Without reliable citations that make that claim, it is original research. —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed marijuana paragraph

Removed the following, as it does not make a connection with Hippie whatsoever. I'd support its inclusion once rewritten to establish the connection (I'm not saying there isn't one) between hippies and pot, please. We have info for what percent of college students smoked pot, more useful would be what percentage of hippies smoked pot and/or what percentage of college students were hippies. Also helpful, a reference for ""On The Road", which was widely read by many soon-to-be hippies." User:Pedant 07:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Pedant for demonstrating exactly what disruptive editing looks like and how it acts. A five-second google search would have informed you that the author, Terry H. Anderson, is Professor of History at Texas A&M University, who has written and published extensively about hippies. The section you removed is about young kids who were members of the hippie movement, and it was written in that context. Please don't let an expert historian who specializes in hippie culture get in the way of any further disruption. Although I didn't write the Kerouac section, it is common knowledge and has been widely published as well. By all means, continue with your disruptive editing so that others can see what it truly looks like, and possibly learn from your example. —Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this is the way it should be done, when you remove text from an article that is likely to be of value, you should copy it to the talk page so it can be discussed and fixed. The text below establishes no context or relevance, and is unreferenced. As I've already said, "I'd support its inclusion once rewritten to establish the connection (I'm not saying there isn't one) between hippies and pot, please." I'm certainly not the one disrupting this article. I request comments on whether others besides Viriditas feel that I am disrupting the article and whether others feel that Viriditas is disrupting the article. User:Pedant 05:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've been removing text and copying it to the talk page for quite some time. I'm glad you decided to follow my example. The text regarding Marijuana that I added is referenced, so you are mistaken. Your removal of a section about Marijuana and Charles Manson in an article about Hippies is unprecedented. Further, your claim that a 258 kilobyte talk page does not require maintenance cannot be taken seriously. This is what I'm talking about when I describe disruptive behavior. —Viriditas | Talk 05:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

establish the connection between hippies and pot, please, in text, in the article, where it can be read. We have info for what percent of college students smoked pot, more useful would be what percentage of hippies smoked pot and/or what percentage of college students were hippies. And reference for ""On The Road", which was widely read by many soon-to-be hippies." as you have said, if it's true (which I'm not at all doubting) just giive a reference and put it back in the article. Removing Charles Manson unprecedented? What exactly is the connection between Charles Manson and hippies. If there's a connection, make the connection and put the text back in, otherwise quit whining, stop arguing and start working on the article. User:Pedant 07:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already answered these questions, so I will not repeat myself. The Kerouac info should be cited, but is considered to be common knowledge; the cannabis stats show an increase in drug use during the 1960s, and were compiled by a historian for an article/book about hippies and the 1960s. Almost every definition of hippies describes them as smoking marijuana openly, directly reflecting the beat culture before it, which Keroauc popularized. The evolution from beat to hip and the connection between the two is not even debatable. The rise of marijuana use is merely illustrative. All of this is well established, so I'm not clear as to your point. —Viriditas | Talk 12:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you asserting that things that are "common knowledge" need no references? That's WP:OR. Are you asserting that a reference stating that college students smoked dope supports a statement that hippies did? Or that because it's common knowledge that On The Road was read by many people who were (per your unsourced statement) people who were soon to become hippies, that hippies smoked pot? I'm not at all doubting the widespread use of cannabis among hippies, I am questioning the relevance of stating that it appeared in Keroauc's book, and then following with statistics about a group other than the subject group of the article. User:Pedant...

If common knowledge is enough, why not just say "It's common knowledge that many hippies were potheads."? And do you not see the POV issues of the juxtapositional implication that hippies used pot "recreationally" (rather than for example as a sacrament, or for medicinal use, or to help achieve some spiritual goal, or even as a form of protest, or) Why include something which is not supported by research? If your goal is really to improve the article by removing unsourced content, and to keep a Neutral Point of View? User:Pedant 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Common knowledge in this context, means that it is easy to reference. —Viriditas | Talk 02:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana

"

See also: Cannabis (drug) and Recreational drug use

"

The recreational use of marijuana had been established by the Beats, and the drug appears in Jack Kerouac's 1950's novel "On The Road", which was widely read by many soon-to-be hippies.

Terry H. Anderson describes the increase in marijuana use in the 1960s: 4 percent of youth aged 18 to 25 had tried marijuana at the beginning of the decade. Twelve years later, the figure had risen to 50 percent for youth and 60 percent for college students, with some universities even higher. "

Slander--Please remove it

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)

Not true. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis 14:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George. Good to know.Founders4 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Founders4 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

New Left

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)

I made no comment about the section so your paraphrase is inaccurate. User:Pedant 05:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 removed

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." Many Americans saw the dawning of the Vietnam War as a fulfillment of this prediction. 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.

