Talk:Rainbow Gathering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1
  2. Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Closing mediation

Hello folks. First, thanks for all your input and discussion in this mediation. I unfortunately must close the case and declare it as unsuccessful. The reason is that despite all of the conversation, we didn't really make any progress toward obtaining a consensus on the two main issues: whether the alternative gatherings belong here, and whether they are notable and verifiable. We ran into several problems, not the least of which was the edit warring during the mediation.

I leave you with two final suggestions, which I strongly urge you to follow:

  • Make sure anything you add to this article is notable by community consensus, and verifiable by providing a non-trivial citation. See WP:V if you aren't sure what this means.
  • Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a battle ground for real world issues.

If there are further problems here, and I'm sure there will be, any of you can take additional steps including:

Good luck, and feel free to leave me a message on my Talk page, or send me an e-mail if any of you would like additional advice from me. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Hmmm... I see this has now been closed. I'm sorry I wasn't able to fully participate here. I will continue monitoring the page and want to warn you all once again not to edit-war. Good luck. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aguerriero, you've invested a fair amount of time in an article that most likely you would not have spent time on but for this mediation. Its unfotunate that we were unsuccessful. As I said earlier, I'm truely amazed at what wikipedia has accomplished and part of that is procedurers for the resolution of disputes. Even though we've failed to achieve compromise we have left behind a record of our thoughts and attempts that will hopefully makes the next steps in this process a little easier. I appreciate you taking the time to teach this beginning editor something of wikipedia's procedures and standards. I certainly learned a lot. I think this is one of the problems with this article. So many of the editors, myself included, are unclear as to what is appropiate for an encyclopedia article, what are the standards and why they should be maintained. I'll wait a few days to recomfirm that the dispute is on going and then begin to take the next steps in this process. Oceankat 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The record will indicate that there was no compromise met, but clearly there was an attempt. It was entirely clear that Lookingheart will accept nothing other than his way and none other, while the rest of us were willing to accept some manner of compromise (sometimes more, sometimes less). I fear that the edit war will continue, with Lookingheart continually publishing entirely disputed material for his tiny 75 person "gathering" under the section of the national 15,000 person Gathering. This much is clear. What is further that is that myself and maybe one or two others will take it upon ourselves to continually counteract Lookingheart's vandalism and post entirely accepted information. This will most likely result in an edit-war. It however seems to me that the person in the wrong, clearly, is Lookingheart. He has not demonstrated any non-trivial sources for his "gathering" yet continually demands and edits the historical data to reflect his own personal agenda. Perhaps at some point he will tire of it and then this will all be a thing of the archives. Bstone 22:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Aguerriero, and much blessings to those who try and create peace in our times. I too appreciate your efforts and the good you brought to the conversation even though compromises that where offered did not reach a full maturity and consensus, that doesn't mean the seeds for future understandings aren't now germinating. OceanKat, as I have said before, I do appreciate and understand your concerns. By appreciation I mean that I trust you will continue working on the Wikipedia and that you will raise concerns that are valid, this is important if understanding is ever to be communicated. In the Spirit of family I encourage you to contact me on the side bar and lets see if we can at least find a common happy medium. I truly believe that headway was well on course even if we had one person not willing to reach any consensus other then their own. Bstone, your carrying a weight around. As a person who is walking a healing path I would think that you might understand how Spirit can operate through the unknown. I have much love for the family. It would be incredible if your heart got touched in an awesome manner that suddenly excited you to the idea that Rainbow is remanifesting. This should be a unifying birth and celebrated even if the contractions are somewhat painful. Lets remember what we are trying to convey as we dance the rainbow and become the tribe we want to be. Looking forward to seeing the future together. Shine Lookingheart 01:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

[edit] request for mediation

  • I have filed a request for formal mediation of this dispute. As instructed I have listed the information below about this request on these user's talk pages. I'm posting it here as well so that everyone is aware of the process being initiated. Hopefully I have fully understood what I need to do and haven't made too many errors. Oceankat 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/rainbow gathering, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

[edit] request for protection

    • Asking that the page protection be lifted and the edit be reverted due to Bstones changing the text on several occasions, numerous defamations and continued vandalism of the article. Lookingheart 06:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

