Talk:Rainbow Gathering/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation

Hello, I am an independent editor here to see if I can assist in solving the dispute outlined in a request made by Oceankat at the Mediation Cabal, here. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Foremost, I would like to request that interested parties abide by two simple rules:

I would like to start by obtaining statements from the involved parties, Oceankat and Lookingheart, that you are willing to participate in the mediation process. Any other interested editors are welcome to sign as well. Please indicate your willingness to participate by signing below with four tildes (~~~~):

twofeathersTwofeathers 00:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lookingheart - and a small request. Would it be possible to make sure you are logged in when making edits to this page, at least for the duration of the mediation process? It is difficult for editors to determine your actions when your edits are marked with an IP address (meaning you are not logged in) but you seem to be taking time to type out your signature with a username. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Aguerriero for taking the time to ask valid questions and for putting forth the effort to mediate this issue in an unbias manner. Respect for myself, the heartsong of this new tribal energy and the dynamic nature of this movement called Rainbow Family is all I ask. Please also understand that the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is not seperate nor distinct from the Rainbow Family of Living Light as we are all One Tribe, rather the new energy is a unified expansion of the gatherings themselves, there are many paths to peace and sometimes it might be difficult to understand the trail. Communication and guidance is always appreciated as the vision unfolds. Love and Light, Shine! Lookingheart 2:32 am CSDT
Thanks for helping to mediate this disagreeement. What is a rainbow gathering has long been disputed. Rather than get into a fruitless discussion on this point I have always defined it very loosely. I see the "gathering of the tribes" gatherings as rainbow gatherings. When these small gatherings were added to the "National Gatherings" listing among gatherings of thousands I was faced with a choice. To remove them or to place them in context by adding similar gatherings. There are many "expansions" or "alternative" gatherings. All local and regional gatherings are born of the National Gathering and are an expansion of its energy. Many have been in existance for more years than "gathering of the tribes" and have many more participants. If only the "gathering of the tribes" is listed it appears as though it is the only or at least the most significant of the alternatives. It is not. It is the newest and among the smaller of the expansions. If these gatherings are listed at the very least a dozen larger and older gatherings should be listed. What is the criterion for listing small gatherings? If all of those that are the equivalent of the "gathering of the tribes" are listed the end result will be a few hundred little gatherings being listed as each local editor adds their small gathering to the list. Some will be added in an attempt to publicize it to increase attendance. Some that are listed will not even occur as the energy never manifests to pull it off. oceankat July, 16, 2006


My understanding of the sitation

I will attempt to summarize the dispute as I understand it here. From what I can tell, these are the main points of the dispute:

  • There are groups of people who are gathering under the name "Gathering of the Tribes". These people feel that they are part of the overall "Rainbow Gatherings" philosophy, but as an expansion, different enough to have their own name.
  • Lookingheart would like to list these gatherings on the Rainbow Gathering article, and Oceankat is opposed to the listings.

If you agree with my summary of the issues, please sign below using the same method I described earlier:

miketwofeathers 4.244.57.33 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) twofeathers4.245.2.65 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the name A gathering of the tribes is out of respect for the annual. not different to have their own name. miketwofeathersTwofeathers 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not the choice of the name that I have issue with, many gatherings have picked interesting names to call themselves. It is that the "gathering of the tribes" are not unique nor are they very large or very old. If they are included all the gatherings that have been in existance many more years and have had larger attendance would need to be listed as well. oceankat July, 16, 2006

My questions

Before I propose a solution, I would like to have these questions answered. If you can answer, please answer directly below each question, making sure to indent your answer with a colon and sign your name using four tildes.

  • Is "Rainbow Gatherings" an official organization, non-profit or commercial?
Rainbow gatherings are not for profit but not an official non profit organization. There is no official organization. The rainbow family is sometimes jokingly refered to as a "disorganization." There are some loosely adhered to concepts to facilitate an ad hoc organization on the land. There are no membership requirments or an official membership list. For this reason I have always been among those who accept most gatherings that call themselves rainbow as rainbow gatherins. oceankat July, 16, 2006
Lookingheart (talk) 21:11 pm CSDT - It is my understanding and experience that Rainbow Gatherings are non-organized and no official entities have filed a statement for non-profit status with any secretary of any state nor have the Rainbow Gatherings ever been promoted for commercial interests. The Rainbow Gathering are founded on ideologies and principles that project a free form attitude wherein individuals are encouraged to participate freely and of their own accord working within a counsel process with an over all prayer for world peace and fostering an egalitarian attitude towards building communities whether those communities be land base, temporary - with or without structure.


  • rainbow gatherings have never been comercial or official in nature, no organization period, i have the charter name under an LLC as of this date to prevent the name rainbow family of living light to be used commercialy, as words in the wind that some were at one time trying to create a burning man type of situation.The rainbow gathering is and was started on the judean principle of peace for all peoples. this may be short but it is what it started as, what it is now is totaly different in nature, many propose peace, but new age children coming in are making the changes in the rainbow family and they have no knowledge of hip story( beginings). many rainbow family members found some of the new things not in likeing and have strived to get back to what it started as peaceful, many have come to the alterntive, some have said it is splitting the family up(note; that is their exact words) these new gathering peoples beleive in the old ways of rainbow and wish to carry the old ways forward, without the new age thinking of violence, drugs and other negative things. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.244.57.33 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Same question for "Gathering of the Tribes"?
The same as I stated above. I have never disputed the contention that "gathering of the tribes" are rainbow gatherings. oceankat July, 16, 2006
Lookingheart (talk) 21:25 pm CSDT - The "(A) Gathering of the Tribes" is an expansion / heartsong of the Rainbow Family of Living Light and was consented to by individuals in 2003 after much counsel and brain storming. These alternative Rainbow Gatherings are unorganized, unincorporated and non-commercial. There is no authoritarian council body. In 2006 these gatherings where held in 3 different states within the borders of the United States. As of July 2006 there have been talks in other circles about helping manifest these alternative gatherings elsewhere in the United States. Vision statement for the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is: "All peaceful beings are welcome to come share the gift of harmony and prayers for world peace as we celebrate interdependence day in unity without glorification of war. A circle of silent meditation will commence with the rising sun on the morning of July 4th until noon." *A Gathering of the Tribes Home Page


i have focalized this gathering a few years myself(the last two) while i myself never claim the name rainbow (which i was not when they started) i do claim membership in the rainbow family of living light, i think calling oneself rainbow is a misnomer. i have been to "rainbow gatherings" since the begining the last two years i prefered not to attend the antional because i do not like going into a tent and pronouncing a person dead again from drugs purchased at gathering. i still never called my self rainbow, as i was not when i helped start the gatherings, and i am not now. i do not like labels per se, and if i was to claim a certain tribe it would be blackfoot, my native tribe. there is no difference in the annual gatherings, and the gathering of the tribes, if one would like to read the original invite to see where it was not a gathering of rainbows either, i could add it somewhere here. i still claim this original writings as my basis for gathering, and A Gathering of The Tribes is exctly what the original gatherings were about, and carries the traditions forward. it is true many have complained that missouri peoples in particular are trying to create something that is not rainbow in nature, this is a false statement, many people from many states and other countries attend the missuori based function, i have seen where it said 75 to 200, this number is wrong too! and would challenge that fact, 2005 on july fourth i would say 500 were in attendance, this years number more like 350, next year probally more as people see more violence at the annual gathering, also enconomic factors will play into this as fuel prices go up and more people gather closer to home, than nationaly, but these same gatehrings will not be regionals, any one from any state is welcome, including the world. regionals are more focased on just those who reside in a certain state, and by the way, i am originaly out of the west coast and still own land there but currently reside in missouri. and a further note when plunker had a gathering up in montana at the same time as the national that gathering was not complained about, most of the complaints are from certain and the same individuals every year, with no true hip story put down, just the complaint it is not a real gatherings. www.rainbowsendfarm.info miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.244.57.33 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Is there a standard in place for what constitutes a "national gathering?" Is it any gathering that is published and advertised nationwide? Or are there "official" national gatherings?
On July 7 at the National Gathering a "vision council", which anyone can attend, chooses by consensus the location of the next year's National Gathering. That is the standard and I guess what makes it "official" is that 10 to 25 thousand show up at the consensed location. This is the crux of my arguement. There have been several hundred gatherings in the past 34 years. Even before the web the majority of them have been listed nationally and everyone was invited. Some have happened annually for a few years before fading away, some, like the Ocala gathering, over 20 years and on going. These are local or regional gatherings, in that for whatever the invitation said, the vast majority of those in attendance are from the local population and rarely exceed a few hundred. But there is one recognized National Gathering over the fourth of July that has attendance of 10 to 25 thousand. One can easily find a dozen newspaper articles in reference to this National Gathering each year. I could find no reliable information on any of the gatherings lookingheart has listed. Rumor has it that less than 100 or perhaps nearly 200 were at the Missouri gathering of the tribes. I haven't even been able to get any rumors as to the GA gathering held on private land that lookingheart listed. My experience leads me to believe no one other than the friends of the land owners showed up. As for the VA gathering, again I was unable to find any newspaper articles or reports from individuals attending on any of the traditional rainbow related newsgroups. Perhaps this gathering never happened. Quite often gatherings have been listed on calenders by those who desire them to occur but the energy never manifests. If it did happen I would guess there were less than 50 people in attendance. Should any gathering in its first year, as VA was, with less than 50 people in attendance be included in the National Gathering listing? Gatherings so small as to not even be noticed by the local newspapers? If gatherings such as Ocala, Shawnee, and many others which have been around longer and have larger attendance are not listed why are "gathering of the tribes" listed? If the "gathering of the tribes" are listed, even in a separate section for local and regional gatherings, the end result is that over time several hundred similarly small gatherings will be listed cluttering this article with trivia. oceankat July, 16, 2006


Lookingheart (talk) 21:30 pm CSDT - This is no standard that I am aware of except to say that these so named gatherings should take place on a National level with the invitation going out "Nationally" as oppossed to regional gatherings with a local invitation. As a side note it should be known that some people prefer to call the National gatherings "Annual Gatherings" so as to make them inclusive and not exclusive. Much conversation is always continuing on AGR
Lookingheart (talk) 21:36 pm CSDT - There is nothing "Official" in Rainbow as it is a dynamic ideology Spirited by individuals. Most gatherings are advertised by a variety of means to include printed material, internet communique's, word of mouth, ect. but nothing "official" as there is no one group or entity who has a valid claim on any rights concerning The Rainbow Family of Living Light. It is a long held consensus that no one may represent the Rainbow Family.