Why no comment here? Just remove the text and no explanation? User:Pedant 07:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Talk page maintenance required

As I discussed on 18 Sept, talk page maintenance is needed on the page as there are presently 60 topics. Straight archiving is one option, but would not help the end user looking for information. I suggest that related topics be consolidated into like sections; this will bring us down to around 30 topics, perhaps less. Of course, the talk page will still be too large, so I would like to hear what others think. —Viriditas | Talk 01:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you continue to tell your fellow editors "what is needed" on this article. Most of these topics are still unresolved, and archiving at this point will do nothing but sweep your butchery under the rug. You should respond to the numerous requests for dialogue on these issues before you archive the talk page.

Please indent your comments appropriately, sign them, and stick to the topic. You will notice that the topic is not "viriditas"; this talk page is used to discuss improving the article. If you can't do that, don't post a comment here. For your elucidation, I've responded to every discussion to the best of my ability, as time permits. If you have something to discuss, start a new section about the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not support archiving this page at present. User:Pedant 05:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On what basis do you not support archiving a 258 kilobyte talk page, of which less than half of the topics are active? Furthermore, I did not recommend straight archiving, I asked for discussion. Why don't you support bringing the page down to a smaller size, as well as clearing out old topics? Please give a good reason. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 06:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedant, do you support refactoring this page like you are currently doing with my comments? [15] [16] If you do, and you feel refactoring the talk page is necessary, then I will begin refactoring your comments as well, such as moving them to the appropriate sections, and consolidating comments under group headings as I've discussed above. Ok? —Viriditas | Talk 06:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be archived and refactored. It is waaaay to long. It is not as though the material will be lost, Pedant, people will still be able to brouse through it. Sunray 06:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like some discussion on the open points before they are 'tidied' up. User:Pedant 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then, you have no objection to archiving "closed" points? —Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

removed text

the following removed text is irrelevant to this article, and lacks citations to boot User:Pedant 05:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who wrote it, but it's certainly not irrelevant. Every historical study of hippies and the 60s discusses Charles Manson. Your comment in the edit summary, that Charles Manson has "nothing to do with hippies", appears to contradict just about every historian on the planet. —Viriditas | Talk 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's see some citations. Manson may have been associated with hippies in some peoples' minds, but in reality he had nothing to do with the hippie phenomenon. Like many others, he may have posed with some of the trappings of hippiedom to seem more attractive to his associates. However, unless there has been a study of this, there is no way we can say that he "tarnished the hippie image." In fact there could be no such study, because sociologically it is an unverifiable statement. A link to Manson does not belong in this article. Sunray 06:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the call for citations and will help as time permits. —Viriditas | Talk 06:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying things like "Every historical study of hippies and the 60s discusses Charles Manson." blithely ignoring the fact that the 50's and hippies are not the same subject and blithely make comments like "I support the call for citations and will help as time permits.", when you've spent the last 5 hours editing this article. If as you say, EVERY historical study of hippies discusses Charles Manson, then you should be able to a)Cite one that does and b) make some connection between Charles Manson and hippies. Maybe you can show me where it says "hippie" in Charles Manson User:Pedant 08:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Charles Manson was a hippie who was part of the 1960s hippie scene, and who is said to have formed a hippie cult with female hippies as members. All movements have heros and villains. Like I said, when I have time, I'll try and help out. How about you? Are you going to help? NPOV requires writing for the enemy, so you should try to source material even if you disagree with it. —Viriditas | Talk 12:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't even find that in the bio we have on wikipedia, and I've never heard anyone call him a hippie. I've heard him called a freak, which in some times and places is a synonym for hippie but never heard him called a hippie, nor do I understand why you seem so bent on adding an irrelevant reference to him to an article you say is too long. Sorry, can't help you. I don't know what you mean by enemy, as far as I know, no living soul on this planet is my enemy. You seem to have a problem avoiding conflating 'hippie' and '60's'. Even in the missing text it says he wasn't a hippie, long hair and guitar playing doesn't make someone a hippie and it never did. User:Pedant 03:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

