Talk:Hippie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hippie article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Hippie, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 CIA released drugs into the Hippie movement? 2 Hippie slang and the Wolof language 3 Remove the Doors 4 Poor Sentence 5 Hippie influence on the visual arts 6 Nambassa Day Photo 7 30 minutes of work reverted in 3 seconds with flimsy justification--why should I continue? 8 Suggestions to Wikipedia concerning the "Edit Summary" area: 9 Last two sentences of introductory paragraph in "Hippie" article. 10 Stewart Brand quote 11 Problem with emphasis on communes following Summer of Love 12 Hippie beginnings 13 Recent hippies 14 Vandalism 15 Globalize tag 15.1 American centrism 16 NPOV 16.1 Codex Sinaiticus 17 Hippie beginnings 18 Recent hippies 19 Vandalism 20 Congratulation to Viriditas and Apostle12 21 Talk page deletions by a malicious bug masqueading as Squeakbox 22 Jesus as the "first" hippie 23 WP:NPA 24 Reply to Codex re:NPOV tag 25 False vandalism claims as a POV promotion 26 Compromise for lead 27 Mediation 28 What problem do you have with this article? 29 Request for minor edit

[edit] CIA released drugs into the Hippie movement?

In order to steer the movement away from making real change and progress in order to destroy it and make it into... well... one big joke?

-G

[edit] Hippie slang and the Wolof language

I have deleted this section, which is very silly. None of the words given were specific to the hippies, and their derivations from African languages, presumably via 300 years of African-American usage, is highly dubious. And even if it's true, so what? Psychedelic comes from Ancient Greek words, but what does that prove? Adam 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC) That could prove that the mentality that the hippies had could have mainly been derived from Greek views. Alex (Bangheadxyz)

[edit] Remove the Doors

I think you should remove the Doors from this page. Jim Morrison was not a hippie nor should he be associated with hippies. 27 November 2006

From Korky Day: Thanks for your comment on Nov. 27. I did a light show for the Doors in 1967 or 1968.

At the time, as now, there was a lot of debate about who was and who wasn't a hippie. A great many hippies rejected the description hippies simply because they didn't want to be "pigeon-holed" with any label at all, except maybe human being, not that they had any serious disagreements with hip culture. Others rejected the word because they disagreed with some serious or trivial aspect of alleged hippie ideals or practice. Because of media stereotyping, people would say to me that they'd like to be a hippie, but they couldn't because they weren't allowed to have long hair at their job. I assured them that hip is a state of mind and heart, not dependent on appearance.

Aside from fears of stereotyping, the word hippie, like any word, can have strict or lenient interpretations. Morrison, though a drunk, was definitely trying to be hip, and partly succeeding, to my medium-lenient interpretation. Haven't you heard or read his lyrics? Likewise with the other Doors. I don't know if Jim accepted the word to describe himself, but he was certainly right in the thick of the movement. Are we going to re-possess his Hippie Membership Card because he wasn't as perfect as you and I are? No, that wouldn't be accurate--or hip. 2006 Dec. 13. --Korky Day, an old hippie, korkyday @ yahoo.com . Korky Day 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, Korky, you said it better than I could. Don't know who the anonymous poster was, but the comment seems to reek of snobbery (on one side or the other: "Morrison was too commercial to be a hippie" or "Morrison was too cool to be a hippie"; can't tell which). --Orange Mike 05:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps snobbery, but to give Anonymous the benefit of the doubt, maybe they "bought into" the stereotyping or has some other misunderstanding which we are helping to clear up. Korky Day 11:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Sentence

"By 1968, self-described hippies had become a large minority, representing less than 0.2 percent of the U.S. population."

That is just a poor sentence really... it should probably be more like

"By 1968, self-described hippies had become a large minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population."

SeanJA 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Next time just go for it ;). ∴ here…♠ 20:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie influence on the visual arts

I'm going to assume goodwill on the part of the person (User:Bus stop) who blithely deleted the reference to hippie influence on the visual arts. Aside from such obvious fields as underground comics, the visual art influences of hippydom were carried through such channels as posters for rock concerts and rock album covers, and the ubiquitous hippie posters which one could order through publications such as Rolling Stone and (later) National Lampoon. Psychedelic art did not spring from the salons of New York or London. Hippie style trickled upwards to the fashion industry (and then downward from) in a complex manner; I added one link to a fashion history exhibit which describes part of this process. I realize that many of the editors here weren't alive in those days, but believe me, hippie visual-media influences, albeit often mediated through the mass media, were lifechanging throughout that era for those of us alive to see it. Any of the decent histories of the hippie movement and its influence on mainstream culture outline some of the broad strokes; it's not necessary to "document" that, any more than to document "a lot of hippies liked colorful clothes and blue jeans"! Even the snottiest of high-culture venues found themselves having to deal with it, if only by denying it or deprecating the way it changed the reputation of such accepted "legitimate" artists as Dali and Escher. --Orange Mike 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- What you are referring to as visual art, I think might be more properly referred to as something like the visual landscape in popular culture. Can you think of works of art in the Museum Of Modern Art in New York City or some other similar institution, during the 1960's or 1970's or 1980's that seem to show an influence from hippie culture? I don't think there is very much that can be pointed to. So, we are disagreeing over how broad a definition of art the phrase "visual art" refers to. I like the concise definition which I think is the more traditional definition that only includes the most "serious" entities of that which can be called art of that which is visual. I didn't really mean to challenge you to document these things. I agree it would be a little ridiculous to try to cite sources for points such as this. But I think that an observation of the goings on in the time period in question in the visual arts, strictly defined, would show a distinct lack of concern with the current events in the hippie movement.Bus stop 14:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Orange Mike. They might as well say that we hippies had no influence on music or politics! Korky Day 11:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Korky Day -- But I said nothing about music and politics. I only made reference to the visual arts. Bus stop 14:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I get your point a little more now, Bus stop, so thanks. We still have 2 big problems, though.