Hello- My name is Hawker (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org). To answer your question, because I don't think it was answered. Each year at the "national gathering" on July 7th we get together in what is called a vision council and select the next location for the national gathering. Hence this is the standard of what is the national gathering. There are very few people that would dispute what is the national Rainbow gathering and what is an alternitive gathering. The location agreed on on July 7th at each "big national" (this year in Colorado) for the next year is the one and only NAtional Rainbow Gathering of the TRibes. There are other alternitive gatherings besides looking hearts but no one tries to dispute them as THE gathering as LH does. This has been a long standing issue and most of the family feels that he is manipulating and trying to confuse his small gathering as the national rainbow gathering. It is also my opinion that AGOT (LHs gathering info) should not be included. He should make a new Wikipedia entry of A Gathering Of the Tribes and put his info there - perhaps link it from the main entry as an alternitive gathering. If we allow him in then we must allow every alternitive gathering and other gathering in and that will clutter and take away from this entry. As others stated this is a small <100 person gathering that is in contrast to the generaly recognized national gathering of15k-25k people. Hawker

Non-NPOV! (see above): In the above comments, (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) refers the the (A) Gathering of the Tribes as "Lookingheart's Gatherings." This is biased information and non-factual. Additionally he (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) eludes to an issue of trying to "confuse" the separate gatherings, this is either a misunderstanding on his part or an outright fabrication. Factual information can be found on the (A) Gathering of the Tribes website. Hawker, this is not AGR and we are looking for facts and solutions. Please do not bring any hostilities to this forum as it will not be appreciated.

Mediator Note: This person is and has been hostile in past encounters, any information provide by this person should be verified to keep the conversation valid and truthful, thanks. Lookingheart (talk) 07:54 pm CSDT

No. Hawker is not hostile. Not now, not before. Lookingheart, I find it bad form that you simply refer to someone as "hostile" when they do not agree with you.Bstone


and one comment is that lookingheart is the gathering of the tribes, this is totaly false as people assume it is him since he puts out the calender on his sit(which by the way welcomehome took their calender off) he is just one small cog in the A gathering of the tribes, and is not the leader or in anyway in charge of anything, there are no leaders assumed or imaginary in rainbow. if no one minds i will step in here and add a few things to clarify past and present postings, i do not know who oceankat is, but my real name is what it is mike twofeathers.

there is no official anything in rainbow period, never has been, never will be, there is no standard other than original hip story, to which i see has never been posted to wiki either, only one person's words have been put on wiki, when there is so much more, and even that person has no strived to be more political in nature than peaceful, original gathering in 1972 did NOT have 25000 people attending, at most it was from 1900 to 2400 people, not all climbed the mountain through national gaurd troops to get to mount. i am one of the original people from rainbow house, my validation is my brother who made barry adams a preacher if that is beginning enough. even the world gathering in 1972 was not the first that year, a gathering of the contact tribe earlier that year(a copy of this in the media can be found at http://www.motherearthnews.com/DIY/1972_July_August/A_Gathering_of_the_Contact_Tribe_in_Missouri , the phenomina of gathering that year was spectacular, and you will find that earlier gathering very similar to the so called rainbow gathering. but still even that wasn't the first gathering, first one was a gathering of the tribes in golden gate park a few years before either the contact tribe or the rainbow family of living light gathering. and i saw in wiki where it was supposed to be the beginning of rainbow, this was false too! it was not the beginning of rainbow, rainbow gatherings were a callaboration of folks after a concert in oregon that was supposed to pacify protesters. not well before that, the two are so totally different, totally different vibes, totally different concepts. and the gathering of the tribes in golden gate park was never brought upduring the process of building a "rainbow gathering"!

then we come to the name rainbow gathering, this is a misnomer, for many of the first years it was not called a rainbow gathering, but a world gathering of the tribes, later when more and more started to say the rainbow family (referring to those early days) is having a gathering lets go, then many started to say rainbow gathering. this has evoleved to mean rainbow gathering, and or peace gathering and or many other names over the years, people started calling them selves rainbows, another phemonena(spelling) really not knowing what rainbow family of living light really was, original writing on a small wooden frame said other things, i will and can put it here if need be, but the first basis for rainbow was judean in nature, with respect for all relegions in the name of peace. this has caught on to include all relegions into the rainbow family. i will look through these archives and add more to some i think need to be addressed. wether a gathering is published national, or world wide is irrevelent i would think, the first few were word of mouth and had attendance from all over the world, there are still some gatherings which are done word of mouth, and alot that are done worldwide on the web. ther are no rulers in rainbow, and no one has the power to deny any gathering from being called anything at all. nor is there any person in rainbow that can deny the use of the name rainbow or anyother name from being used. hip story says no leaders, no organization, no denials for anything.forgive my spelling ans punctuation, it is not the best. i also think it should be asked of the naysayers just actually what they are trying to do. many claim they speak for rainbow, but none can, i surely don't. none can control or should be able to control the name rainbow, out of respect for the "annual gathering" A gathering of The Tribes was a named use to differeaint(spelling) between the two functions, many are fed up with the violence, and sales of things in the gatehring. many dispute this and say it doesn't happen, i could put many personal posts from others that say the oposite, one source might be the colrodao rainbow family yahoo group(the family hosting this years anual. this group may give you more of an insight to what happened for real at gatehring, another would be to use the welcomehome agr email list to find more, there is an archive there. you would find many of the FS reported things kinda glamourized by the newspapers, but the same type of informational posts from attending members at this years gathering. here is the links to both the colorado rainbow group and the welcomehome mail list with archivesbelow in the last sentence. i think to find out if some of the reports from newspapers were true to read posts from attending rainbow members, here is one group who hosted the gatehring this year, you will find many accounts of the same violence to verify the things that did happen, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ColoradoRainbowFamily/ another place to verify violence is welcomehome's email list archives, here you will again find verification of violence and other actions by actual rainbow members themselves. http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/index.html at bottom of page you will see eamil<>news gateway, this will take you to the page where you can join and then read archives and such. finaly, to leave any rainbow members out of the history of rainbow family is a devastation in it self, i would compare this to leaving canada out of world war 1 and world war 2. all were involved then just as all rainbows are involved now. no matter what one person says with nothing other than just words. forest service reports bring in reporters, if one is to beleive reporters speaking of a gathering than i think all the violence reported by those same reporters be put into play to show the true heart of the annual gathering if one calls it disinformation, then all reporting should be left out as disinformation, some said 15,000 this year, more like a little less than 10,000 showed, with plenty of violence which could be verified on various rainbow groups. doesn't take long to look at a few files in a few groups to find a reference to the violence. so disinformation and naysayers behind. i remind those who do edit, that the facts speak louder than all the words we have, and just a little research can go a long way in disputes. for those who do not have a long standing in the rainbow family, i think i can say they only know what they hear or what they feel, not neccesarly the truth. living it is so much different. and i have done this myself.i can count how many people have a beef with welcomehere, and i have the people who are disatisfied with the annual now numbering way above those who do not like welcomehere. which by the way is the only reliable calender in rainbow that is well known. thanks for your time miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net miketwofeathers Twofeathers 00:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4.244.57.33 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

A timely request

I am still reviewing the various comments made above, but I would like to reiterate one request and make one new one:

  1. Please make sure you are logged in before posting comments in this mediation, and please sign your comments with four tildes. Signing this way produces your username, and your date/time of posting. When logged out, you are effectively anonymous - I cannot tell who you are, and thus your comments in the medation carry much less weight. I am disinclined to consider comments from anonymous editors, even if you are trying to identify yourself by typing out e-mail addresses or web sites.
  2. Please stop editing the list of gatherings until we have resolved this matter - it is only serving to escalate the dispute and increase the negative energy in here at the very same time as I am trying to solve the dispute.

Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have not and will not make any edits to the main page as long as mediation is continueing no matter which version of the National Gathering listing is up. I also have made no edits to the talk page beyond adding my reasons for my edits on the main page. I wish to seperate myself from the anonymous editor who has accused lookingheart of vandalism. I have no idea who this editor is. I have not nor will I accuse anyone of hacking or vandalism. I appreciate you taking the time to help me begin to learn the proper format for this discussion. Oceankat 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that at least one anonymous user is intent on continuing to edit the list of gatherings. I have left a message on their talk page asking them to stop, and to review the latest discussion here. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed so long as the current version stays the same as it is now listed (07/17/2006 - 05:38 pm CSDT) and until a proper consensus is agreed upon by all concerned parties. Oceankat, I appreciate your not modifying the text while mediation is ongoing, that does show so character on your part. I will however edit any derogatory and false comments made by whomever that is vandalizing the wikipedia. Shine!!!! Lookingheart 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

Lookingheart, this is disruptive behavior. My request was that everyone involved stop editing the list, not that everyone involved change it to the way they want it and then agree to stop editing only if it stays that way. I see also that you edited the list anonymously and then logged in to comment here. Is there a reason for that? It is fairly easy to see what is going on here. If you can participate here without being disruptive, we can continue this process. If not, I will close this case and recommend other actions to involved editors. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and close the case then or get additional moderation assistance. I am no seeing you as mediating but rather dictating based on biased assumptions. All the edits have have made where to return them back as they where and I have noted those changes above with my name. If that is anonymous then I dont know how much clearer I can make it known that I personally reverted them back (BTW: My IP Address generally stays the same). Mediation is a two or five way street, your allowing those changes that are unacceptible to some parties involved is not mediation otherwise you would note that whomever keeps changing the historic information is causing conflicts and call for those actions to be halted until further notice. I suggest that at this point your tenure as mediator is almost void unless you can gain some confidence in this issue. Additionally, if you are to gain more faith I suggest that you look at other creative alternatives or ask the concerned parties what might be in their best interest, try asking what might work. 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

I appreciate your voicing your concerns. I will attempt to address each one.
  • I am not dictating anything - I proposed a compromise. All of you are free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. If I make a statement, it is not based on "biased assumptions", it is based on the information you have given me here and on Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are not logged in, you are editing anonymously. I can guess at who you are based on your IP address, but in many places, hundreds of people might share the same IP address. Therefore I request that you log in so your actions can be plainly seen.
  • I am not allowing or disallowing any changes. I simply requested that people stop editing the list. You changed the list, then conditionally agreed to stop editing it, and then changed it again after someone reverted your edits. Whomever did that is also anonymous, leading to even more problems, and it is not someone who signed their name here to agree to stop editing.
  • All Wikipedia articles are bound by the requirement that they be notable. My compromise offer of listing the main, national gatherings was based on that. Listing anything less than a national gathering (for any organization, not just this one) is not notable for a global encyclopedia. See WP:N for more information.
  • Whether you care for my mediation methods or not, no mediator can be successful in here without cooperation of involved parties. If the edit warring continues, or editors continue to take anonymous actions, or no party is willing to entertain compromises, then mediation will fail, period.
I will wait and see if Oceankat agrees to your compromise offer below. If the third editor, the one whom I believe is reverting your edits to the list, chooses to start participating, we can weigh his comments as well. If you truly feel that I have acted in bad faith or with bias, I will gladly ask another mediator to take over. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