If you've never heard anyone call Manson a hippie, then do some research. Start with "Charles Manson: The Dark Side of the Hippies" from "Sixties Counterculture: The Hippies and Beyond" from the Sixties in America Reference Library online. According to them (and other sources that they use), "In late 1969, a hippie cult leader named Charles Manson (1934–), who lured hippies to his ranch with promises of free love and drugs, masterminded a string of murders in the foothills of Los Angeles. 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." And, "Among the many people who flocked to Haight-Ashbury in the summer of 1967 was a career criminal and psychopath, Charles Manson (1934–). Intelligent but mentally disturbed, Manson saw himself as the messiah in a religion that combined the hippie fondness for "peace" and "love" with a strange mixture of biblical prophecy and Scientology. He gathered around himself a group of troubled hippies—runaways, vagrants, and castoffs from broken homes—that he called "The Family." During 1967, "the summer of love," Manson and his hippie Family wandered through California, hunting for food, prostituting the women to raise money, and committing petty crimes. In 1968 they settled down at a friend's ranch outside Hollywood to live communally.. 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." —Viriditas | Talk 06:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I would support adding the Manson stuff back once the article is stripped of what 'needs to be removed', but this time including the reference, (perhaps a quote) and taking more care to connect Manson to the narrative structure, so it doesn't just jump out without context. I still maintain that he wasn't a hippie, (not willing for wikipedia to state as fact that he was a hippie) but wouldn't object to the quote "In late 1969, a hippie cult leader named Charles Manson (1934–), who lured hippies to his ranch with promises of free love and drugs, masterminded a string of murders in the foothills of Los Angeles." ('So and so said X' works better for me than 'wikipedia says X', as I am dead set against stating 'facts' which are decidedly not factual. Whatever definition of hippie there is, no valid definition would include Manson as an examplar) I'd prefer if we were going to showcase hippies in this article that we use some undisputed hippies rather than psychopathic killers whose 'hippiness' is disputable. Do you not agree with my reasoning? User:Pedant 21:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it needs citations. I don't think it matters what you or I think about Manson. —Viriditas | Talk 01:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't judge the worth of the citation Viridtas gives since I'm not paying $29.95 to look at it. One thing I did note when I googled "Manson" and "hippie" was that a segment of the media certainly did a number on "the hippie" by associating Manson with hippies. This is not new to me. The smear of "the hippie" and the association of hippies with criminal activitiy is something that was very much part of the Nixon Administration's war on drugs[17]. I'm still not in favour of inserting the Mason stuff in this article unless we can come up with some really solid citations—especially sources that discuss the propaganda campaign in the mainstream media against "the hippie." Portraying Manson as a hippie is far too shaky for Wikipedia. Sunray 09:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that Manson declared in one of his publications that he intensely despised the hippies. Hardly a declaration one would expect from an avid hippie. Mombas 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite true. At the time press headlines occasionally trumpeted the idea that Manson was a "Hippie Leader," but there is little evidence this was true. Mostly these headlines arose out of sensationalism and an eagerness to pin something ugly on hippies. Haven't been able to uncover any specific [COINTELPRO] programs so far, so conspiracy talk should probably be avoided unless something very specific turns up--wouldn't doubt it though.

People generally had a hard time figuring out just who hippies were, or were not, so the public's perception that Manson was a hippie gone bad (rather than a bad man who assumed a hippie identity) is understandable. Founders4 08:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Founders4 assessment, and I would like to see that reflected in the article. Paul Krassner's article in High Times is one source (an expanded version appears in Russ Kick's book, Everything You Know is Wrong. —Viriditas | Talk 01:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles Manson

Main article: Charles Manson

Charles Manson was a hard-core, institutionalized criminal who had been released from prison just in time for San Francisco's Summer of Love. With his long hair and the ability to charm a crowd with his guitar playing, his singing, and his rhetoric, Manson exhibited many of the outward manifestations of hippie identity. Yet Manson hardly exemplified the hippie ideals of peace, love, compassion and human fellowship; through twisted logic and psychological manipulation, he inspired his followers to commit murder.

Manson's highly publicized 1970 trial and subsequent conviction in January 1971 irrevocably tarnished the hippie image in the eyes of the American public. Other factors--for instance, the arrival of hard drugs and their associated dependency--also contributed to the decline.

Roots removed from lead

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. —Viriditas | Talk 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"Add overal picture of cultural dissent to lead. Don't need to discuss roots of hippie movement in the lead; it's already discussed in the antecedent section where it belongs." (quote viriditass) uh... can we discuss hippies and what they were at the start rather than a vague "these three were the core of counterculture" the lead is about hippies not general 60s counterculture. How do we have antecedents when what we are discussing hasn't even been defined yet? User:Pedant 07:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NPA

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)

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)

Yeah, but I just caught your "viriditass", one. Sneaky. —Viriditas | Talk 01:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New York's East Village

Section needed as an east coast parallel to the Haight-Ashbury section. —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. There are other 'hippie enclaves' that deserve mention as well, I think. User:Pedant 21:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Wolof revisited

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)

Looks good. I like this qualification, Pedant.Founders4 04:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Consensus poll re: Manson

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)

Poll

• No connection has been established. Omit the section. User:Pedant 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Relevance is widely established in the literature, both by media outlets who claimed Manson was a hippie and by published authors like Paul Krassner, who claim that Manson was not a hippie. Both POV must be addressed. "Consensus" to ignore the NPOV policy violates Wikipedia policy. —Viriditas | Talk 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• I concur with.. Pedant... Blockinblox 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Omit. No actual connection. Sunray 07:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Connection exists, but must be carefully qualified. I wrote the original section above (See "Removed Text--Charles Manson") which was carefully qualified to ensure accuracy and balance.Founders4 16:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• I'm O.K. with a qualified connection. On re-reading the paragraph above, and Viriditas' most recent comments, I agree that a well-worded section on Manson would be a reasonable addition. Sunray 22:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentary

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)

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)

I concur with everything Pedant just said... Blockinblox 02:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm pretty much with Founders4 on this one. —Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A Question About "Nonpolitical"

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" :

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)

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)