One: To the average encyclopedia reader, "visual art" means any art that is mainly to be seen, as opposed to music, sculpture for the blind, the cullinary arts, etc.

Maybe you should call it something like "serious visual art", "expensive gallery art", "high visual art", "visual high art", etc.

Two: Then there is the question of how broadly you define hippie. I define it broadly enough to include a great many artists, including Andy Warhol. Wasn't he one of your visual artists in exclusive art galleries? So to me, he's a hippie artist who influenced almost ALL art.

Even if you hold sway with your extremely narrow definitions, I doubt that hippiedom fails to influence it, but that's just my hunch, since I am woefully ignorant on the subject. What do various experts say? Korky Day 15:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Korky Day and Orange Mike -- Underground comics were great. But they are not really visual art. They are not taken seriously as visual art. They are peripheral to visual art. (There probably exists a minority opinion that popular culture properly should be regarded as a part of serious visual art. I'm not saying that I am an expert or that what I say is the last word on the subject.) But even that minority opinion tends to really mean the incorporating of snippets of the landscape of popular culture into more serious works of visual art, be they paintings, sculptures, or a limited number of other types of visual art. I think it is a misunderstanding that "anything is art." Posters for rock concerts were great. Stylistically many of them derived from serious works of visual art. But they themselves were not, strictly speaking, works of art in themselves. Rock album covers -- the same thing. Fashion is not visual art either. Yes, in specialized museums there are exhibitions of fashion. Or, a museum of general art such as the very large Metropolitan Museum Of Art in New York City may have a show focussing on some fashion in clothing or something related. But that is not the output of contemporary, serious, artists. As for Dali and M. C. Escher, I am not sure what point Orange Mike is making. The art of Dali and M. C. Escher were embraced by hippies. But the artwork was primarily made before the decades of the hippies. As for Andy Warhol, I don't know if he was a hippie or not, but I don't think it matters. The question is whether or not hippie culture influenced his art. Do you think Campbell Soup cans reflect back on hippie culture? I hardly think so. If anything, Campbell Soup cans derive more from the bourgeois culture that the hippies were trying to leave behind. Bus stop 17:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, Bus stop; but I cannot accept it as meaningful. You appear to be applying a very narrow, "high culture" meaning to the broad term "visual arts." Visual arts is a more inclusive concept than that, and I think it is fair to say that even the haughtiest of culture vultures were eventually forced to concede that art across the planet was influenced (though they may have considered it to have been "tainted" or "corrupted") by the hippie influence; it just took longer. In the meantime, even we vulgar commoners are users and patrons of the visual arts, though we may never step foot into a gallery except as janitors, movers, etc. [And MoMA ain't the only museum in the U.S.A., either.] The posters hanging in a college student's dorm room; the art painted on a factory worker's custom van; the illustrations in a fanzine; the graphics for a soda advertisement in LIFE magazine; even the cut and shape of the newest blouses in the Sears catalog: each of these, broadly defined, can be considered part of visual arts. High culture is a minority affair, and has never constituted the sole component of artistic discourse (listen to me, ain't I getting pretentious here?). I'm taking a broad-church, not high-church, approach here, as is appropriate for such discussions in Wikipedia. I think we understand each other better now.--Orange Mike 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- I am not just talking about New York City's MOMA. I am talking about any museum of contemporary art in the United States or Europe. I am referring to any gallery of contemporary art. I am not coming from a place of haughtiness, either. You are saying that the visual landscape has been influenced by hippiedom, and I would agree. But you will find little evidence of the goings on in hippie culture reflected in any of the works of art found in the art museums or the art galleries of the 1960's, 1970's, or the 1980's. Can you cite an example of the influence of hippie culture on works of art found in these venues? The closest I can think of would be the "happenings" and the "installations" and the "performance pieces." But ideally I think you should mention them specifically as related to the openness of hippie culture. To broadly say that visual art was influenced is in large part untrue. Andy Warhol was an important painter. But his imagery of the time is much more related to the opposite of hippie culture. His paintings depict imagery derived from a much more bourgeois culture. He depicted bland consumer items. (Campbell Soup Cans, Brillo Soap Pads) He depicted glittery people from entertainment and politics. He depicted gory car crashes. These are hardly images we normally associate with the summer of love. He depicted death by electric chair. He didn't depict someone arriving in San Francisco with a flower in their hair. Bus stop 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I certainly do see evidence of hippie influence in modern art on those occasions when I frequent museums (more often than galleries). 2) You still don't seem to understand the point the rest of us have been making, that "high art" of the kind found enshrined in museums and upscale galleries is a minor fraction of all the visual arts which fill our eyes and our souls. Indeed, that is one of the favorable influences of hippiedom, to open our minds again to naive art and outsider art; and I believe that influence has obviously trickled upwards even into high-culture. "Fiction" is more than what runs in the New Yorker or some little magazine; "prose" is also what you read in the Readers Digest, not just Granta; "the novel" includes Heinlein and Paretsky, not just Updike and Cheever and other angst-ridden-Northeastern-white-upperclass-hetero-males. 3) I agree with you about Warhol, to some extent; but in his later years, I do think he was engaged in a sort of dialogue with hippiedom, as were many others. --Orange Mike 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- Forget about "high culture." You are setting up a straw man and knocking it down. I said nothing about "high culture." I said nothing about "upscale galleries." I am referring to all galleries. Even if you went to an "alternative" art gallery located in a slum, you would not be likely to find a hippie influence in visual art. Why have your comments lapsed into the realm of literature? We are talking about visual art. Are we not? If you think that you have seen visual art that shows evidence of the influence of hippie culture, can you just point that out? And you refer to "naive art," and "outsider art." Fine. But please tell me where you see an influence of hippie culture in those realms of visual art? Cite specific examples, if possible. Or at least describe these works sufficiently so I and others can see what you are talking about. I used the example of Andy Warhol to demonstrate the absence of hippie influence. Try to do likewise to support your point of view. You say that in Andy Warhol's later years he was "engaged in a sort of dialogue with hippiedom, as were many others." How? Can you cite any examples? And who are these "others" you are referring to? Bus stop 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not setting up a straw man. You are the one who defined rock album covers, rock posters and underground comics out of existence as "visual art." To quote from the wiki article visual arts, "There may be some residual meaning of visual arts as fine art. But generally, visual arts is suitably independent of these older, loaded concepts and as such is the preferred term for work across all the disciplines in question." You are insisting on identifying "visual arts" with fine art, which is why I was making the literary analogies that seem to confuse or irriate you. Underground comics are visual arts, by most people's definition. You can only exclude hippie influences by defining the media where they were most influential as "not art"! (Again, see my literary metaphor.) --Orange Mike 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- I went to the Wikipedia article that you referred me to, entitled visual arts. This is the second paragraph in that article (The first paragraph is merely an introductory description of the article).: "The visual