  • My suggestion would be to ask the third editor if indeed it be them making the edits and ask them to respect the listing as it is now as to not inflame the situation while mediation is in progress. You might also ask them to quit placing derogatory remarks as well if they are doing that also. As a point of direction, please note that the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is a "National" invitation and has nothing to do with regional events, gatherings or affairs. I am still looking for the resource information posted on the Official Rainbow Gathering webpage where a counsel on the land gave it's blessing for these gatherings to continue in unity with the Annual Gathering. Respect and an unbias attitude is all I ask. Lookingheart 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
  • I have tried a blanket request that people stop editing the list, but that has not worked. The third editor has remained anonymous, and has decided not to participate in this mediation. Since they are anonymous, I cannot directly ask them to stop. I think we are finally reaching the crux of the issue though - determine whether or not the Gathering of Tribes are large enough to be notable, and therefore listed on this article. If everyone can agree on that point, we can move forward. However, if anonymous editors continue to edit the page, our efforts may be in vain. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offer

Okay, I have sifted through the information presented here and I will try my best to outline a solution. I want to note up front that is has been exceedingly difficult to determine everyone's viewpoint because of mostly anonymous edits to this page, and because of frequent edit wars on both the main article page and this Talk page.

My primary observation is that there seems to be a rough consensus among editors of this page that only the main, annual gathering should be listed here. Lookingheart, you seem willing to go against this consensus to list "alternative" gatherings.

Wait a minute!!!!!! As a mediator you are supposed to be unbiased. What gives you the inclination that I am unwilling to do anything? What do you base this assumption on? I anticipate a reply to the comments you have made above with a full explination, thanks. Lookingheart 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

I didn't say you were unwilling to do anything. I said you were willing to go against consensus, which is clear to anyone reviewing the history of the article. Being unbiased means reviewing all sides, and then interpreting a positive course of action according to the rules and guidelines. I am unbiased - I don't know any of you and it doesn't matter to me whether the alternative gatherings are listed or not. I am simply offering my interpretation of the facts here, as the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to them.
As I wrote below, please consider my question, and then consider my compromise offer. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I would ask you to consider the following question:

  • For a global encyclopedia, what is the threshold at which information is notable for the entire community?

Truth would be a good threshold. Historical facts is another. Would you agree that those gatherings that where under a permit stay listed? Many participants in the Rainbow Gathering feel as though those gatherings where not Rainbow Gatherings and instead where private events hosted by those private individuals who signed the permit. For a deeper understanding of that issue read up on free assemblies. Freedom of assembly is not a licensed activity. What about the years when there where two "National" Gatherings? Shouldn't both those gatherings be listed or is there a criteria that says one is the "Official" and the other was an alternative? Rainbow is many things to many people. The (A) Gathering of the Tribes has been likened to the original gatherings and the now co-opted National Gatherings are being headed by the National Rainbow Management Team. Which is the real one? The free form consensual Rainbow Gatherings that are open to all or the one that is Officially mandated by the NRMT? Now I agree this is all very complicated and for those who are not directly involved in the Rainbow Gatherings it may be even harder. Again, I would suggest that you attempt to get more mediation help involved and further suggest that you do more research. The first Gathering of the Tribes was in the Ozarks in 1972 April 1972 This was 3 months prior to the gathering in Colorado which was to be a one time gathering as noted in the hipstory. So which is the real Rainbow Gathering? The now co-opted NRMT Permit events or the free form consensual gatherings? Lookingheart 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

  • Lookingheart, you keep refering to historical data. The VA gathering you listed had never happened before and when it was listed it was in the future. I fail to see how that can be construed as historical. Virtually every gathering is listed nationally and everyone is invited. Even those few gatherings that attempt to limit the publicity in order to keep their gathering small and more easily managed invite everyone. This is one of the concepts the rainbow gatherings are based on, everyone is invited. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As to what constitutes a "real" rainbow gathering, this has been discussed at length in the rainbow family without resolution. This discussion is way beyond the scope of what is possible in an encyclopedia article. While most are unhappy about the signing of a permit few would claim that a permit changes a "real" rainbow gathering into an "unreal" gathering. No one can stop anyone from signing a permit, it was expected these last few years after the signing in Utah. Yet 10k to 25k people felt the permitted gatherings were sufficiently "real" to attend. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what is the purpose of the Mother Earth news article you listed. To summerize: Ed Sabin began writing to people in his local area who had listed their name in the CONTACT section of the mother earth new. He decided to meet these people. He invited them to a 2 day get together on a neighbor's land. There is no mention of national or local advertising nor an open invitation to the public. In fact the article specifically states it was a get together of the friends of Ed Sabin. 100 people came. This was an exclusive gathering limited to the friends of Ed Sabin. I cannot see any relevance to rainbow gatherings. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I know of only one year when there were 2 National Gatherings, 1993. As you can see both are listed. The reason it is generally accepted that there were 2 National Gatherings in 1993 is that each gathering had in excess of 5,000 attendees. That is clearly notable. If one gathering had 10,000 people and the other 200 it would not be listed nor would the majority of the rainbow family consider that there were 2 gatherings that year. If 10,000 people went to the "gatherings of the tribes" and 200 showed up at the vision council selected location for the national gathering that surely would be notable and it would be listed here. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed several other articles that are about communities that hold annual gatherings to see how they handle other offshoot and alternative gatherings. I conclude that this article is already handling alternative gatherings in the correct way: a section titled "Alternative Rainbow Gatherings" that explains their purpose and existance.

I wrote that piece so I am very familiar with it. Lookingheart 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

The only compromise I can offer is that you include a link in the "External links" section to calendars of alternative gatherings. I wish I could recommend something better, but I can't rationalize or justify any other course of action because I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well. I don't think this is the proper venue to advertise or record alternate gatherings.--Aguerriero (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

If you agree with this course of action, please sign below on a new line, with four tildes. Again please make sure you are logged in, as anonymous signatures to this page will be disregarded because we simply cannot determine who you are. If you type a bullet and four tildes, click "Show preview" and see what you produced - it should look similar to mine below. If you see an IP address (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX), you are not logged in and your signature will be disregarded for the reason above. If you disagree, consider proposing a constructive alternative by starting a new heading below.

Alternative Solutions

I propose that the Annual / National listings be corrected to show ALL gatherings that happened in the proper years. This should include years when it was obvious that there where indeed two gatherings. Additionally each year should indicate whether or not the event was a permitted event or a true free form Rainbow Gathering. The listing should have a kindclaimer informing the public on the differences between a permitted event and an actual Rainbow Gathering and there should always remain a NPOV banner at the top.

The (A) Gathering of the Tribes listing of historical dates can be listed in the Alternative Rainbow Gatherings section with an appropriate kindclaimer and continuous NPOV banner informing the public of the differences between the separate views.


If you agree with this course of action, please sign below on a new line, with four tildes. Again please make sure you are logged in, as anonymous signatures to this page will be disregarded because we simply cannot determine who you are. If you type a bullet and four tildes, click "Show preview" and see what you produced - it should look similar to mine below. If you see an IP address (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX), you are not logged in and your signature will be disregarded for the reason above. If you disagree, consider proposing a constructive alternative by starting a new heading below.

twofeathers Twofeathers 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Dante420 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Dante420

Mediation, Part 2

Okay, we seem to have stalled a bit on the mediation, due in no small part to the fact that the edit warring continues on the article. I would like to start fresh, and address two simple points, toward solving this:

  • I am going to ignore the editing on the article for now, and I advise parties interested in this mediation to do likewise. The edit warring is getting us nowhere.
  • Let's define what belongs in the list of gatherings.

Does that sound reasonable? Lookingheart and Oceankat, I request responses, and please be concise. In particular, are both of you prepared to compromise? Can we agree on what can be included in the list? I don't think it can be every gathering - that would be too cluttered. I also don't think it can be just one gathering per year. How about any gathering that both invites and expects attendees from multiple states? --Aguerriero (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


  • When I checked the talk page this morning the mediation 2 section had not yet been added. After I finally finished my response to mediation 1 and checked back I discovered mediation 2. It seems I have less time to devote to this process than others, it also takes me quite a bit of time to form my response,(as well as type it in without numerous typos and spelling errors) I will make a greater effort to respond more expeditiously. I am in general agreement with Hawker. If vision council at the National Gathering does not choose the location of the next National Gathering how does Lookingheart explain 10k to 25k people meeting over the fourth of July at the same national forest for 34 years? How is the location picked? As for the numerous local, regional, expansion, or alternative gatherings virtually all of them are listed nationally and everyone is invited. This is one of the core precepts of a rainbow gathering. All peaceful people are invited. While there are a few rainbow gatherings that make some attempt to limit advertising in order to limit the size and manageability of their gathering even those invite all people. Virtually all gatherings, even many of the smallest, have some people from multiple states. These gatherings posted by lookingheart are not unique in any way. I cannot accept small alternative gatherings being included in the National Gathering list. But even if I could, the vast majority of the rainbow family would not and sooner or later this controversy would reignite. For all the controversy over the signing of the permit the vast majority of the rainbow family only recognizes one National Gathering, the one picked at the previous National Gathering vision council. All the evidence I can offer for that is that 15,000 are estimated to have been at the National Gathering in Colorado and rumor has it that at most 200 where at the Missouri gathering of the tribes. As I offered long before this mediation began, I could accept a seperate section for local or alternative gatherings. Though without standards all the problems I have previously refered to would insue. I have no idea how one could craft a standard that included the VA gathering lookingheart posted that would not include every single rainbow gathering that has ever taken place. We could craft a standard that included only the Missouri gathering of the tribes, ie, must have had 3 annual gatherings with in excess of 200 people. That still would include hundreds of gatherings but at least one would be relatively sure that the gatherings listed actually occured. I am as yet unsure if the gathering in VA actually occured. Far too many gatherings have been listed on calenders that have never happened over the years. Oceankat 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Oceankat. I do realize that it can be hard to follow all the discussion, but your comments were definitely read and appreciated, even after I had started this section. It seems like the real question we need answered, and I am depending on Lookingheart to help us with this is: How can we establish notability for the Gathering of Tribes meetings, and why should they be included here if the myriad other alternate gatherings are not? Clearly, we cannot include everything - the list would be unwieldly and unmaintainable in the extreme. If Lookingheart can answer that question, we can see if we can meet in the middle. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (reposting deleted content) I feel as though this is the question I have been trying to ask in several different ways since I began discussion in May. I feel as though I have made valid points and questions that are worthy of consideration and answers. I have taken the time to attempt to respond to as many of Lookingheart's points as I can. I have seen no attempt by Lookingheart to address any of my points or questions. Sorry to seem discouraged but I feel that so far this mediation has achieved the same result as my attempts at dialog before the mediation began. I am being ignored by lookingheart now as I was then while he simply adds his gatherings to the main page. I cannot see how anything can be achieved without dialog. Oceankat 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oceankat, please see Lookingheart's post under "Notability" below, where I feel he has made a good faith effort to explain the notability of the gatherings he would like to include in the article. Your comments appreciated. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