Prefer not to be lectured. Points made as briefly as possible. Choose not to refactor. Founders4 16:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hoffman quote

An anonymous user has reinserted an alleged Abbie Hoffman quotation from a student film, cherry-picked to serve as a counterpoint to the Time quote about hippies. I spent an hour watching the film yesterday, and unless we can get a transcript to resolve the ambiguities, I would ask that the anon editor please stop manipulating the quote to say what he wants it to say. —Viriditas | Talk 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you weren't paying close attention to the film then - watch it again!. Hoffman (it sure isn't anyone else) clearly is heard to say "We're all hippies", as well as "We're not Yippies. There are no 'Yippies'. Yippie! is just a slogan, you know, like "Yippie!" (the bumper sticker) Your edit stating that the context is unclear whether he is talking about hippies or "yippies", is therefore inaccurate. Also I did not "reinsert" the quote, I merely moved it back out of the footnotes where you have tried to hide it. Evidently you consider corporate media like Time to be more of an authority on Hippie culture, than straight from the horses' mouths. Who is "manipulating"? 71.253.146.14 02:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your reply. Some questions: how do you know Abbie Hoffman is the one speaking? I'm assuming you think it's him based on previous footage. That's not a problem, but without a transcript, there are several issues with your selective quoting. You claim that Hoffman was describing the hippie movement, but I didn't get that from the film, and I played the audio back several times. When we quote on Wikipedia, we have to be certain who the source is, and make sure to preserve the context. Your quote distorted the context, perhaps unintentionally, as you confused the reader by omitting the part about a money-free society, which completely changes the meaning of "free" as it is used. I cannot deny that this quote is relevant, but until we can quote accurately and in context, I must ask you to be more rigorous in editing the article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to be that pedantic about what Hoffman thought about the subject, then why don't you read or quote from his own work? Try Woodstock Nation or Revolution for the Hell of It. This whole article (and its discussion) freaks me out. Hell, I have a Master's in 20th Century American history, but the idea of reducing my youth (with its idealism, anger, disillusionment, fear, etc.) to a dry academic exercise is grotesque to say the least. It reminds me of those wierd books (released back in those days) by establishment publishers about "the new hippie culture" complete with glosseries. We thought they were hilarious. Don't you? RM Gillespie 13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor pulling quotes from primary sources without verification. If you could describe specific criticisms, they would be appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The straight press never got it, and at present this article has been re-written to reflect the distortions introduced by those supposedly "reliable sources." It's ugly. Founders4 15:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you give examples? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 19:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If I thought giving examples would make a difference, I might. So far all I have seen is bone-headed contentiousness, not an open mind. You have taken control of the article and imposed a truncated version of hippie history--ugly because it isn't true. What's missing is the beauty, the wonder, the courage. I am glad, though, that hippies are no longer "non-political."

I explained in the lead that I was summarizing; the nonpolitical aspect does not necessarily need to be in the lead, and I plan on adding it elsewhere. You can't give critical examples because you are more interested in calling other editors names, making baseless accusations, and promoting original research. —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Think I'll return to my previous policy of non-engagement. "Endless wrangling" (as per RM Gillespie above) is your style, not mine.Founders4 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you'll go recruit a few more editors to come here, make baseless attacks, and leave. Go ahead, but it's totally transparent. If Mr. Gillespie can offer anything besides his expertise on name-calling, then I'm looking forward to it. I was wrong about one thing, though. You did offer a tiny speck of criticism (when you weren't too busy glorifying original research by anons) when you asked, where you could find the "beauty, the wonder, the courage." Now, all you have to do is add them. —Viriditas | Talk 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have "recruited" no one. You will not be able to assert total control over this article forever--though few people capable of improving it will choose to engage your vituperative spirit. Prediction: under your stewardship the article will become more and more harsh, more and more ugly, and less reflective of what made the hippie spirit so compelling.Founders4 17:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sour grapes. And, please remember to sign your comments. So, what made the hippie spirit so compelling, and who is preventing you from adding it to the article? —Viriditas | Talk 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I liked the original edit. This kind of thing is inevitable I guess. I am a historian of the Vietnam Conflict (and military history in general) and all you have to do is look at the discussion page of that subject in Wiki to get a real sense of deja vu about this discussion page. Endless wrangling by boneheads that reminds me of nothing so much as agruments by medieval theologians over how many angels could do the jig on the head of a pin. Think about it, if this is going to be the "history" of the hippie (can't help but bust a gut writing that) for contemporary or future folks, can you imagine what the Romantics must have been really like? RM Gillespie 17:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides clubbing us over the head with your "expertise" and calling other editors neanderthals, can you offer any constructive criticism about the article? —Viriditas | Talk 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a fine example of contentiosness! RM Gillespie clubbed no one over the head with his expertise, nor did he call any other editor a neanderthal. Founders4 07:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Puh-lease. Waxing poetic over expert credentials and calling editors "boneheaded" without actually offering any expertise to improve the article fools nobody...except... —Viriditas | Talk 08:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Shades of Michael Savage...Founders4 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