arts are a class of art forms, including painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking and others, that focus on the creation of works which are primarily visual in nature. Visual Arts that produce three-dimensional objects, such as sculpture and architecture, are dealt with in plastic arts." That is the basic definition. That may not suit your sensibilities. But you are misleading the reader when you state that the visual arts were influenced by hippie culture. In point of fact they were not. You are only arguing that everything that is perceived with the eyes is visual art. Is there anything that is of a visual nature that you don't consider to be visual art? If you want to point out certain entities in the visual landscape were influenced by the hippie movement, and then name them, that is something that makes sense. You have cited a variety of things as being influenced by the culture of hippiedom. List them or describe them. That way you will not be misleading the reader into thinking the incorrect notion that hippie culture had an influence on "painting, sculpture, photography, printmaking," which remains the basic meaning of the term "visual art." There is nothing for you and I to argue over, because this is not an article about the definition of visual art, fine art, popular culture, or anything else of that nature. I am simply objecting to the incorrect component of the statement you are making in the article. Bus stop 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- You've mentioned hippiedom's influence on: "posters hanging in a college student's dorm room," "illustrations in a fanzine," "the graphics for a soda advertisement in LIFE magazine," "the art painted on a factory worker's custom van," "the cut and shape of the newest blouses in the Sears catalog." Fine. Then cite these things. Cite other things. But don't broadly state that hippiedom influenced the visual arts. That is largely incorrect. You are making a valid point. But you are using too broad a brush to make that point. You are including things that should not be included. Please just make your statement with greater specificity. You have mentioned "underground comics." Fine, then mention that specifically. You've mentioned "rock album covers." Fine. Mention that specifically, or describe the broader category into which that fits. But to say that they broadly fit into the very large category known as "visual art," is misleading, and more importantly, incorrect. Bus stop 12:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other. "Visual arts" is a broad category; many of the specific things I mention, which show hippie influence, are visual arts: comics and other forms of drawing, posters, rock album covers, van art, fanzine illustrations, advertising graphics. Therefore, it seems to me, it is a true statement to say that hippie influences affected the visual arts. It might well be too sweeping to say that they influenced sculpture, photography and printmaking as quickly as they did other visual arts; and it would be absurd to make a more sweeping, "hippies influenced all the visual arts" claim; but then, nobody did. I've changed the offending passage to a less broad formulation which I hope you find less excessive. --Orange Mike 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- The phrase for what you are referring to is probably "popular culture;" it is not "visual art." And you have not sourced your reference to it as "visual art." The phrase visual art primarily refers to serious art. There is some serious art that has been influenced by hippie culture. But you are not referring to it. You are using the wrong term for what you are referring to. Since all the things you are referring to are objects of popular culture, you should not be implying that those objects are serious art. I know there is much looseness surrounding the use of many of these terms. But that is no excuse for an encyclopedia article to not be clear. Even if you were correct that rock album covers were visual art, your use of the term visual art makes no distinction between rock album covers and the general contents of art galleries and art museums. That lack of clarity is unacceptable. It is primarily unacceptable because of the point that I've been making since this discussion began: the influence of hippy culture has been very slight on serious art. In galleries and museums you do not see a great influence of hippy culture on art. My suggestion would be to just describe specifically the influence of hippy culture on the areas where you see it. But you do not see hippy culture influencing serious art. So, why would you want to use a phrase that implies that? Bus stop 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Because (as I thought I made clear) there is no justification whatsover for the distinction you are insisting on upon "visual art" as "serious art" and the rest of the visual arts. You simply state, dogmatically, The phrase visual art primarily refers to serious art. You are alone in this assertion; the Wikipedia article I reference earlier certainly doesn't support you. It is from this assumption of yours that all our disagreements arise. You have a Point of View that rejects popular culture as part of the visual arts in favor of "the general contents of art galleries and art museums" as the sole arbiter of what is Art. (I know, I know: a whole 'nother discussion altogether.) But the only justification for your removal of hippie influences is this unjustified rejection of most of the visual arts in human life. I feel it is you who must justify such rejection and removal, not I who must justify its inclusion. --Orange Mike 03:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- No, I am provisionally accepting that all the other things you are calling visual art, are indeed visual art. But if that is so, then the term includes not only all the stuff in galleries and museums, but also the things you are referring to (rock album covers, posters, fashion design, and on and on...). Why are you insisting on lumping everything into one super-category? Does that clarify or does that obscure? Or, are you referring to the stuff in art galleries and museums? If you are not referring to the stuff in the museums and galleries, why not make that clear? Are you of the opinion that hippie culture had an influence on the stuff in the galleries and the museums? If so, please explain that, on this Talk page. I would be interested to know how you see the influence of hippie culture playing itself out in the stuff found in the galleries and the museums. And if you are going to say that hippie culture had an influence on the stuff in the galleries and the museums, please provide a source for that in the article. So far, you've only argued that everything is visual art. And so far you have only provided sources that support your contention that hippie culture had an influence on rock album covers, etc. You have neither argued that hippie culture had an influence on the stuff in the galleries and the museums, nor have you provided sources for that. Bus stop 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Visual arts" is the super-category; I guess I'd call the stuff that you are involved with, "the general contents of art galleries and art museums," "high art" or some such (I find relevant leads under academic art and fine art in Wikipedia). I defer to the professional artists like yourself, as far as the "high art" aspect is concerned. I don't have any idea how you document something as elusive as that - it's just that a lot of modern art like Haring (who was a pseudo-outsider), seems to me to show traces of the barrier-breaking that the hippies conducted. Such theoretical discussion wearies and annoys, rather than enlightens; I'd rather listen to Trotskyites debate the internal history of the 4th International than get into a lengthy discussion of contemporary art vs. post-modernism, both of which reek of the doctoral thesis. --Orange Mike 14:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- Visual art includes the stuff found in art galleries and museums. Yet the stuff found in galleries and museums was not influenced by hippie culture. You only have sources for visual art other than that found in galleries and museums. (Note that I am accepting your definition of visual art as applying to all the things that you have wished to have it apply to, such as fashion design, rock concert posters, album cover art, etc.) Please use a term or terms that refer to what you are actually sourcing. Why are you apparently obsessed with using a term that is not applicable to the visual art found in museums and galleries? All you are arguing for is your right to write a misleading sentence. Why not accurately describe what you are wishing to say? And why not say what your sources support? Bus stop 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