--- Sorry for no log in - I have no account and no time for it. This is Hawker (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) Can someone fix the CALM link at the end (since editing is closed) The link referes to the old CALM site (stale) at http://www.infolation.com/calm/ The current and correct one is http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/calm/

Also my 2 cents. Permits "what is real" or not does not matter. What is real or not (as LH aluded to) is part of ongoing and bitter controversy and opinion. Wikipedia is about facts not opinion and controversy. Both gatherings have had years with and without permits. this is about the string of gatherings that comes from the vision council consenses nothing else. This does not include AGOT. This NIMT and other conspiricy theories is all the same thing. Sorry LH but AGOT is not the RFOLL gathering, just an alternitive to it. The only year with 2 gatherings was 93 (alabama and Ky) and that is only due to a scout confusion. There are tons of other gatherings (For example NERF in a few weeks) but those do not come from the national vision council and hence are not inlcuded. For this reason I also think AGOT should not be included. Not any other "multiple listing" as proposed. There is only one gathering that comes from the "Rainbow Family Of Living Light" that this wikipidia is about. There are other gatherings besides RFOLL and AGOT and those folks do not confuse them as being the same and hence do not list them here. I think we need a line in the sand and this is it. With one exception (1993) there has only been one RFOLL gathering and that is all that should be listed.

Hawker

Hawker, couldn't agree with you more. Also, someone has changed the link for CALM from welcomehome to infolation. Not sure why because the infolation site is old and no longer relevent in information. I tried to contact the fellow who runs it but he doesn't respond to email or phone calls. Weird. Bstone 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Still reading but I wanted to make sure I got this right. ---- Hawker, are you saying that there is only one Rainbow Gathering and it comes from an official vision council. Is this a main council with an official hierarchical council body? If so, how does this work when Rainbow ideologies have always encouraged the celebration of diversity, participation and most of all free thinking? Is it then proper to assume that any and all other council circles are void unless they get permission from this official vision council? Can you point me/us to the directors/organizers/spokespeople of the Rainbow Family so that further questions may be asked about their organization?

I am still looking for the 2005 Vision Council notes from the Annual Rainbow Gathering. In these notes is the blessing for the AGOTT from Vision Council and as you may already know, it was voiced in open circle 2003 that some of us where going to be going another path to avoid the permits, NRMT, violence and high holy strangulation of the Spirit. Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

Lookingheart, this post of yours doesn't seem entirely genuine. We all know there are no officers/directors/leaders of Rainbow. That's the beauty of it. Asking for such people is not going to further this mediation effort. Bstone
Hey Bstone, This article dated in June of 2006 names "Rob Savoye" as the organizer for "The Rainbow Family." Rainbow Family settles in The article also mentions "Members." Are we then to believe that Rainbow is or is not an organization? If there is no organization then who is it to say what is and what is not Rainbow? Lookingheart 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Lookingheart, that article obvious was incorrect. I know Rob and I know he isn't an organizer for me or anyone else at Rainbow. That article was written by someone who just doesn't understand Rainbow. Being that we do have a working knowledge of Rainbow, we all know that there are no organizers, officers, directors, etc. There is no official structure. Bstone 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, Hawker. We will also hear from other interested parties. If I understand correctly, your stance is that only gatherings sanctioned by the vision council. I suspect some may disagree with you, especially Lookingheart. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to hear more about how this "vision council" sanctions gatherings and further would like to ask their organizers some valid questions. Yes, I and many others disagree for just reasons. From what I understand of Rainbow, "No one represents the Rainbow Family." This would include a circle of individuals who are engaged in an informal conversation however, if Hawker can put us in contact with those who are officially in charge of the Rainbow Gatherings we might get some clarifications on this issue. Thanks Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
An acceptable objective criteria for the US National Gathering is if a United States Forest Service National Incident Management Team (NIMT) attends the gathering. Clappingsimon talk 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The AGOTT is not the Annual Rainbow Gathering but the NIMT has attended in Missouri. Ranger Page's home district is in the Salem area and many of the gathering locations within the Ozarks are under her stewardship so she tends to show up with a few of her fellow forest officiers. I know this isnt what you wanted to project but it is a fact that they do attend. Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
A managing ranger is not a Type 2 NIMT team. See Incident Management Team . Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Page is a head honcho (NIMT) and gained her footing in the Ozarks. As a side note, there are many gatherings within the Ozarks, the area serves as a training ground for many of the NIMT officiers. This area of the United States is not new to Rainbow or the NIMT. Lookingheart 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart


The below section was recently deleted, this is not proper etiquette and can cause mediation to fail. I am adding the Notability section back and ask that all persons doing edits to respect the nature in which this section was offered. Shine! Lookingheart 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
This was due to an edit conflict when 2 editors (you and me) were editing the page at the same time - there should have been a Wikipedia warning. Anyway, I had no intention of deleting your contribution. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

The (A) Gathering of the the Tribes is notable on many fronts and has been recognized nationally & world wide as a defining changing point within the Rainbow Family of Tribes. Many Rainbow Family participants see the AGOTT's as eminent in character and performance for taking the issue of multiple gatherings to many counsel circles prior to manifesting and have also gained respect for the courage in taking a stand for a return to more peaceful gatherings. As the Annual / National Rainbow Gatherings have succumbed to permit harassment and constitutional violations, much detrimental violence, been co-opted by an unwanted management team and suffered much bad publicity, the AGOTT gatherings have offered viable options to those participants who desire to preserve the ideologies and traditions of the Rainbow Family of Living Light. It is also worthy of notice that the Annual Rainbow Family Vision Counsel in 2005 gave it's blessing for an expansion of the gatherings, this has never been done on such a grand public scale for any other Rainbow Gatherings nor has any group or tribe brought the issue to such a large audience in recent history. This expansion of the Rainbow Family of Living Light has been in unity with the Annual Rainbow Gatherings with much respect for those individuals whom desire harmonious venues in which to pray for world peace. As the AGOTT gatherings expand so does the opportunity for other individuals to become involved. This peaceful endeavor and expansion has lead to many open conversations which help foster better communal ties as well as the number of AGOTT / Rainbow Gatherings that are starting to happen across the United States annually on the 4th of July. It is a basic tenant that no one speak for the Rainbow Family of Living Light and no one counsel circle is above any other. It is for these various reasons as well as other viable considerations that the A Gathering of the Tribes is notable historically to the Rainbow Family of Living Light's hipstory and peaceful evolution into a new era of cooperation for the benefit of all humankind. In respect to all my brothers and sisters, HO! Lookingheart 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

Thanks, Lookingheart - this is a good step in the right direction, as I think it is important in this discussion to assert notability for information you want to include in the article. Oceankat and others, Lookingheart has asserted that not only are AGOTT gatherings a viable alternative, but they are recognized as significant and influential in the Rainbow Gathering community as a whole, and should therefore be included in the article.
  • Do other editors agree or disagree with this assertion?
  • Lookingheart, can you provide a reliable citation for this assessment, per Wikipedia's policy that information be verifiable?
Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It has been extreemly difficult to form a response to Lookingheart's post. Its so non specific and subjective. My inclination is to simply disagree, state that this is not NPOV and ask for citations to verify. But I'll try to formulate an appropiate response for a discussion related to an encyclopedia entry. "Recognized nationally & world wide" is unclear to me. I tried to think of who could do that recognizing. All I could come up with is newspapers or the rainbow family. I've seen no newspaper recognicion. As for the US rainbow family. The Missouri gathering of the tribes is in its third year and its a heavily publicised gathering. I would guess that most people who consider themselves part of the rainbow family know something of it. I doubt that many people world wide know anything about it. As for the other 2 agott gatherings my personal opinion is they are probably mostly unknown. Its true that there are some who are in favor of multiple gatherings and are very vocal in their support of it. They may feel that AGOTT is eminent. At least as many are against the idea. This and other issues related to the agott gatherings has stirred up a bitter controversy that has played out over rainbow newsgroups as a vicious flame war. Most of the rainbow family have not taken part in that flame war so I have no idea whether the majority of the family thinks agott is eminent or notorious. I would guess most see it as I do, a small local gathering at the same time as the National. Most choose to go to the National. I can only speculate as to their reasons for making that choice. I personally don't think the National Rainbow Gathering has "succumbed to permit harassment and constitutional violations, much detrimental violence, been co-opted by an unwanted management team." Certainly there are and always have been numerous problems that people are working on, sometimes with success, sometimes not. AGOTT is certainly a viable alternative these last 3 years for those who feel the National Rainbow Gathering has succumbed or for any reason they determine. Estimates of the National Gatherings for California 2004, 19,000, West Virginia 2005, 10,000, and Colorado 2006, 15,000. I can only assume that these are the people who think it has not succumbed. Are there any verifiable numbers for the 3 AGOTT locations? Is lookingheart suggesting those are the people who believe the National Rainbow Gathering has succumbed? Why are so many more people choosing to go to a gathering that has succumbed when they could go to an eminent gathering? I'm really struggling to come up with a rational, objective response to this post. I think I've failed in that endevour. This is the best I can do. Oceankat 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

to dispel the name national rainbow gathering, i will put a quote here from barry adams, (plunker) i will not put the whole letter, but just those things that pertain to the name of the gathering, as some have been adamnant to make a notable proclamation that it is called the "national"

quote follows:

Rainbow Family Tribe/Annual Gathering Way/process is that ALL "agreements", including "permits" and/or "operating plans" of any sort, must be brought before Circle/council July 1-7, 2007 for Gathered People to have opportunity to review and/or to Affirm Consensus (or not).... otherwise, any such "agreements", "permits", "operating plans", etc. et. al. are NOT LEGAL.... and I, among others, are willing to Court to ensure Inalienable, Constitutional Rights of Spiritual Association/assembly are protected.