Actually LH I have to agree with the protection. It is a shame that this has come to this but the page needs to be protected until we can get proper mediation with you or you start to take some responsibility for your actions to derail this listing. You have refused mediation, refused to listen to the advice and guidance of the last mediator or your peers. Mediation failed twice – both because of you. Once because you would not agree with the mediator’s suggestions, the other because you refused to participate so you have no one to blame now but yourself. You have continually shown that you will accept no answer but your own – regardless of group consensus or mediator input. This is what has brought it to this. You have shown Wikipedia, AGR and the world that your ego and desire to promote your own selfish interest has run amok and interfered with anything you can throw a monkey wrench in – such as this group. Why you don’t even attend national rainbow gatherings anymore – why should you care. This page is for listing of factual information about the National/Annual gathering with reference to other gatherings. However you seem to want to fill it with a disproportionate amount of information about AGOT gatherings, which have no more weight than NERF, BARF, SCROLL, Katuah or other tribes that are not filling this listing with tons of misleading info. Furthermore you fill these pages with misleading info, and crazy and unfounded accusations that are not based in any reality other than the fantasy in your head. LH really think about this and what your motivations really are – try to look at this from the point of large established gatherings vs small regional tribes – the AGOT being perhaps the smallest and least established of the many regional tribes and think what makes sense. Then perhaps come back here with a proposal but try for once to think with logic and not your own personal ego and agenda. For now it would be nice if we could get beyond this and get back to improving and editing the entry as it needs some serious editing, but right now your actions LH – not anyone else’s are preventing that from being able to happen. Hawker--24.196.172.115 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Well it appears we will have at least a brief respite from the edit warring. Since Lookingheart has refused to accept formal mediation I have no choice but to request arbitration. As I understand it this will bring about a decision that all must abide by. I'm quite busy finishing up a job and figureing out the proper protocal for these requests can be a bit time consuming. I probably won't have time to get to it until Thursday. I'll notify, and I have little doubt arbitration requires that I notify, all those involved when I submit the request. Oceankat 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree we proceed with arbitration. It is clear that Lookingheart has no interest in mediation or any agreement/settlement other than his own. I have read up on arbitration for wikipedia and it is the way to go. I look forward to it being submitted to the ArbCom. Bstone 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration

Greetings, as I said I have moved forward with a request for arbitration of the desputes over the additions of AGOTT. You can view the request at the link and add your thoughts useing the link below. Sorry it took so long but I was quite busy and I'm not a geek. It takes a lot of figuring out to get these requests right. Oceankat 19:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests

I have unprotected the article so we can evaluate what is happening now. Fred Bauder 09:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I brace myself for a return to the edit war. Bstone 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Several people are watching this article aside from the normal contributors at this point, so perhaps another edit war can be avoided. I do think that this case is misinterpreted as a content dispute, however; it is really about the behavior of an editor. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Back to Editing

I added back some links for CALM and water that were removed by LH edit wars from around August 1st. I know these were LH removed since the history shows an edit to just remove these links. This makes me worried about what else may have gotten removed during this edit war.

The whole article needs major cleanup and work. I would like to do this as a group rather than one person hacking up the entry by themselves. This way we all agree. Who else is editing this page and are you interested in working together? Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org --24.196.172.115 00:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep Clappingsimon talk 01:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article needs at least some cleanup. For one example the link to a few people chatting about Grandfather David on a google newsgroup. Much as I find the stories about Grandfather David interesting and pertinent, a chat on agr isn't an appropiate link in an encyclopedia article. But after the last brouhaha I've been sitting back for a while to let things calm down. I see that others with greater experience have been makeing some much welcomed changes, welcomed at least by me. But I would be open to being involved in any discussions that might take place. Oceankat 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I cannot understand why LH would remove the CALM link. He has publically accused me of theft of donated money, so perhaps that explains it. Thank you, Hawker, for being so diligent. Bstone 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This page has quite a bit of POV ("the Gatherings reflect an incredible splendor and magical diversity of the Rainbow Tribes empowered.", "While alcohol is strongly discouraged, mind expanding sacraments such as psycedelics and marijuana are in wide used by some people."), and needs cleanup and organization to make a more focused article. I cannot copyedit the article right now. Thus the tags. --mcpusc 01:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are all in agreement that this needs major cleanup. I had hoped to work on this around now, with the help of others, unfortunatly my work requirements have prevented me from having time now. Perhaps I can pitch in this winter. For now I need to back off my offer - sorry. Hawker --24.196.172.115 14:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I've been going ahead and doing stuff. I am pretty non-attached to my edits and don't take offense at revisions and reversions; I'd rather Just Do It than spend a lot of time proposing my changes on this page. If anyone has any issues with the overall direction of my edits I'm happy to discuss. Charles T. Betz 01:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms and difficulties section

I have added a criticisms and difficulties section to start a little more balance in this article. My insights are based on personal attendance at national gatherings in Colorado, Missouri and Oregon. Charles T. Betz 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably original research. Fred Bauder 04:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good, but no sources cited. Also, your reason for removing this edit is not adequate. It is a fair expression of the Utopian point of view, although also unsourced. Fred Bauder 04:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious POV

This article is full of weasel words and was obviously written from the POV that the government is evil and Rainbow Gatherings are good and pure. I've fixed some of the most ridiculous parts, but a lot of work still needs to be done.