How many aspects of the visual arts must one demonstrate before your desire to eliminate the term will be quelled? The sentence in question discusses how hippie culture spread worldwide--primarily through music with the dramatic and visual arts in tow--not the overall impact of hippie culture on the whole body of art known as "the visual arts."

This is the lead--the place to detail exactly which visual arts were involved would be in the body of the article. The influence of hippie culture on the visual arts would be an extension of that topic, perhaps appropriately located under "Legacy." Go for it! Apostle12 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- I cannot tell you, or Orange Mike, exactly what terminology to use to refer to the entities in the visual arts that you wish to refer to. But if you were to say to me that hippie culture had an influence on the art found in art museums and art galleries, I would ask for some examples. And I would ask you to cite some sources. Orange Mike has spoken of album cover art, posters for rock concerts, and clothing fashions. These things, by and large, are not the things found in the art museums or the art galleries. I am willing to grant you, and Orange Mike, that these sorts of things can be called visual art. But that does not alter the fact that what had previously been called visual art, is still called visual art. And that realm of visual art, which is a vast realm, remained virtually untouched by influences from hippie culture. I would use phrases such as "elements of the visual landscape," or "elements of popular culture." Those sorts of phrases might serve as an introductory phrase to the things you and Orange Mike are referring to. The simple fact of the matter, as I see it, is that only areas of popular culture were influenced by the styles associated with the hippies. This is not a value judgement. An examination of the contents of the galleries of contemporary art and the contemporary art shows presented at the art museums will show little hippie influence. But don't take my word for it. Try to show me artworks produced during the 1970's and 1980's and 1990's that show influence of the hippies. In Orange Mike's most recent post he makes mention of the artwork of Keith Haring. But I don't know what point he is trying to make. Is Orange Mike saying that hippie culture had an influence on Keith Haring's art? I don't think a very strong case can be made for that. But nor does Orange Mike make any attempt to make that case. I honestly don't know why you and Orange Mike have seized upon the phrase "visual art" since what you are referring to represents such a small part of "visual art." There are ways of saying whatever one wishes to say, and making misleading statements in an encyclopedia article serves no purpose. Bus stop 19:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, Bus Stop. However, the sentence in question deals with how hippie "opposition to the Establishment" spread worldwide--through rock music, the dramatic arts and the visual arts. We are not talking about the influence of hippie culture on the visual arts--that would be a separate topic. Hope you will choose to write a section on the impact (or non-impact) of hippie culture on the visual arts.