I hope that indeed Resource and Recreation personnel will be those who are those who are the primary responsibility for 2007 Annual Gathering rather than Law Enforcement...

And that come 2007, Law Enforcement will lay down the gun, and, unlike this year, not force Resource and Recreation personnel NOT to come to Site to work with Gatherers... instead, I would hope there will be Peace...

The Spiritual, religious Ceremony of the Annual Gathering and/or the Rainbow Family Tribe should, shall be protected...

thanks, barry adams, plunker

this letter is freely open posted to the web, so no violations of protocal were apparent. you will note the person is barry adams, and will also note the name national was not used. this dispels the controversy of the name usage, and should clear up the controversy of it. this info can be found in the archives at welcomehome email gateway. Twofeathers 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A friendly reminder

As an aside from the discussion above, I'm sure everyone is aware that the edit warring is contining on the article page. While I have previously suggested that we ignore this while we reach a consensus, I want to remind and educate everyone of Wikipedia's Three-revert rule, which states that editors must not perform more than 3 reversions to an article within a 24 hour period. What is occurring in the article right now constitutes reversions - since one editor is adding text, and one is taking it away, back and forth. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that Lookingheart isn't keen on a break from the edit war during this period of mediation. I wonder how that looks to the moderator. Bstone 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, I can see that it is you Bstone who keeps changing the text and also the one who keeps placing the derogatory remarks on the talk page. You are aware that your IP address is logged right??? I think it is your intention to make the mediation process as unkind as possible otherwise, can you explain why you keep hammering the text and placing the rude comments? Lookingheart 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
I simply am stating factual information pertaining to the history of Rainbow Gatherings. Again, Lookingheart, I ask you to please stop vandalising the page. It's unkind and unrainbow. Bstone 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I am asking you to quit vandalizing the Wiki page and further insisting that you follow some proper ettiquette and log in first so that you cant try and sneak around putting derogitory remarks on the discussion page. You seem to be able to log in prior to posting your rebuttals. Do you understand or are you just attempting to be a "Good Rainbow" and cause chaos in these discussions just because you dont like other peoples views? Sign in if you your going to post your hateful remarks, at least stand up for what you believe and quit trying to be a little sneak.
LOL! Whoever wrote this (Lookingheart?) yells at me for not signing in (which I automatically am) yet is not signed in himself. Oh, this is too funny. Bstone 14:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A thought

What would everyone think of the idea of making a new article called A Gathering of Tribes and listing the alternative gatherings there? So here, the list of national gatherings would not include them, but would have a note at the bottom reading, "For information on alternative national gatherings, see A Gathering of Tribes" - and others could be added as needed. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to this. Oceankat 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I can not agree to any separation in articles as the Rainbow Family is not into division nor is any one counsel or gathering above any other in any respect. The AGOTT Gatherings are an expansion of the Annual Rainbow Gatherings which is the reason why they are on the same dates. This vision came out of many counsels on the land and are in the Spirit of unity with the Annual Gathering. As expressed in the "Notability" section, these gatherings are in the becoming and are on the rise across the United States with several gatherings being energized in 2006. 2007 is yet another year in which the numbers will likely increase as will the number of AGOTT gatherings being hosted nationally. Myself and others find this notable and worthy of respect. I however can sympathize with valid concerns and hopefully find medium ground and suggest that the AGOTT listings along with other similar type gatherings be expressed within the "Alternative Rainbow Gatherings" section if these pleases other editors. Additionally, if someone would like to work on the better known and common "Regional" gatherings then I would support and help edit those listings so that they too have a proper and respectful presents within the Wikipedia. Further, what Twofeathers is speaking of below is as valid as anyone of your concerns and should be respected as viable information as I too see a lot of what is listed / projected within the Rainbow Family article as offensive, without balance and in some cases untruthful. BTW: Oceankat, you are not being unfairly ignored and I do appreciate your editorial skills and commentary. We have issue and it seems you have found an ally for a mediator whom additionally likes to vote along the same party lines. Be that as it may, I trust that you too will be working on the Rainbow Family article throughout the years. I encourage you to attend some of the gatherings and additionally make a good faith effort to get to know me better. I am a very serious person and have little time for trysts that only stalwart good process especially when truth is as stake. I fairly believe you do not understand what the AGOTT gatherings intend and that you may be taking a protective stance in behest of the Annual Rainbow Gatherings. This is expected and natural however, Rainbow is dynamic and includes a multitude of ideologies. These gatherings are in a transitional phase and may become turbulent before they level back out, the AGOTT Gatherings are another portal towards community and I invite you to explore what Spirit has gifted us with, another opportunity to unfold and become. Lookingheart 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

i could agree to it IF links and info in the original veiw section for the annual referred to it. but also the name change that people are so adversely seeing that the annual is a national, when even two founders, myself and plunker say it is called otherwise. i also think the violence and other negative things that show the true vibes at the annual gathering be shown too, to show true history. and to make wiki more neutral and truthful in context. which i see is left out, saying fs exagerates, if people beleive the numbers of people who attend as stated by oceancat(this again is fs numbers) is to beleived. then i think all articles relating to such put out by fs be beleived too! this article is so full of holes it leads the reader to beleive that the gatherings are so peaceful, when in real life it is not, and the exagerqated numbers of attendies is wrong to and inflated by oceancat, where he/she underinflated the numbers of A Gathering of the Tribes. the intent of wikipedia is truth in writing. and i am still waiting for it. Twofeathers 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You bring up some issues that are not part of this mediation, but they are noted and appreciated. You are of course welcome to edit the article as appropriate, providing reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Aguerriero, I don't know what your involvement or experience is within Rainbow Family but what you have posted above is somewhat disrespectful to one of the Rainbow Family elders and also to a Rainbow Founder. Twofeathers has been there from the beginning and has supported the Rainbow Gatherings in so many ways. When he tells you the hipstory of the family or that something is wrong within the Wikipedia listing of the Rainbow Family he is doing it in the best of light and intension. I would consider Twofeathers and Plunker very good and reliable sources of information concerning the Rainbow Family of the Living Light. Twofeathers just told you that the name is wrong. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? Can you provide reliable and verifiable sources to the contrary? Twofeathers, my apologize for stepping in their on your behalf but I feel these youngun's only know part of the story or they are looking in from the outside. My suggestion would be for you to just edit the Wikipedia article as you see proper letting Spirit guide your hand. If there be controversy among the editors then I will help you with the mediation cabal listing. I too, as an elder, feel that some of the editors here just don't get what Rainbow is about nor do I trust that they are receiving the same message of unity and peace. Again, my apologies Twofeathers and I do hope you take the time to place the truth here however arduous a task that may seem under present conditions. Lookingheart 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Lookingheart, please list the criterion that qualifies you "as an elder." Since both Hawker and I have been to many more gatherings than you would we than be considered elders too? If Bstone is the doctor from CALM he too has been to more gtherings than you. This high holy attitude of your's is what has caused all the problems you have been having with the rainbow family. Oceankat 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oceankat, I am not going to list a criterion for you, your going to just have to do your own homework on this one. If you believe that you and Hawker have more time in then me fine, this isnt the proper forum for your pissing match. Btw; I dont have any problems with the Rainbow Family, I do however get you high holies to squirm when I confront you with your fake doctrine's which you dont intend to follow yourself. There is more to Rainbow then your little click and Hawkers annual water filter fund drive to bilk the family out of coin, you would think in all those years he has put in there would be some pipe and filters by now. I leave you with this Oceankat, Rainbow is evolving way past your control, if you dont like it then tough. Lookingheart 18:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart


Hi Lookingheart. Thanks for your response. As I indicated at the beginning of the mediation, I have no involvement in the Rainbow Family or anyone that is part of it. As such, I only know all of you as Wikipedia editors, and try to treat everyone equally. That being said, I think you misunderstand my response to Twofeathers. This mediation is only about the dispute over listing AGOTT events, and he brought up some additional content concerns. I was simply stating that those issues are not part of the mediation - and as you put quite nicely, he should feel free to edit the article if he sees inaccuracies.
As you have in the past, you continue to state that I am biased. As I have in the past, I will state that it doesn't matter to what the final consensus is. The only thing that matters to me is that everyone agrees on something that is within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies. I am going to post a new section below all of this and attempt to summarize the newest proposal as well as your objects to it. --Aguerriero (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I realize there is a controversy as to whether the gathering is called the National Rainbow Gathering, the Annual Rainbow Gathering, or the Annual North American Rainbow Gathering. I have no pony in that race. I used the name National Rainbow Gathering in this discussion since that was the name previous editors appeared to agree upon. I would not be involved if there was an editor conflict over which was the appropiate name. I used the estimates from the FS for the Annual/National because they are verifiable. I used rumors and quesstimates for the AGOTT gatherings because I could find no verifiable estimates. I repeatedly requested verifiable information on the AGOTT gatherings. Oceankat 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A Gathering of the Tribes (1967 pagan festival) already exists & would require a disambiguation page. I reckon there will be a notability problem with a "A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Gathering)" article which would probably trigger an WP:AfD and if that failed we'd be back where we started. To sidestep this problem I'd suggest we call it Alternative and Regional Rainbow Gatherings (USA). This wider scope will not suffer the same notability problem. Clappingsimon talk 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. As of now, we are just waiting for Lookingheart to respond to this proposal. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I also agree to this. Waiting on Lookingheart. Bstone 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
See, you was able to log in there. Why vandalize a page first then log in? Lookingheart 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
What now? Has Lookingheart decided to drop out of this mediation or was/is he simply away for the weekend? Oceankat 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't know yet. Lookingheart has not made any other contributions since the 20th, so he may just be away temporarily. I am typically willing to wait 7 days for a response to an inquiry, and I suggest we follow that here since Lookingheart has otherwise been timely in his responses. If he does not respond, we can decide whether to close the mediation case with "no action" since one of the parties dropped out, or to close the mediation case with the consensus action, which is to move the alternative gathering information to Alternative and Regional Rainbow Gatherings (USA). Thanks everyone! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This is fine with me. I'm not trying to hurry the process along. I would prefer to wait rather than have people upset thinking things were rushed without enough time given for responses. Thanks again for the time and effort you've put into this. Oceankat 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Im back from the ether ...... going to review this conversation and give you my personal thoughts on it all but in short I must say your trying to set the Rainbow Family up to be a legal group entity that is destinct and differentiated from the whole of humanity, as in a group which would call for the whole page to be revamped to express that they are an entity proper. Will reply with my personal thoughts within 48 hours however I almost feel like a counsel on the land needs to be call for clarification.............. TwoFeathers, What do you think about calling a counsel on the land? Any ideas? When is the next scheduled counsel? Is it in Arkansas over T-Day? Lookingheart 05:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