Fair expression of all significant points of view is what is called for. Fred Bauder 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You're absolutely right, that is exactly what is called for and exactly what is missing from this article. It reads like a brochure for your group, not like an encyclopedia article. You also have a lot of untrue, and unsourced opinions stated as fact in it, like the garbage relating alcohol and violence. I'm going to go through myself and do some pruning and modifications to bring this article in line. Urek
Be sure to cite your sources. Fred Bauder 03:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making additions, I pruning your uncited diatribe, and asking for citation. Urek
We're in agreement on where the article needs to go, but there's plenty of evidence (now cited) for linking alcohol and violence at least in the context of A-Camp. Charles T. Betz 19:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

"There are some attendees who would prefer...", see WP:Weasel Words. Urek

[edit] Need for Attention

I'm putting out the call to more experienced editors. I've made a first pass on the article and marked it up, and even fixed some problem areas, but what this really needs is a more experienced outsider. This article has been coopted by the group it describes and when I first found it read like a super activist brochure for the organization. The POV still needs to be shifted towards the center line some, and the language and grammar needs serious work. A lot of terms used in the article appear to be slang local to the group, and are both undefined and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This article needs to be brought in line with other high quality articles in this project, and watched to ensure it doesn't get nudged back into POV by the group.

Example, when I found the article several sections were (and still are) highly critical of law enforcement and government laws the group doesn't agree with. The position shouldn't be that the gov't and laws are wrong, but that: A) The group has and is violating the law, B) The group is doing so in civil disobediance because they disagree with the law.

We shouldn't take the POV that the law is wrong or right, or that the Rainbow Gatherings are good or evil. The facts are all we should care about, not the opinions on them. Urek 15:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The major challenge with this article is documentation. The People of the Rainbow book is an authoritative source. Other citeable sources are here: http://welcomehome.org/rainbow/nfs-regs/fsregs.html and here: http://welcomehome.org/rainbow/sites/fsreports.html. If anyone knows of any other sources please post. Charles T. Betz 23:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Also it would be nice to have something other than Niman to rely on for sympathetic documentation. Consider this a call for pointers to newspaper & magazine articles, etc. Oftentimes local "feature" coverage can be sympathetic. Charles T. Betz 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"Sympathetic" documentation? Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? This article reads like an advertisement for the group, and should seriously be considered for deletion unless it can be brought up to standard. Raymond Arritt 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with any ascertation that this article be considered for deletion. Clearly the updating and proper editing is taking place. Let's not go rushing to conclude deletion is the thing to do. Bstone 07:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's start a new NPOV thread. Charles T. Betz 03:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercialism section

This section has a plethora of citation needed tags. I thought I would be able to clear some of them up with reference to Niman, but he does not support any of the assertions that have been tagged as needing citation. If no-one can provide documentation they will have to be moved to the Talk page. Charles T. Betz 02:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, unsourced claims need to be removed. By the way, amazing work, the article is looking worlds better. Urek
Thanks, I just kind of wandered in after the big dramatic mediation movie and am surprised no-one is shredding my stuff. But I can see that the alternative Rainbow stuff needs to be dealt with... Charles T. Betz 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcohol and Violence

This is a spurious link at best, alcohol isn't linked to violence any more than psychadellics. It's POV to attempt to link them even through the supposed A-Camp. I'm going to look over the A-Camp figures to see what the supposed link is... Urek

Not sure what the big deal is here. The dynamics around A-camp are well documented. It's not POV to document that according to a credible academic researcher's published ethnography, generally A-camp has reputation X based on events A, B, C, and D. The article at this point does not link alcohol as substance directly with violence. Do you have Niman? Suggest you acquire a copy so we are on the same page. Charles T. Betz 01:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I admit that the mention of "sympathetic" documentation appears on the surface to violate WP:NPOV. Please let me attempt to explain. If we rely entirely upon Forest Service and U.S. legal system documentation, this would not result in NPOV. I am looking for sympathetic sources as a counterweight to the generally hostile governmental sources, and through combining them hopefully arrive at some semblance of neutrality, or at least balance.