BTW, the "Yellow Submarine" article I referenced does make a strong case for the impact hippie culture made on animated film. Apostle12 19:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- Hippie "opposition to the establishment" did not spread through the visual art that was, and is, found in the museums and galleries of contemporary art. That is precisely my point. I will just say that the sort of visual art found in museums and galleries of contemporary art is surprisingly apolitical. The arts of music and drama can carry a message much better than the visual arts (the visual arts found in museums and galleries of contemporary art). All I can say is that visual art does not carry those sorts of messages well. Music is great at that. A topical song can be used to document and comment on a contemporary event. ( Phil Ochs, Country Joe And The Fish, Woody Guthrie) But visual art of the sort I'm referring to rarely carries explicit messages. And that is precisely why I took exception to the blanket statement that said the visual arts (all the visual arts) carried the hippie message of "opposition to the establishment." I find that to be an incorrect statement. I hope nobody puts that sort of wording in there again. It drives me up a wall. (Wikipedia has a good article on topical songs.) Bus stop 21:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if we were to accept your (Bus Stop's) premise that "galleries of contemporary art and the contemporary art shows presented at the art museums will show little hippie influence" (and I consider it a dubious assertion at best), so what? Visual art, as we've been trying to tell you, encompasses a vast universe outside the parochial world of "high art"; and nobody but you accepts the idea that the "realm of visual art, which is a vast realm, remained virtually untouched by influences from hippie culture"! You claim that the tiny sub-set of visual art with which you are most concerned remains untainted by the hippies; even if true, that would not change the reality that the real "vast realm of visual art" encompasses all those subjects, genres and media you dismiss as "popular culture." To cut those out of "visual art" in the lead, is to falsify the evidence. --Orange Mike 19:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- I am not dismissing anything. You are once again setting up straw men and then knocking them down. I am not making a value judgement. I am differentiating between the items that you've mentioned, and that which is found in contemporary museums of art, and contemporary art galleries. You keep referring to "high art," not me. And please stop arguing with me over your tired argument that anything of a visual nature is properly called "visual art," because I have already conceded that you are right. I accept that rock music posters are art, and the artwork found on music album covers is also art. But this is an encyclopedia article. We are supposed to cite our sources, are we not? If you can't cite a source that the art found in museums and galleries were influenced by hippie culture, should you be making that contention? By the way, I don't think I've once used the term "high art" in this entire exchange. Nor have I used terms like "untainted." You are introducing terms that carry value judgements, not I. Please cite your sources for what you wish to say, and don't make big, sweeping statements, if you only have sources to support some small aspect of those statements. Bus stop 20:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed and annoyed that this has gone on so long and with such repetition since I last looked a couple of days ago. This debate should be instead in the entry for visual arts. Using the term "visual landscape" as it reads now in this article, is an acceptable compromise, I guess.Korky Day 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

However, Bus stop, I can't, let pass your shocking misinterpretation of Andy Warhol's entire ouvre. Do you think Warhol was simply extolling the virtues of eating Campbell's soup?! No, he was showing us the subtle absurdity of the mainstream culture through very hip eyes. And he was so subtle that you and many others don't even realize how hip he was.Korky Day 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Korky Day -- I did not mean to say that Andy Warhol was extolling the virtues of Campbell's Soup. You make me laugh. I think Andy Warhol was a very good artist. I was only pointing out that you couldn't see, in Andy Warhol's work, an expression of anything that could be associated with a "hippie philosophy." You are right that he was subtle. And he undoubtedly was "hip." I think the best proof of that is that if you stopped most people on the street and asked them if they liked the work of Andy Warhol, their answer would be "No." Andy Warhol took a brave stand and put out there what we needed to see, whether we knew we needed to see it or not. And he was so forward thinking, and so brave in his art, that people are still trying to catch up with his message. I think some of the paintings of Andy Warhol are some of the best works of American art of the twentieth century. Bus stop 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bus Stop-- "Visual landscape" means nothing--gag! Conjurs up the image of looking out over a pastoral setting. The reality is that art, posters, still photographs and film that were instrumental in spreading hippie opposition to the establishement worldwide. But, never mind, I'm done. Water it down and make it meaningless all you want. Apostle12 05:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- "Visual landscape" is an example of me writing for someone else. It is not possible for me to choose the words for someone else to express something. I raised an objection. Then I delayed actually rephrasing that sentence for a day or two. Resolution of disagreement involves addressing one another's issues. I do not think Orange Mike engaged me in the point to point dialogue that might have reached the resolution that you rightly call for. These Talk pages are not hot air corridors. Either two people disagreeing attempt to understand one another, or resolution of issues is impossible. At this point "visual landscape" is the best thing I can come up with. But it is really not my responsibility to come up with ideal wording. I raised an objection. My objection was to the use of the sweepingly broad term "visual art." My objection was that it included too much. The use of the phrase "visual art," in this place, in this article, runs roughshod over all of the visual art that did not participate in this dissemination of hippie "opposition to the establishment" that you refer to. Did the "Minimalism" movement in visual art participate in the dissemination that you refer to? Did the "Conceptualism" movement in visual art participate in the dissemination of the "hippie opposition to the establishment worldwide" that you refer to? There is too much ambiguity built in to the use of "the visual arts" as I first found it in this article. It is misleading. In addition to the posters that advertised rock concerts there is a world of activity in the world of contemporary art that also falls under the heading "visual art." Did the "Pop art" movement in visual art spread "hippie opposition to the establishment?" Did the "Photo-realism" movement in visual art help to spread the hippie opposition to the "establishment" worldwide? There are many more "movements" that various commentators identify. This whole activity and dialogue basically involves the art found in the museums and galleries of contemporary art. Should the article be inadvertently implying that the activity in contemporary art as found in museums and galleries participated in disseminating that hippie point of view? One alternative solution is to briefly list the areas that you and others are referring to. The rules for writing an article are not written in stone. Even though it is the introductory paragraph I don't think it would be such a bad idea if you just listed a hodgepodge of categories involved in the dissemination of this hippie philosophy. (Furthermore, I don't think this "hippie opposition to the establishment" is an unassailable monolith of a concept. But that's another topic for discussion.) I agree with you that the phrase "visual landscape" is pretty vague. But how else would you say it? Can you or anyone else suggest a preferable wording? The problem is that the realm of that which is "visual" is enormous. But the problem which I have raised is that the term "visual art" also has a meaning, and that shouldn't be dispensed with, especially in this instance where it's use results in a broad range of incorrect implications. Bus stop 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most aspects of the visual arts" would be an appropriate qualification. Here's the list from the Wikipedia article "Visual Arts":