i beleive there will be a thanksgiving council in oklahoma soon, while i think that council of rainbow members on the land may be the only true way to solve this problem between all parties, as council on the land for rainbow IS the final answer, and i ask that decesions be held till the rainbow council is held, so that they may address this issue. not knowing who oceancat is will certainly preclude his input of true council decsions made. as there is others here who are known, and if oceankat wishs to introduce himself so that we could be sure he is included in true rainbow council. i will personaly make sure he gets a invitation to that council, as i note his yahoo addy he uses is totally unkown by any rainbow people, and is anonymous in using this forum with no true knowledge of rainbow at all. this is not saying the mediator is not fair but is unkowledgable in the ways of rainbow. Twofeathers 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You know quite well that Thanksgiving council is open to all. It will be announced on all the traditional rainbow websites and no special invitation is required. All peaceful people are invited and all are treated in a non heirarchical and egualitarian manner. Oceankat 02:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but can you guys clarify for me what exactly you are proposing? It sounds like you are suggesting that one or more outside parties are going to decide whether to split these gatherings into a separate article - is that accurate? If so, I would prefer if everyone involved could agree on a specific course of action - either we close the case and agree that whatever the council suggests is what you will do, or we leave the case open but "on hold" until after you have the council meeting. In either case, I would like to get Oceankat's agreement as well. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think what is being suggested/proposed is that the Rainbow Family decide in an open counsel on the land if they want to be split and defined into a group or groups. By separating the different tribes in Rainbow you in effect create definable entities and unfairly steal from the vision of ALL people's being of one tribe, that tribe being the Rainbow Family of Living Light under one sky. Rainbow Family has a traditional process in which these issues are handled in an egalitarian manner. People are called together in a talking circle to discuss the issues at hand. If certain parties have a topic that they want to bring to the conversation then they let it be known when the feather is passed their way. By respectfully asking who is and who is not Rainbow we might better be able to solve this issue that is currently being mediated here on the Wikipedia. I must say though, Rainbow does not like to have tribes excluded from the circle as it would create an entity proper, Rainbow is not a formal entity though some people might like to think otherwise. Rainbow includes all tribes, groups and individuals. I believe this is what's missing in the conversation here. AGOTT is but one tribe within the Rainbow Family. The AGOTT gatherings have every right to counsel and become however they see fit and expand the beauty of the Rainbow however far is needed to live the heartsong that dwells within the circle. In short, Spirit dictates and we as individuals have little to do with what energy abounds. I believe I am going to formally call a counsel on the land at the Thanksgiving Counsel Circle and ask the individuals there if AGOTT is family, are our counsels valid and do we as a tribe have the right to host annual gatherings in the Spirit of Rainbow. This has already been done in several circles and the answer has always been positive. Lookingheart 23:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Again the problem in that I am constantly addressing Lookingheart's ideas and concerns and he is without exception ignoring me in this mediation. This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I have requested mediation of. I have repeatedly stated that I, and I believe most people who feel a part of the rainbow family, see the agott gatherings as rainbow gatherings. I know there are a few that claim agott are not rainbow gatherings but those people are probably less than a tenth of one percent. By the same token I believe those who would claim that AGOTT is the equivalent of the Annual/National are also less than a tenth of one percent. From the start Lookingheart and twofeathers have been argueing that AGOTT are rainbow gatherings and I see no one here argueing they are not. I have no doubt that virtually any council would agree that, "AGOTT is family," (your) counsels (are) valid and (you)have right to host annual gatherings in the Spirit of Rainbow." If your purpose in going to council is to get a consensus that "AGOTT gatherings are rainbow gatherings with valid councils that can hold gatherings as often as they wish" we can agree to that right now and proceed with this mediation without delay. The issue this mediation is attempting to address is what is the criterion for the inclusion of small gatherings in this article and more specifically on the list of The Annual/National Rainbow Gatherings and what would be the proper way to do that. Oceankat 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

exactly what you stated in the last of this particular post you made is the reason why council should decide the issue, not two or three individuals here on this debate. i feel like maybe you are trying to talk for rainbow, and you are trying to exclude rights to others who may not agree with your particular decesion. rainbow is not about one persons thought on how it should be. and that is how you are doing it right now. thinking objectivly. you state if it doesn't get recognition in newspapers it is not rainbow, if it doesn't get recognition by fs, it is not rainbow, thats using your justification of persons attending to justify what is rainbow annual and what is not. or if it is put in a newspaper article as another justification that if it gets recognition of happening again it is rainbow or not. on the land in council only those who respect that council will know what it says as truth. no reason why anyone would not want council to hear the argument and make a decesion to how they feel that the lisiting should be done. would you agree to letting council on the land, decide how it should be listed? or do you prefer to use your personal judgement to dictate what is or not? remember no one person can speak for rainbow. and that council will be the national thanksgiving council too, not just some regional or alternative council. and if you would have us all assume council does not speak for rainbow, that again goes against everything you have written so far and is contradictory. Twofeathers 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Twofeathers, you post in reference to me, "you state if it doesn't get recognition in newspapers it is not rainbow, if it doesn't get recognition by fs, it is not rainbow" My postings on this issue are unequivocal and absolutely clear. I posted more than these 3 times above, "I see the "gathering of the tribes" gatherings as rainbow gatherings." "I have never disputed the contention that "gathering of the tribes" are rainbow gatherings. "If your purpose in going to council is to get a consensus that "AGOTT gatherings are rainbow gatherings with valid councils that can hold gatherings as often as they wish" we can agree to that right now." I have no time to waste in pointing out your gross distortion of my position and views that are in clear contradiction to my posts. I am having trouble believing you are engaged in good faith discussion here, it appears your purpose is obfuscation. Oceankat 17:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add to this that I have no doubt that many more than a dozen gatherings that have been in existance longer than AGOTT could also get a consensus from council that they are "rainbow gatherings with valid councils that can hold rainbow gatherings as often as they wish" I fail to see how this advances this mediation. Oceankat 01:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
To try and answer your question succinctly Oceankat, what is exceptional about the AGOTT Gatherings is the nature in which they have manifested, the number of counsels in which the vision has been presented and the sheer volume of interest in helping create more of these unified gatherings across the land. This is a colossal vision that will have manifold effects in helping support and uplift Rainbow Gatherings and community as a whole. It's a dynamic evolution that is unprecedented in the hipstory of Rainbow. Opportunities to expand on such a grand scale have never presented themselves in such a universal manner nor have so many focalizers been involved in one common vision. It's the future of Rainbow as we phoenix up out of the ashes and expand. It's about Spirit and growing into the tribe we project ourselves to be - the 13th tribe being born again. It beautiful and it's happening right now! Lookingheart 05:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Here again is another one of our major disagreements and is directly relevant to the inclusion of this data in this wiki article. Are agott historical data or are they in the future? Will they have manifold effects or will they find little support and fade away? Is it a phoenex rising out of the ashes or a spark that yeilds no sustaining flame soon consumed by the greater fire? Neither you nor I are prophets. Neither you nor I know whether agott will continue to be a little known gathering of little importance or whether it will manifest as your grand vision. Its in the future and the future is unknow, it is not historical data. At the moment agott, especially the GA and the WV gatherings are small, little know and little attended gatherings. At the moment there are at least a dozen larger and better know expansions of the Annual/National that have been having gatherings longer than agott. Hundreds larger, better know, and longer running than the agott in WV and GA. You can enunciate your vision and prophesy in any number of places but this wiki article is not the place for it. At the moment agott are small local gatherings, among the smaller and newest of the numerous local gatherings, nothing more. If they are the future and it becomes evident that your prophesy was correct they will be included, when it truely is historical data. Its inappropiate to include tham now. Oceankat 18:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Focus. Lookingheart, please discuss the alternatives that have been proposed and whether they are satisfactory.Clappingsimon talk 02:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the waters are getting muddied here a bit. As Oceankat stated, this mediation isn't about whether AGOTT are recognized or not recognized. The issue is that some editors don't consider AGOTT to be notable enough to list on this article. Therefore, various proposals have been discussed to get around this issue. Lookingheart, I need to you address this concern head-on, without any discussion of councils - because frankly, they have no bearing here on Wikipedia. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Question

What good are these mediation conversations if folks such as Bstone are just going to come onto the wikipedia and strike out historical data without benefit of consensus? Lookingheart 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

The good of the mediation is that we are building a consensus that hopefully everyone will respect. There are processes in place to deal with editors who refuse to respect community consensus, once we are finished.
Early on, I suggested that everyone stop editing the list. At least two of you disregarded my suggestion, which is perfectly within your right. I even had the page semi-protected to stop the anonymous editing, so everyone could plainly see who was editing the list. This was not a deterrant, as it turned out. I am ignoring the edits because it is irrelevent to the mediation. As I said before, once you all agree to a solution, and we have a consensus, it will be easier to deal with those going against it.