More name-calling? Where's the love? How about spending your time improving the article instead? —Viriditas | Talk 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You will work entirely alone because no one can tolerate working with you. Where is the love indeed! LOL. Founders4 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it, but I've worked on far more controversial articles than this one, and collaborated with many different types of editors. If I have to work alone to improve this article, then so be it. I do find it sad that you refuse to improve this article, but that's your choice. —Viriditas | Talk 08:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes!...yes!...yes! A positive example below under Yeah, that's what we're talking about! Many thanks!Founders4 07:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable citations, the "positive example" is merely original research. —Viriditas | Talk 09:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pruning sections

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)

I have found the links useful. Links considered for removal should be posted first. Founders4 06:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

WP:3O request

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)

Yeah, that's what we're talking about! Many thanks!

Main article: Haight-Ashbury

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. Founders4 07:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

What I am encouraging is the irrepressible spirit of the hippie movement.Founders4 18:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Sorry if I got yer goat. Maybe "boneheaded" was a little too strong for your sensibilities (is that a wierd statement considering the subject under consideration?) I guess that I have just been illuminated (and how rarely that does occur in one's lifetime) about the true nature of history as a consensual illusion of what the past was like (shades of Michel Foucalt). Quantatative analysis provides truth? You should discuss the matter with Mr. McNamara, he understands all about quantatative analysis. Just finished Mark Moyar's Triumph Forsaken, its all the rage in the "new revisionism" of our Southeast Asian adventure. Its subject is what a great guy Ngo Dinh Diem really was and that if we hadn't supported his assassination you know what, we would have won. Can you imagine? If this is happening now in a historical discussion of Vietnam and an article on the hip folks of yesteryear, can you imagine what they are going to do with Iraq? Not really a contribution to yer article, just an observation.RM Gillespie 20:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unknowingly (I think), you have hit the proverbial nail directly on the head. It is not that history is being written by the winners (although I thought we lost the Vietnam Conflict). It is that history is being re-written to suit prevailing taste, trends, socio/political climate etc. That is direct link to the discussion of your article. But, nuff said, you win. History is written by the winners. Let the culture wars cease. Victory has been declared by authority. Last comment. Good Luck to you and God help us all.RM Gillespie 14:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Pretentious Hippies.

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)

Philosophy/ethos issues

I've added pov and verify section tags as Founders4 removed my cite request. Controversial claims must be attributed. Heath and Potter appear to dispute what Founders4 has written, and the content needs to be verified and the sources checked for reliability. Sources like Kueshana and the Stelle Group might not be considered reliable, so we need to be very clear about who is saying what, attributing individual claims to individual authors, and refraining from generalizing in matters where there is more than one POV, or where one source might not be as credible as another. Founders4, please help clear up this ongoing problem. —Viriditas | Talk 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

First you asked for citations, which I provided. Then you accused me of falsifying said citations, a charge that you neither substantiated nor retracted. You also accused me of "refusing" to provide page numbers, even though I promised to do so as time allowed. Those page numbers have been added, on an ongoing basis, over the past few weeks, yet you still accuse me (in your recent edit summary) of "refus(ing) to attribute." The only ongoing problem is you, sir. Your accusations are unjust, your demands insatiable, you constant barking unpardonable. Founders4 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting straight to the point: Does the quote from Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalogue refer to a "hippie ethos" or are those your words? Which author states that hippies see themselves as "conscious creators"? This needs attribution. Which author claims that hippies avoided being reduced to mere consumers, as this contradicts Heath and Potter, who seem to argue that hippies were consumers. Again, that needs attribution. There's no argument that the movement went mainstream, but which author writes that "those who understood the task of conscious creation moved on, staying one step ahead of unending attempts to subsume their lives and their spirit"? We need to be able to verify these claims, know who is making them, and determine the reliability of the sources. I've been asking you of this for months. If this can't be done, I'll remove the content. —Viriditas | Talk 22:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Another editor submitted this section on August 5, 2006 as:

"This list, however, although perhaps accurate, largely trivializes, simplifies and obscures the true characteristics of what hippies were really all about. It essentially itemizes effects, rather than causes, and deflects attention from the spiritual, philosophical, social and pollitical basis of hippy beliefs to outward manifestations of those beliefs.

"Perhaps the best summation of what hippy was really all about came from Stewart Brand's introduction to the first edition of the Whole Earth Catalogue:

'We are as gods and might as well get used to it. So far, remotely done power and glory--as via government, big business, formal education, church--has succeeded to the point where gross defects obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate, personal power is developing--power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested.'

"Perhaps the principal threat that the exploding hippy movement posed to mainstream, vested-interest, world culture was their rejection of materialism and it's modern exploiter, consumerism."

I refined this editor's submission, retaining the Stewart Brand quote and referring to it as a "summation" of the "hippie ethos" rather than a "summation" of "what hippy was really all about." Then yesterday you condensed it further, substituting the word "description" for "summation."