Collage, Comics, Computer art, Conceptual art, Crafts, Decollage, Decorative art, Design, Drawing, Film, Found art, Graffiti, Graphic design, Illustration, Installation art, Landscape art, Mail art, Mixed media, Painting, Photography, Portraiture, Old master print, Printmaking, Sculpture, Sketch (visual drawing), Sound art, Textile art, Video art.

I've highlighted the ones that are applicable to hippiedom. A clear most. Apostle12 17:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle -- It may be on Wikipedia, but it is ridiculous. That is a pointless listing of art related terms. It is listing techniques with movements. Drawing is a technique. Conceptual art is a movement. In addition to techniques and movements it has descriptive terms. Portraiture is a descriptive term. Does "portraiture" indicate what technique is used to achieve the portrait? Does "portraiture" indicate what movement the portrait is a part of? That is just a ludicrous jumble of art related terms. Let me make one more point: The ones you have highlighted are only categories. Do you think that most of the items produced in each of the categories that you've highlighted have advanced the hippie philosophy of opposing the Establishment? Most visual art does not push any political cause. Art is primarily about art. Whenever art has served to promote messages, the art has suffered. The former Soviet Union employed artists to produce propaganda. The result was utterly boring and forgotten artwork. Hitler's Third Reich suppressed free expression in the arts. Do you think that resulted in good art, or any art? I realize that art which promoted the ideals of the hippie movement were freely produced. No one compelled anyone to make art that promoted equality, peace, anti-materialism, and other good qualities. It is only to a very limited extent that these ideals can be carried in the visual arts. You and others have mentioned most of them. I am a big fan of the posters that promoted rock concerts. They were beautiful. They were psychedelic. In point of fact they derive stylistically, in part, from previous art movements, such as that of "art nouveau." The instances of art actually advancing causes, in this case the hippie philosophy, are really very small. As I've said so many times, most of what goes on in museums and art galleries of contemporary art does not promote any cause, at least not in such a blatant way as to "oppose the Establishment." I'll say this again: most art is about art. The reason why Andy Warhol is so highly regarded is because of his comments on art. I don't mean that he issued statements in the form of words on paper, that commented on art, but that his paintings said about art what no other means could possibly say. It is really an embarrassing statement to say that the "visual arts" advanced the hippie philosophy of opposition to the Establishment. Anyone who cares about the dignity of this article should not want such a silly declaration in it. It is ludicrous to think that "visual art" advanced any such cause. An enlightened understanding of visual art never attributes such easily pinpoint-able concerns to it, at least in my opinion, anyway. Most people are still wrestling with what Andy Warhol's art was about. If it was easily understood then it probably wouldn't be good. And, let me question some of your individual choices: How did "conceptual art" help to spread the hippie philosophy of opposing the Establishment? "Found art" advanced the hippie opposition to the Establishment? How? "Installation art?" "Landscape art?" Please tell me how the art made in those art movements advanced the hippie philosophy of opposing the Establishment? You highlighted them all, so I assume you feel that in some way those art movements advanced the hippie cause we are talking about. One clear example of art does come to mind which expressed a hippie philosophy: Robert Indiana's "Love" sculptures. Wikipedia has an article on Robert Indiana, and a picture of his "Love" sculptures. But my point remains the same. I think one should avoid any sort of sweeping statement about how the "visual arts" supported any hippie philosophy. Bus stop 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Windbaggery at its worst. Apostle12 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle -- I'm sorry for being so longwinded. But, "windbaggery?" I thought I gave you a considered response. This isn't really "my" article. I only tried to improve it in one small way. I wasn't here from it's inception. And I'm really not all that interested in some of the poorly defined assumptions that ebb and flow throughout it. I prefer concise writing that only says what is precisely correct. I think poor writing makes sweeping statements that may sound good superficially, but that are really a cover up for a huge number of untruths. Wikipedia requires citations. The citations should be appropriate for the assertions that a writer makes. Since you and Orange Mike cannot possibly provide a citation that supports the broad, sweeping, notion that the visual arts in a substantial way supported the hippie opposition to the "Establishment," I should think you would want to leave it out. But this isn't really "my" article, and I feel a little bad about imposing my sensibilities on it. Maybe I should just let you write your fluff piece in peace. Bus stop 12:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bus Stop. I didn't write the visual arts sentence, though I do think it is fair to say that they played a significant role. Sorry about the windbaggery comment...that was kinda rude. Apostle12 20:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- It's really unconscionable to dupe the public into believing a falsehood. I think you and Orange Mike should think about what you really want to say, because making an overblown statement serves nobody's interests. Bus stop 20:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology retracted. Apostle12 22:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- This has nothing to do with apologies from you to me or me to you. This has to do with writing a good article. This Talk page is for talking. Have you and Orange Mike been talking with me? Do you call calling me a "windbag" talking? You apologized just because you were wrong for calling me names. Now, what is your reason for retracting your apology? Bus stop 22:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- An assertion such as the one that you and, so far, Orange Mike, are trying to make, that the visual arts perpetuated some notion of opposition to the establishment, as espoused by the hippies, needs some kind of source. Just posting a reference to a film such as "Yellow Submarine," or a link to a website showing posters for rock concerts, does not back up the aforementioned claim. Please discuss this, or just leave it out. I don't think it is correct. I think it is a mistaken notion. And if no one is providing a source, then I think it has no place in a Wikipedia article. We are not supposed to be engaging in "original research," which is all that that assertion amounts to. Bus stop 02:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