Thanks! I feel that it is wrong to change the historical listings on the main article at this time because there is ongoing mediation. To change the information in mid stream is a mockery of this mediation process and projects an air that there is already a decision made as to what will be listed. When I revert the dates I am generally careful to insure I am logged on as well as list those changes as noted above. From what I can discern it is Bstone who has been placing the derogatory remarks and making the date changes. I take this as an affront and circumvention to the mediation process and quite disrespectful to any and all editors whom are engaged in the mediation process. Lookingheart 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

Yes it is Bstone who is placing the remarks on the talk page. Bstone, do you care to respond to Lookingheart's concern? I would like to stress that posting accusations of vandalism on a talk page is in itself vandalism. --Aguerriero (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I find it curious that listing utterly historical, entirely accepted information can be considered vandalism. If warning someone that a crime has been committed is in itself committing that very crime then I am rather confused. Bstone 14:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Bstone, that is not the issue. We are trying to come to a consensus as a group about the issue. Have you considered that your accusations of vandalism may be inappropriate at this time? You and Lookingheart are both making edits of opinion to the article - it is his opinion that the information should be there, it is your opinion that it should not. That is the very issue I am mediating. Until we reach a consensus, neither of you are really "vandalizing" the page. You are edit warring, but that is not the same thing. Make sense?--Aguerriero (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, after the plea to end the edit warring was made, Lookingheart continued to do so. I was dragged into it by my overwhelming sense to correct misinformation. Being that Lookingheart is simply adding (disputed) information to the historical section, and being that Lookingheart and everyone else agrees that the "reverted" information is accurate, then any claim of vandalism levied against me simply does not hold water. It may be someone's opinion that an accusation of vandalism against Lookingheart is incorrect but in my opinion it is entirely correct. Certainly there is a level of relativity here which must be addressed.Bstone 08:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is disputed whether the information should be here. And thus we go 'round. I suggest you both ask yourselves, though, whether your actions are helping the situation or exacerbating the situation. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Since it is disputed information it should not be included. Adding disputed information only leads to further dispute. Unless the page is entirely locked, I fear this edit war will continue. The only solution, thus, is to have historical data for these non-National Rainbow Gatherings moved to their own page. Listing them here will continue the dispute and, quite simply, is the wrong place for it. Bstone 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A new proposal

Okay, just trying to summarize recent events so we can all try to get in focus about the final decision.

  • A recent proposal was to move AGOTT listings to a new article, which was agreed to by Oceankat and Bstone.
  • Twofeathers also agreed with conditions that the listings be properly linked to the main article. Twofeathers also raised some additional concerns about the truthfulness of other aspects of the article, which I'm confident can be addressed outside of this mediation
  • Lookingheart rejected this proposal, asserting that the listings should not be separated in this mannner.

Does that sound about right so far?

Lookingheart appears to have made a counterproposal that the AGOTT listings stay in the Rainbow Gatherings article, but in a section called Alternative Rainbow Gatherings. What does everyone think of that? I would like to stress that at this point, Lookingheart has given some ground, which I consider a good faith effort to solve this issue. Please be mindful of that in your responses. --Aguerriero (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AGOTT is a seperate event from the main Rainbow Gathering and thus it's historical information should be included in it's own article. Listing it here would be, quite simply, the wrong place. Bstone 14:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Bstone - please consider these questions: Does it hurt the Rainbow Gathering page to have a section entitled Alternate Gatherings, for the listing of other annuals? Also, being that the audience seeking information on AGOTT would likely be the same type of audience seeking information on Rainbow Gatherings, does it make sense to have them on the same page? I have no opinion one way or another - just asking you to consider. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Let us be clear exactly what is being proposed here. A section of this article that is beyond editors control. Questions of notability or verifiabilty are not pertinent to this section. Lookingheart can list as many gatherings as he wishes and no one can question his listings. Gatherings, such as the WV gathering, which never happened before, can be listed before they happen without there being any reasonable conjecture possible as to the number of people (or if any) who might attend or even that it will actually be an annual gathering as there is no evidence that the same people who planned it this year will have the time, energy or desire to plan it next year. If lookingheart can list gatherings such as this than anyone can, and eventually anyone will. This has been a problem with rainbow calenders. For some, a significant minority perhaps, rainbow is like a religion. They desire gatherings everyday of every month of every year. 10, 5, or even 1 person will call a gathering, list it on a calender and hope people show up and make it happen. If the moderator of the calender refuses to list it they were condemned, if the gathering was listed and it didn't manifest they were condemned. Lookingheart has made it clear that he intends to list more gatherings next year. Most will be like the WV gathering. I offered this compromise to lookingheart before this mediation began in an effort to protect other sections of the article. I will still accept it to protect the Annual/National Gathering list from descending into chaos. A section where Lookingheart or anyone else can place any gathering they wish no matter how small without any questions being raised about notability or verifiability. Oceankat 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
To respond to your questions. 1) It is confusing when a person attempts to view the historical data only to see things which one does not recognize. Most "regular Rainbows" would look at Lookingheart's verion of the historical data and be entirely confused. 2) The audience seeking information on Rainbow Gathering is doing just that. They are not seeking information on AGOTT. If they are then there should be a seperate wikipedia page for them to go to. It's not the annual Rainbow Gathering and almost no one who attends said Rainbow Gathering even has the slighest idea that Looking heart puts on something even remotely similar. That all said, AGOTT simply doesn't belong on this page. There should be a seperate with all that information included on it.Bstone 14:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

sounds fine, keeps similar content in line with article, no problem here! Twofeathers 23:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

in the listing of annuals under the ones or after the ones that happen the same year could be listed as alternative, with that word interdisposed into the list, i feel putting the word alternative will not take away from the article at all but add to it. this is not the place for regional info, but a place for annual info, and since the agot is an annual, listing it with the other with a discloser (alternative) covers the article and keeps it intact seperate but same in content. creating another section or area on main page with the words alternative annual gatherings will cover that, keeping the other list as seperate from the other. again i say no place for regionals at all. but a place to recognize in the rainbow family archives a place for all annuals. Twofeathers 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-re-focus

Once again, I will try to summarize recent points:

  • Proposal ONE was to move the AGOTT listings to a new article. Supported by Oceankat, Twofeathers (with conditions), and Bstone. Rejected by Lookingheart.
  • Proposal TWO (put forward by Lookingheart) was to put the AGOTT listings in a separate section in this article. Supported by Lookingheart and Twofeathers. Rejected by Bstone. Oceankat has not commented on this proposal yet.

The situation is complicated by the fact that most of you seem to know each other outside of Wikipedia (or at least are familiar with each other) and this dispute clearly reaches way past the boundaries of Wikipedia.

I want to encourage other proposed solutions at this time, and also reiterate that in order for this mediation to be successful, everyone has to be willing to compromise. As you are considering either making a proposal or commenting on a proposal, please consider this point. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal two would cause a tremendous amount of confusion. Additionally, no "regular" Rainbow participant would have any clue what the "AGOTT" is nor why it would be on the main Rainbow Gathering article. Quite simply, it's the wrong place for it and would only cause ambiguity.Bstone 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I read the artical and as a "regular" rainbow I have no problem with other gatherings being listed. After reading this and knowing the gatherings I would have to say that this guy Oceankat and Bstone are trying to be exclusive, which rainbow is not. There is no official rainbow gatherings that I know of and if people want to have gatherings then so be it. My family went to the gathering in missouri in 2005 and the one in colorado in 2006 and the one in missouri was way better for us and our kids as it was more of a rainbow gathering then all the violence that went down in colorado. I say if people want to list their gatherings then that is fine, Welcome Home and learn to cooperate folks. Dante420 00:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Dante420
This user seems to be a sockpuppet for Lookingheart. Bstone 13:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

putting AGOT into a new article means it is something totally different and not rainbow, that would be the only reason to make it seperate, But AGOT is rainbow, and should be on the rainbow page. wether it be a different section on the main article, or interfused with the main article. to say people just don't know about agot is foolish. it has been brought up in main circle many time over the last few years, and has been argued about. one side says it splits the family the other says it expands it. which is right? i see no splits, the main article leaves so much real truth out, and those truths are why gatherings like AGOT are happening , and in more frequency too! that is why the gatherings similar to the main, (not regionals) are popping up. no satisfaction in gathering because of violence and such is why the main and alot of older rainbows are going over to the alternative gatherings. this isn't about putting that info into the main article but to explain why they happen. violence, drainbows, heavy drugs and such that have invaded the gathering on the inside, (which by the way used to at a-camp). this is why they are happening, no one wants to hear the bad things, just the good. but the article has to be as perfect as we as editors can make it, more and more rainbows of old school are going to the alternative gatherings. and an influx of kids who received the original message and dislike the violence and such. to tell these people they don't exist and their gatherings should not be listed as rainbow, seperates them to the point to say (your not on the in-team) thats what people will see if there is a completely different article on a different page. the main page IS about rainbow, when leaving other annuals out it purposely says you are NOT rainbow.thats what people looking at the article will see, as if it isn't listed in the rainbow article, it just isn't real enough to be rainbow. and that gives one side the anti-split-the-family side the amunition to say "SEE it isn't a real gathering". putting a section in there with its own header on the paragraph, esentualy seperates the main gathering but also shows what is happening in the family. this goes back to edits of the main page to add the violence and other negative things to make it a real TRUTH in facts. i see i put the original invite, which by the way was in the oracle, and have seen it deleted numerous times by who? yep truth is on paper but it isn't always put into newspapers or fs reports or books by a single person. do i scan a copy and send it in to show it was real? how many have a copy of the original? or is it word of mouth only in these articles, thats what i see as fact.you all are fighting over which bean is fruitful, when all beans fertilized result in a crop. very few do not produce a plant! Twofeathers 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the great feedback! We still have one main problem though: a disagreement over whether alternative gatherings have a place on this page. Those who say they do have conceeded that they can go in their own section, and Oceankat (the one who filed this mediation) has agreed to that for the sake of maintaining order in the main list of nationals. As far as I can tell, Bstone is the only one who has flat out refused to have alternative gatherings listed anywhere on this page.
Bstone - if the new section is clearly marked as "alternative gatherings", don't you think that would eliminate any possible confusion for readers? Even if they didn't recognize the information, would they still be confused? Anything that is notable and verifiable can be included in a Wikipedia article; it would be Lookingheart's responsibility to ensure those requirements of anything he lists there. Consider this, please? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

4th Opinion

Hello. I was called in by Aguerriero to give a 4th opinion here. I have started by removing 3 large blockquotes of primary text that are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. They're retained in the history, of course, and may be accessed in case anyone wishes to move them to Wikibooks. I will look over the disputed questions in the near future, and hopefully will formulate an opinion.