The Ultimate Frontier was originally published by The Stelle Group. It was read widely from 1963 on and had a profound impact on the thinking and development of hippie philosophy. Other books also influenced this thinking, among them a small book called It Works, which also discusses conscious creation. The discussions of conscious creation, or "preciptation," that appear in The Ultimate Frontier are explicitly called out in the attributions--read them. The Ultimate Frontier was published by The Stelle Group from 1963 through the mid-1980's. Since then it has been published by the Adelphi Organization. Who published this book is not relevant to its undeniable impact on hippie philosophy.

Read the sources I have provided. Where I am quoting, I use quotation marks. Otherwise I am using my own words to paraphrase what many others (Stewart Brand, Alicia Bay Laurel, Yablonsky, et al) have written.

I do not intend to waste any more of my time with these exercises. Of course I can provide more references. But I think you will simply do what you want with the article, regardless of any attribution I provide. It is editors like you who cause people to leave Wikipedia in disgust. Another word for your endless provocation is "TROLLING." You create a poisonous miasma that spreads over the entire article, and I see no point in continuing to feed you. Founders4 23:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you make any more personal attacks, I will remove them on sight. Getting back to the issue, with special attention paid to brevity, the answer to my questions from your previous reply seem to be the following: The quote regarding Brand's "hippie ethos" is the opinion of another editor that you incorporated into the article and does not reflect the source in question. In other words, it is original research. In regards to my questions about The Ultimate Frontier, I'm afraid you are misinformed concerning the relevance of reliable sources, and if you can't attribute these claims to the author appropriately, or at the very least provide information about the content in question, then we have a problem regarding what you claim to be your "own words to paraphrase what many others...have written." You have confirmed that Brand did not refer to the quote in question as a summation of the hippie ethos. But, you have still not confirmed or attributed who states that hippies see themselves as "conscious creators", who claims that hippies avoided being reduced to mere consumers (apparently contradicted by Heath, Potter, 2004) and who claimed that hippies "understood the task of conscious creation moved on, staying one step ahead of unending attempts to subsume their lives and their spirit". Since you refuse to do this, I will remove the section and place it here. —Viriditas | Talk 00:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am attacking is your practice of non-collaborative editing and your habit of provacation. Specifically, you escalate even small disagreements, and you use terms that you know will alienate others. Every editor who had been participating in this article has left in disgust since your arrival. Some have been reduced, out of frustration and anger at your methods, into making personal attacks. I have not done that, and by referring to my complaints as "personal attacks" you confirm the validity of my observations.

Brand did not refer to the quote in question as a summation of the hippie ethos; he was a quintessential member of the hippie tribe (Merry Prankster, co-sponsor of the Trips Festival, and so on) and he would never have been so presumptuous as to pretend to be able to do that. His quote has merit because he has repeatedly been able to simply and eloquently express the spirit of complicated things. He does that to this day with his Long Now organization. The inclusion of "perhaps" qualified the lead-in for inclusion of his quoted statement. Another way to include it would be to write: Stewart Brand said: ....." "

In my opinion your demands for sourcing are too literal and amount to Wikilawyering. This time I AM accusing you of that! If you read the referenced pieces, especially Monday Night Class, you will see quite easily that what I wrote is amply supported. You will have to abandon, though, a mindset that I suspect is too narrow to allow understanding of the topic at hand. Founders4 03:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your comments brief and to the point, avoid discussing and speculating about other editors, and work towards a negotiated agreement. Yes, I agree, the article needs more information about Brand, and the two references that I recently added (Markoff and Turner) cover this issue quite well. I'm currently reading Markoff and glancing at Turner,but admittedly spending more time with Perry's book at the moment. Instead of telling me to read something, simply cite it to make your point, and attribute appropriately. If the "conscious creation" stuff is notable in relation to hippies, you should be able to cite it as such. —Viriditas | Talk 06:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My comments are as brief as your own. Monday Night Class is a stream-of-consciousness kind of work, as were the classes themselves. It must be referenced in toto, not in the "sound bite" kind of way that you want. With The Ultimate Frontier I spent an entire day rereading the relevant sections and citing the appropriate page numbers, only to have you disdain the source altogether. What about the other sources--the essays by Alicia Bay Laurel and Stewart Brand...can you not see that they support what I wrote? To date I have not seen you concede a single point made by me or any other editor, no matter how well-documented, and I will waste no more of my time. Truly this has become an exercise in "survival of the most obnoxious." You win. (Now THAT is a personal attack!) Founders4 07:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the brief comment; it really does make discussion easier. Ok, what are you referring to specifically with Gaskin? All you have to do is attribute a statement about hippie ethos/philosophy to him; same with Brand and Laurel. Can you add the content that you are talking about, here? As for Kueshana, the book was written prior to the hippie movement, but if it was as influential as you claim, there should be reliable, secondary sources that make that claim, in the same way that one can find sources claiming Stranger in a Strange Land influenced the hippies. Do you see the difference? As for concessions, I prefer to view them as compromises, of which I've made many, including acecepting Pedant's removal of cannabis statistics that I added (which were made in reference to hippies by an academic) however, Pedant convinced me of the need for skepticism in this case. You, on the other hand, convinced me that it wasn't necessary to describe the hippies as non-political in the lead, and you also made me realize that without context, it could confuse people. —Viriditas | Talk 08:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Every word of what I wrote was chosen with care to briefly summarize key elements of the hippie ethos/philosophy. Given this, according to your rules, each clause would require attribution, since I am referencing many authors and sources rather than a single source.