My only comment, B.S., is that you seem to take yourself far too seriously for people like me to want to engage you in discussion. The idea that hippies opposed the Establishment and that the visual arts had a role in their opposition is so well founded as to be self-evident. There are the posters, film (Yellow Submarine), photographs (the young girl placing a flower in the muzzle of a gun), light shows, tie-died shirts, textile art, collages, comics, sculpture--really it is all too obvious, has been written about everywhere and is hardly orginal. Enough. Apostle12 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- One photograph of a young girl placing a flower in the muzzle of a gun hardly constitutes "the visual arts." How does "Yellow Submarine" "oppose the establishment?" And, even "Yellow Submarine" does not represent "visual art." You are using overblown terms. You are making a far broader statement than is justified. And you are using a far more broad statement than your sources support. You mention light shows, but you fail to say how light shows opposed the establishment. Can you tell me how a light show can possibly be construed as "opposing the establishment?" Did tie-died shirts "oppose the establishment?" If so, how? And tie died shirts hardly represent "the visual arts." You are making too broad of a statement. It is misleading. "Textile art" opposed the establishment? HOW? How did collages "oppose the establishment?" Just the mere fact of the existence of collages hardly makes the case that collages opposed the establishment. Did comics oppose the establishment? If so, then why not just say that comics "opposed the establishment?" Why are you trying to make the statement that "the visual arts" (in general) opposed the establishment?" Comic books are hardly the equivalent of "the visual arts." You have not presented one source that says that the "visual arts" helped spread the hippie ideal of "opposition to the establishment." And this involves my accepting the broadest possible definition of "the visual arts," as presented by you and Orange Mike. In truth I hardly consider most of these things to be the core meaning of the term "visual arts." More appropriate language would point to the specific areas that you have in mind, not to the entirety of "the visual arts." "The visual arts" also concerns the contents of the museums and galleries of contemporary art. Are you saying that contemporary art, as found in the museums and galleries, in the decades in question supported the hippie ideal of opposing the establishment? I will have no objection if you simply, concisely, say what you want to say. But the present sentence is entirely wrong and there is no source cited for the assertion. The present sentence, involving "the visual arts," is hyped up, overblown language, for the scattering of visual entities you've mentioned. Bus stop 10:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 and Orange Mike -- Here are some ideas. Look at "Protest art" [[1]]. Look at Picasso's Guernica [[2]]. There are certainly other examples of art that clearly carries explicit messages. Robert Indiana's [[3]] sculpture, "Love," surely expresses a hippie philosophy. But 99% of art does not. The statement that you are arguing to make is primarily untrue. Visual art rarely carries an explicit message. It is probably also untrue to say this sort of thing about the dramatic arts. Literature lends itself well to propagating messages. In the way of music, the "topical song" [[4]] is particularly adept at articulating a point of view and thereby carrying a message. But most of visual art does not carry a message. And if it did, it would not be very effective. Most people looking at Picasso's Guernica would not be able to read the symbolism in it. Instead of making broad, meaningless statements, you could be pointing to concrete examples, in all the arts, of messages that promoted hippie philosophy. And please don't tell me that just because this is the introductory paragraph that this is therefore acceptable. There are other locutions that can convey to the reader that the arts, in certain instances, carried the messages of the hippies. Bus stop 15:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, B.S., Wikipedia favors survival of the most obnoxious. Not worth my time, frankly, to try to convince one more narcissist who's mostly interested in talking to himself. Apostle12 21:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apostle12 -- How am I being obnoxious? I am being respectful. You are doing the name calling. I am not. I didn't expect you, and Orange Mike, to take criticism with so much difficulty. The article is going to be read by many people. Don't we owe it to them to compose the article as accurately as possible? Bus stop 22:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm Korky Day revisiting this after nearly 2 months. It looks like this issue is resolved, from my reading of the article now. But in case not, I've searched back and got the actual phrase I think Bus Stop disliked: "Hippie opposition to the Establishment spread around the world through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock, with the visual and dramatic arts in tow." I don't think anyone actually quoted it on this talk page. Now I see how we argued a lot on a side issue. What we should have seen was that Bus Stop was objecting not that hippies influenced visual art, but that the original sentence sounds like our hippie movement brought along the entire visual arts community WHOLESALE. That we certainly did not do. We influenced it, but we did not make it entirely part of our hippie movement. So the original sentence I now see was misleading, but we were frustrated talking about side issues. Thanks for the reminder, Bus Stop, on my user page. I hope the others are happy now. Korky Day 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nambassa Day Photo