I would like to remind you all that it is appropriate to refrain from editing the article in potentially controversial ways during the pendency of the arbitration. This is a collaborative effort at an encyclopedia, and the community here has very little patience for those who come here with an "ax to grind". Let's focus on figuring out the best plan of action in order to conform to the ideas expressed in WP:ENC and WP:NOT. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 22:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that beyond the edit war there have been some extreemly controversial additions to this article. Its not that I object to the additions but that they are not presented from a neutral point of view. These additions are clearly designed to irk those who are argueing against the addition of the agott gatherings. Apparently I am the only one involved in this mediation who has agreed to not edit the main page and my frustration and annoyance over that fact is beginning to grow. Oceankat 02:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Clearly, Lookingheart agrees that the information in the historical listing is accurate- in any incarnation. Meaning, even when I repost the non-disputed history even Lookingheart will agrees that it is an accurate representation of the National/Annual Gathering. That said, being this is the common denominator, I would suggest that Lookingheart cease his publishing of disputed information until such a time there we come to an agreement here. Bstone 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Bstone, I do not agree for valid reason and as soon as this mediation issue is over I will address the article and suggest appropriate changes to reflect those inclusions myself and others see as misleading, particularly gatherings that where held under a permit. Those gatherings where hosted by individuals and traitor groups who should be held liable for their events, not the whole of humanity. I trust you know that there are many in the family who do not accept permitted gatherings as bonifide Rainbow Gatherings. Please do not speak for me or assume you know my mind, we have never met and I have given you such privilege to voice my opinion. Lookingheart 23:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Lookingheart, "traitor groups"? What??? This is sounding more like your own attempts at redefining the annual Rainbow Gathering than an a goal of including your tiny "gatherings" in this list. You're sounding more like a purist/conspiracy therorist than anything. Yikes. Bstone 03:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Traitor Groups" indeed. People who circumvent the rights of others trading liberty for license, they are traitors. You may even know some of those folks who are acting in concert with the National Rainbow Management Team to sign permits. You should get out more Bradley. As far as redefining, that's being done every time one of the Members of the Rainbow Family speaks for the non-members who would prefer to keep the gatherings as freeform as possible. You know, kind of like the Nazi's forcing their will on minorities or some Hi Ho's trying to dictate what is and isn't Rainbow or some of them other do gooder's who kick up Magic Hat PayPal accounts in the name of family. Their out there and I just bet you know a few of them ; ) Ever notice any of that kind of activity happening in your Rainbow World or is it just some boogy man stories to scare the little children? Lookingheart 04:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
So there are traitors, Nazis and a "National Rainbow Management Team". Lookingheart, any credibility you may have had just went out the window. As a Jew I am personally insulted at your linking anything Rainbow with the evils of the Nazis. You have crossed the line, sir, I for one will now forever block any attempt you have at modifying these pages. Will an Administrator or Moderator please speak to Lookingheart about his language. It's entirely horrid. Bstone 08:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Your credibility has been gone for a while Bradley expecially when you started placing derogitory remarks on the talk page. My biological family fled Germany and Poland to come to a free America so your not the only one effected. I am appauled at your attitude and the way you are dubiously working the Rainbow Family and your attempts at suffering the freedoms of my brothers and sisters by engaging in trying to sequester their heartsongs. Be that as it may, there is no love lose between you and I. Lookingheart 14:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart
Lookingheart, you need to look deep into your heart and attempt to realize what you do, say and write only serves to harm more than help. You might be a nice person but you entirely lack any tact. Any discussion with you is impossible- this is fact. Bstone 14:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot see how we can reach a compromise on the addition of alternative gatherings without a discussion of the standards for inclusion of these gatherings. Before this mediation began and throughout it my questions have been clear. What constitutes notability for alternative gatherings? What constitutes verifiability for alternative gatherings? What is the criterion for the inclusion of gatherings that are in the future and that have no history of previous gatherings? These questions have not been addressed. While we are specifically discussing Lookingheart's gatherings, in my opinion this is not about agott. This is about why and how many of the many alternative gatherings are going to be included on this page. I would like to discuss one gathering lookingheart added, specifically the WV gathering. There is no prior history of this gathering. When it was listed it was in the future. There was no independent source for information about this gathering. There were no reports from the gathering from any attendees. Not only is there no information about this gathering in any local newspaper, I have been unable to get any rumors as to the number of people that attended. There has been no response from Lookingheart to any of my requests for further information about this gathering both before and during this mediation. If this gathering is an appropiate addition to this article than any person can list any gathering that has ever happened in the past or that is anticipated in the future. Even gatherings that are nothing more than a wish and a dream. This is the problem that I believe we are discussing in this mediation with lookingheart's gatherings being the specific example that began that discussion. It seems to me that the compromises being discussed here, whether to have a separate article or a separate section with-in this article, violate any reasonable standards for an encyclopedia entry and the rules of wikipedia. As a new editor here I feel I have yet to study wikipedia standards comprehensibly and subsequently I'm not capable of a competant discussion of wikipedia standards. I was hoping issues concerning wikipedia standards would be addressed by more experienced editors once this mediation began. Oceankat 22:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Two points of clarification for you OceanKat. The AGOTT Gatherings are not my gatherings. If you want to attend one of my gatherings then please surf on over to The Peace Conspiracy website or check out the listings on Welcomehere.org or maybe the Rainbowguide.info site. Additionally if you really want to attend one of my gatherings, concerts, festivals or any other endeavors I help focalize then please feel free to join one of the many rainbow network mailing lists that I help steward. The AGOTT Rainbow Gatherings are no more my gatherings then the Annual / National Rainbow Gatherings are yours. Point 2: The Wikipedia article we are discussing is about Rainbow Gatherings. It is not about the Annual/National Gatherings specifically. If you want to create another Wikipedia article concerning the Annual / National Rainbow Gatherings specifically then I would help support your heartsong.
I am going to try and address at least one of your other concerns in this communiqué, that being the West Virginia Rainbow Gathering (AGOTT) ----> I have Robin's phone number (A Focalizer for that gathering). If you would like to contact him personally then please email or shoot me a kite from my user page and I will be happy to give you his number or scan you a copy of the invitation. Additionally, I seen where someone posted information about the 2006 Annual Rainbow Gathering PRIOR to it even happening. Do you feel this is proper or are you intentionally overlooking that inclusion? The AGOTT Rainbow Gatherings are in unity. This means that even if there are thirty of them in 2007 they will still be in unity with ALL the other Rainbow Gatherings, including the ad hoc Annual / National Rainbow Gathering(s).
I again encourage you to consider that the Rainbow Gatherings are expanding and many people are tired of the issues that surround the Annual / National Rainbow Gatherings and are desiring to manifest quality rainbow gatherings that have some substance and safety. Can you really in good faith deny your brothers and sisters the right to gather freely and of their own choosing? Has the "(Un)Official" Annual / National become such a huge mainstay in your life that you cant cooperate in solidarity to help something else grow and become? Wouldn't you like to see a million points of light oming for world peace all at once? By attempting to sequester valid information aren't you in essence doing to your family what the FS is attempting to do to the Rainbow Family? Think about, we are all doing what we can to further the cause of world peace by energizing rainbow gatherings, cant you find it in your heart to walk the path softly and with a humble heart? Just think about it is all I ask. Lookingheart 23:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart


The Annual/National Gathering has taken place since 1972. Therefore it was almost certain that it would in fact take place in Colorado as per vision council consensus. The gathering in WV was a brand new gathering in its first year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Relavant section from the link, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." But I would have no problem agreeing that no gathering should be listed on wikipedia until after it has occured and is truely "historical." What you don't seem to grasp is that if you can post the WV gathering anyone else can post its equivalant. I know you are aware of what happens to unmoderated rainbow calenders. This is one of the big issues for me in this mediation, not agott. Oceankat 00:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I do grasp OceanKat but was wondering why you hadnt mentioned the 2006 Annual / National being listed prior to it actually happening. I take it that you either missed it or hadnt mentioned it intentionally, either way it is a done deal at this point. As to the calendars, I do understand because I help maintain several and for valid reason those calendars are moderated with various focalizers having access where the general public does not. Regardless, I would like to hear what criteria you would find acceptable for inclusions into the Alternative Rainbow Section should we agree on that point. Likewise, if you would like to work on that together in a sandbox off in the distance I would welcome working with you on such a project. Let me know what your ideas are, shine!!!! Lookingheart 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart


Oceankat, thanks for responding here. Your point is definitely well-taken. If you read my latest response in the section above (Re-re-focus), you will see that I have pointed out that whether alternative gatherings are listed here or in a separate article, it is the responsibility of the editor adding them to make sure they are both notable and verifiable. I think that addresses your concern directly. As to the items that Lookingheart currently has on the list, I am ignoring them until we at least get this first question answered. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i would like to ask what the neutral editors would concider notable and verifiable? does a newspaper article constitute notability? how about a report from forest service and or state agencies? if i look at the article as it is written now, not just the listings where they occured i find a combination of all agencies in there. is that notable? and verifiable? if i get a report from fs and or state agencies to AGOT happenings does this constitute notability and verifiable information. or am i to take what a person told a reporter and the reporter printed it as verifiable? remember there is very little verified info on the main page. most is historical in nature and very few people have the correct history in text or pictures. how was any part of the info that is anywhere on the whole article been verified? and where is this verification of those writings? i have not seen them, but i do note much is the ramblings of a very few and mostly incorrect, and unverifiable. if i look at the list of gatherings, the one in WV was not at consensed place of family as well as a few other gatherings, so i can't use concensus to verify the validity of those gatherings being actual rainbow since councel did not pick those sites,and i would not take the word of one person telling a reporter his story as verifiable history either. is this to mean they are not rainbow gatherings because they were not picked by the rainbow family but were picked by the forest service for a gathering? very confusing to say the least. Twofeathers 00:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Twofeathers, I will try to answer your questions about notability and verifiability. First, notability is determined by consensus of the community. If you make an article about something, or add information to an article, that most editors consider to be non-notable, it will likely be removed by another editor. Sometimes people get into wars about this, which is partially what has happened here. Notability is a guideline, and as such is open to interpretation. If the majority of editors in here determine that alternative gatherings are notable, then they are.
On the other hand, verifiability is a policy, meaning it is a requirement. See WP:V for the full policy, but it basically states that you, as an editor, are responsible for making sure anything you post to Wikipedia is verifiable. That means a non-trivial publication has written about it. You have to use citations in the article to prove this. Yes, there are lots of things on Wikipedia that don't follow this policy, and there are many editors here who have undertaken the huge task of addressing these issues. We are here building an encyclopedia, and it is our job to address these issues as we can.
So what does it mean for this article? It means that not only do we have to agree where alternative gatherings should be listed, but we also have to agree on whether they are notable and verifiable. If the consensus is that they are not notable or not verifiable, then they can't stay here. Quite plainly, if no one can produce a non-trivial source for the information about AGOT, then they can't be here period. For now, I am willing to assume that someone here can find sources if we decide the information belongs here. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Date wrong

the arrest of the murder suspect is said to be at the 1998 gathering, but the source given is dated 1997. this is not possible that a published source is given for something not yet given. DO other dates also not match up?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.221.29.197 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC) As far as I know, the incident occurred in 1997.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rainbow_Gathering/Archive_2&oldid=1146626890"