"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."

"At their highest point of awareness..." refers to the fact that not all hippies were equally aware. Yablonsky in particular refers to this fact in his analysis of the hippie "class system," where philosophers and teachers occupied the highest rung.

..."hippies recognized themselves as conscious creators..." refers to the whole body of Gaskin's teachings, which were informed by his familiarity with the mechanics of mental precipitation (as discussed in Kueshana's widely read The Ultimate Frontier and other popular works) as well as his own experiences. You asked for a specific quote from Gaskin's Monday Night Class that supports "hippies recognized themselves as conscious creators":

"We all start with undifferentiated energy, and then we hold an idea of our self, and if we lose that idea of our self we start to die. That's what happens to people, they lose their idea of themselves, and they don't create themselves good enough to make it anymore. We're each one creating our own self and our whole universe. You are all God creating your own universe. Saying things like that is like throwing a rock out somewhere listening for an echo. It really is, because like when I say that all you are all gods creating your own universe then there's implications that should arise in your mind, like this is the universe that you're creating right now...see. Here we are. This is your creation...each one of you. Each one of you creates all this." (emphasis added)

"What they created during the 1960's was an attempt to avoid induction into a pre-packaged materialist culture..." refers to what hippies created (alternate lifestyles, attitudes, communes, and so on) as an attempt to avoid induction (just as one might be inducted into the military) into mid-twentieth century educational systems, systems of production, commercial institutions and cultural life--all of which gauged success primarily in material terms.

"It's just a large machine and you don't know who runs the machine or what. It's just there. It is just cutting out more people from the same machine. Even the cream of society, they become machines, you know. The way I look at it is that they treat human beings as puppets. They are not on their own. I don't know; it is too indifferent, you know. You're not going to learn anything by punching your clock every day when you go to work and then punching out again when you go home. And you know, you never get any good feeling about it because there is nothing there. Bob Dylan wrote a song called "Masters of War" that kind of says it for me about this big machine called Society." (Yablonsky interview with 16-year-old hippie, circa 1968)

Did hippies succeed in their attempt to avoid induction into this society. No, not quite. Eventually we had to participate in some fashion. But it was a valiant attempt, and many of us did manage to carve out niches that were consonant with our individual ideals. As Yablonsky says:

"This enormous involvement (editor's note: Yablonsky has just commented on the extensive mass media coverage, nearly universal emulation by youth of hippie ways, and so on) with a movement that has directly involved only a small percentage of the total population may reveal something fundamental about the nerve-end it strikes in American society. The hippies, at least in their basic idealized form stand for love, compassion, sexual freedom and the right to do 'one's thing,' whatever it may be."

Yablonsky even comments at one point that if hippies hadn't come along to remind Americans of their core values, someone would have had to invent them.

"...induction into a pre-packaged materialist culture where they would be reduced to being mere consumers." The word "mere" is especially important here. Of course hippies were consumers; one must consume to live. And as one matures, marries, has children and pursues various life endeavors, the rate of consumption increases. But if life is reduced merely to consumption, merely to the process of living in the material world, it becomes meaningless--THAT was the thrust of hippie culture: "Do what you must to live, but don't get distracted by process." I haven't read what Heath and Potter have to say in Nation of Rebels: How Counterculture Became Consumer Culture; I am sure that some hippies did get "distracted by process" and fail to fully actualize their philosophy. But in her short essay, "What Did Hippies Want," Alicia Bay Laurel defines much of hippie INTENT, which is to say much of their PHILOSOPHY (or their ETHOS).

"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." Brand's essay, "We Owe It All to the Hippies" speaks to this and specifically says "the counterculture's scorn for centralized authority provided the philosophical foundations of not only the leaderless Internet but also the entire personal-computer revolution." That IS "staying one step ahead."

I will close with one final Gaskin quote, also from Monday Night Class. I include this because I find it quite striking that you never copped to the value of Pedant's contributions before he went screaming into the darkness.