I have been stripping out the more effusive quotes and undocumented assertions so that we wind up with an article that is both neutral and fair, while giving the interested reader at least a flavor of what the Rainbow is all about. Charles T. Betz 03:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article was extremely NPOV originally, but you've done a wonderful job in cleaning it up, I'd even be in favor of removing the POV tags on the article. "Sympathetic" documentation is appropriate given it is from an academic source. I think you ought to be applauded for the wonderful job you've done here.
My one lingering problem with the article is the comment on A-Camp. Could you reproduce the figures which claim to show this increase in violence? I am wondering if they show a statistically significant increase. My concern is that this is a slight POV push from the Rainbows against alcohol. Urek 06:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Page 126, People of the Rainbow, concerning the Minnesota Gathering, 1990, "Violence was a regular occurrence at "A" Camp during the ensuing gathering, occasionally spilling over into Bus Village." Other examples follow, "By 1995 "A" Camp violence in New Mexico evolved to include guns and machetes, with a gunfire and a chopping at "A" Camp three weeks before the National Gathering was to officially begin." Only anecdotal evidence, of course. Fred Bauder 20:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Some more, "The scene at the "A" Camp is often violent and chaotic as "A" Campers battle and steal among themselves." More conclusionary. Fred Bauder 20:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence compiled by a qualified ethnographer is citable. Ethnography is essentially anecdotal; it is qualitative, not quantitative. Qualitative methods are widely used in the social sciences. Charles T. Betz 22:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic

Almost completely unsourced original research. Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:NOR and make appropriate edits. Thanks. Morton devonshire 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is an overstatement at this point to claim that it is "almost completely unsourced." I have been working on removing the unsourced material. There are 10 internal references to Niman and 5 external links to official Forest Service documentation. I just re-reviewed WP:RS and believe Niman to be a fully acceptable secondary source in the strictest sense. The Forest Service material is primary, and the more recent material is only available as such (Niman does use Forest Service material as well).
In any event, the Rainbow gathering is a notable cultural phenomena, probably the most colorful descendant of the 1960s counterculture, and therefore "encyclopedic"; I will dispute any attempts to delete based on WP:RS and WP:NOR (if that is the implication of the term "unencyclopedic"; I don't want to overreact). The article was originally written by Rainbow folks with little or no Wikipedia experience; a few of us with more experience are slowly fixing it but there is also WP:Don't_bite_the_newbies to be taken into account. I have authored fully sourced Wikipedia articles as well as attended Rainbow gatherings.
Therefore I ask that you be much more precise and specific in your critique. There are plenty of section by section tags noting where the article needs work. Charles T. Betz 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Morton devonshire, I challenge your ascertation that this article is "almost completely unsourced" etc. You have not made any specific comments or stated areas which need work. Furthermore there has been a great deal of effort put into this article. Bstone 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Also - a careful review of WP:RS suggests that the use of published Rainbow websites is acceptable in describing the organization's aims and goals, if carefully identified as primary sources. I haven't done much of this but the over-reliance on Niman is starting to trouble me. Charles T. Betz 02:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Rainbow Gatherings

This section needs to go; it is unverifiable. I will delete it soon unless someone cites it. This is not saying that alternative gatherings do not exist, just that they are not notable enough for Wikipedia at this time. Charles T. Betz 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lookingheart seems to have abandonded this section entirely and no other editors seem to desire to work on the section. It should go. Bstone 03:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's gone. I am not unaware of the debates between "mainstream" and "alternative" Rainbow but realistically folks, mainstream Rainbow is the alternative to the vast majority of readers, and going into alternatives to the alternative - especially when completely unsubstantiated by any citations - is simply not going to fly on Wikipedia. There are lots of other forums to pursue such agendas. Charles T. Betz 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last tag gone

OK, I am obsessive compulsive. My wife has noted it as well, specifically with respect to this article. I have edited all sections and cited as best I could, pointing primarily to the Rainbow Guide and of course Niman. The citations are in two inconsistent formats and it might be good to have them consolidated, but I think I will leave that to someone else. The controversial nature of the material leads me to recommend frequent footnoting - other articles can get by with just references at the bottom, but probably not this one. I am surprised after reading this summer's correspondence that I was able to work on this in peace, and I hope that my contributions have been acceptable; I assume that the silence has been consent. One of these days I may make it "Home" again... sigh... Charles T. Betz 04:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Hopi legend?

I've gotten some feedback that the situation around the Hopi legend is even more complex than stated. I also think it is somewhat non-notable and am tempted to just delete it. People can read various perspectives in Niman and at www.welcomehome.org. Anyone disagree? Charles T. Betz 02:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Hopi legend (myth or fact) is a basic part of Rainbow. Most experienced Rainbow know of it, tho not of the controversy of it. I feel that it should remain part of this article as it is such a fundamental part of Rainbow Family. Bstone 08:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It occurred to me that describing Willoya and Brown's work as both an "evangelical book" and "a book with evangelical origins" (in the same sentence, no less) is redundant. Unless someone has a strong sentimental attachment to that sentence, I'd like to reword it. - Mark Dixon 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/Talk%7ERainbow_Gathering_0af8.html"