"If you're talking to straight people and they won't cop, what do you do? You know if you're talking to square people and and you try to tell 'em about a game, and they aren't interested at all, right? In most square folks' ground rules, it's considered impolite to notice that your conversational partner is neurotic. And what you do about that's another thing. Jesus when he was giving instructions to the apostles, told 'em when you go into a house, feel the house, and let your peace descend on the house, and if the house accepts your peace then you're cool. You stay there. But if the house rejects your peace go forth from that house and go forth from that town and shake the dust from your feet. Because there's a whole lot of folks aching to know. Don't bother arguing with somebody that doesn't want to know. There's a lot of folks that really want to know real bad. There's folks just goin' around askin'. To not cast your pearls before swine means don't cheapen the truth by fighting over it. (emphasis added)

Well, you have tempted me to invest too much of my day (and way too much of my heart) in this discussion, much as the scorpion tempted the frog (http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html), and just as the frog lived to regret it, I am sure I will also. Founders4 21:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and effort to flesh out that section. This appears to be a synthesis of ideas, which unfortunately is covered by WP:NOR. Take a moment to read the policy. It will help you formulate a new strategy for using this material in the article: I am not working against you, I am trying to help. I know, for instance, that most of the Brand material is salvagable, and will make it into the article due to the high number of good, reliable secondary sources. There are still major problems with your use of Gaskin, and Kueshana is problematic: where does this relate to hippies in the secondary sources? Find reliable secondary sources and cite them; That's all you have to do. Synthesis is not allowed unless it is sourced in that manner. Read the policy. You mentioned Laurel, but did you quote her? You quoted Yablonsky and, I don't see a problem with using it as long as it's Yablonsky and not a synthesis. I now understand the connection between Gaskin and Kueshana, but what about hippies? Keep in mind, we cannot interpret primary sources. I think we can resolve this. Brand must be included at some point and in some way, as cited by reliable sources, so you can cross that off the list. —Viriditas | Talk 23:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy. I am also aware that when the facts themselves can be verified as accurate, the synthesis policy is widely ignored. In fact I have seldom read a Wikipedia article that did not consist in large part of syntheses of ideas that are not attributable to reliable secondary sources. This unusual presentation of ideas is, in large part, what attracts me to Wikipedia and makes it interesting. If I want safe, middle-of-the road stuff, I go to Britannica.

Nevertheless, you are correct and I can help you eliminate those sections that are obviously synthesized--including, but not limited to, those I have written. I hope you are serious about wanting strictly to follow the anti-synthesis rule.Founders4 08:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "anti-synthesis" rule. Read what I wrote above, and more importantly read the linked policy, which works together with the NPOV and V policies at the same time. Your removal of content below could be seen as WP:POINT, but I support your attempts to improve the article. But, you did remove historical and attributed material, some of which may be easily verified. I hope that now you have taken the time to remove it, you will also attempt to verify it. Although I am not the author of any of the content you deleted, I will also help out. —Viriditas | Talk 20:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

When I referred to an "anti-synthesis" rule, I meant the part where it says, "In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia." For the purposes of our discussion, I'll refer to this as the "precise analysis" rule.

Of course one can argue about just how "precise" the match must be. I suspect you would be more a stickler than I would. My observation is that violation of this rule is frequently "tolerated but not condoned" in Wikipedia. And I think that is all to the good, as I do not believe consistency is a virtue.

With respect to WP:POINT, I admit there was an element of this in my motivation, though I did discipline myself to addressing aspects of the article that I believe violate the "precise analysis" rule. Feel free to put back those sections that you believe do not deserve the "original research" label. Myself, I don't quite see why you choose to draw the line where you do. Also I am not especially offended by "original research," if it's well done (unlike the "Too shallow, too deep" paragraph) and not too wacky.

I was a bit surprised that you wrote, "I hope that now you have taken the time to remove it, you will also attempt to verify it." Have you ever made a practice of this?

I do appreciate the somewhat different tone you have taken in these last two communications. What this exchange has clarified for me is that our styles are simply incompatible. For me it's too little reward, too much grief. No fun. I prefer to work with others and will simply keep my distance. Founders4 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You ask if I have ever made a practice of verifying deleted material? How quickly you forget, that I was the one who found secondary (Bugliosi) and tertiary (Gale) sources for the Manson material you authored - content that was removed by Pedant but added back into the article by yours truly. —Viriditas | Talk 03:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, glad you found those sources. However, I was thinking more of making the effort to verify material that you yourself deleted. Not quite the same. Founders4 04:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion shows that I did just that. I removed the philosphy/ethos section because I couldn't verify it. I see you just added a reference for the statement about HC's use of the term. Is that your interpretation, or does the primary source you have cited contain secondary sources making this claim? —Viriditas | Talk 09:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed philosophy/ethos section until attribution is provided

A description of the hippie ethos appeared in the first edition (Fall, 1968) of Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalogue:

"We are as gods and might as well get used to it. So far, remotely done power and glory--as via government, big business, formal education, church--has succeeded to the point where gross defects obscure actual gains. In response to this dilemma and to these gains a realm of intimate, personal power is developing--power of the individual to conduct his own education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and share his adventure with whoever is interested...”

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.

German back-to-nature movement.

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)

The first sections that need to be cleaned up to make it accurate with respect to the beliefs and writings of the various authors, which vary.

The second section needs to be properly sourced before inclusion.Founders4 08:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Viriditas | Talk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Waning of the hippie movement

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)

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)

Sexual attitudes

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)

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)

Too idealistic, too shallow?

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)

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)