Though I reallize that nudity is a serious aspect of the Hippie Mentality, one should consider that Wikipedia is used in school, and maybe this photo should be toned down or censored... Political Analysis 18:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing provocative about the photo, and in hippie culture most nudity has no sexual connotation. The photo is representative and needs no censoring. Your concern reminds me of the recent incident in Texas where a teacher was fired for taking her students to a museum where some of the art depicted naked human beings. How ridiculous! Apostle12 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The nudity is uncalled for. Words are perfectly capable of conveying what "nudity" is. The picture serves prurient interests more than it communicates information. In my opinion Wikipedia should not run contrary to generally prevailing sensibilities. Wikipedia is primarily founded on words. Pictures should only supplement the words. I find the picture extraneous to the information already carried in the article. Bus stop 18:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo conveys something important--public nudity need not have prurient connotations. The photo is entirely innocent. That Wikipedia is primarily founded on words is a tragedy, largely the result of restrictive internal copyright policies. For a brief time the "Hippie" article had many beautiful photos shot by noted photographer Robert Altman. Unfortunately he could not protect his copyright and they had to be removed. The visual arts, including photographs, are a valuable communication tool that helped spread hippie culture worldwide. Apostle12 19:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If we cannot risk letting a minor see such mild partial nudity, then we'd better ban breastfeeding. And we'd better censor even the words "naked", "nude", "nudity", "nudist", etc., too! Just the words themselves might lead a child to think of looking at him/herself naked in a mirror and think evil thoughts. Korky Day 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

One should also consider that other encyclopedias have restricted from using such images, and the basis of an encyclopedia are words. Regardless of the conotations of the photo, children will add their own connotations, causing classroom distraction. Though I realize that to a civilized mind, the picture means nothing, yet to a child sitting in a Computer Classroom, it is still a naked person, one to laugh at or "study." Political Analysis 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia is not censored. Tyrenius 17:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To Political Analysis (above 26 Dec. 2006) I say that a good teacher will use the students' "laughter" and "distraction" as wonderful teaching opportunities. By censoring that, you promote boredom and alienation, some of education's worst enemies. I come from a family of teachers. You haven't said why you wouldn't censor the words, too. Korky Day 07:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If I carry a sign that says "Nudist" around town, I'm OK. If I'm walking around nude, I'm going to jail - it's considered indecent, no matter how innocent the context and purpose or debates about ideas versus depictions. Why shouldn't we apply the same rule to photographs? That What Wikipedia Is Not citiation says that the material in question needs to be relevant. The photo is, agreed, non-pornographic and at least somewhat educational, but it is more or less unneccessary and more problems than its worth. Saying that hippies had little issue with nudity isn't going to get someone at work or school potentially in trouble, and it gets across the idea. A half-screen photo a reasonable person could consider indecent (this is neither a work of art or a medical diagram, nor even as educational as National Geographic, it's simply a naked hippie), very well might. If someone is surfing Wikipedia and just navigates to Hippie, they cannot reasonably expect to see a topless woman (again, What Wikipedia Is Not points out that surfing to "Pornography" will show you just that, I don't think Hippie is the same, this may more closely approach 'shock'). So, I vote we remove or simply link to the photograph. CSZero 07:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Several problems. You missed my point completely about the words possibly "corrupting" youth, like the photos, though more legally (like your sign "Nudist"). Furthermore, the photo has no nudity. Only topfree. Topfree is legal throughout New York state, other places in the USA, here in Canada, much of Africa and Asia, etc. So to cave in to the narrow view in some states that breasts are obscene and not for children, is to make this encyclopedia a parochial (and anti-breastfeeding) and not international, reference. Then it should be called the USA Christian Right Children's Wikipedia. If you want to create such an encyclopedia elsewhere, please do so. Even if you could argue that nudity wasn't important to hippies, you would still have the problem of those curious little minds looking in the Wikipedia entries on nudity, anatomy, Renaissance art, etc. You want to take nude illustrations out of them, too? As a small child in the 1950s, I found lots of nudity in all the adult encyclopedias. I read the adult encyclopedias at age 7--in addition to the censored children's encyclopedias I read. Your narrow view that nudity without a medical, artistic, or anthropological excuse is indecent is totally illogical, neurotic, and has no place here corrupting our attempted objectivity. If some teachers can't handle that in class, they won't even allow Wikipedia at all. We cannot cater to them. Anyone who "navigates" to Hippie really must expect a little "shock" here and there. That's at the core of hippiedom. Otherwise you end up with a Disney version of hippies who never have orgasms, take drugs, challenge the law, question authority, question religion, refuse to kill, go on strike, etc. (I envision the Partridge Family!) Those who want to categorize hippie-ism as essentially religious are making a similar mistake in my opinion. You'd have a better argument if you said that the photo isn't representative enough. The hippies in the photo don't look average enough. It needs to be not censored, but balanced by the addition of photos with male nudity, non-White hippies, hippies of more average attractiveness, all ages, etc. Korky Day 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your points, but somebody else already removed it. I would've rather have just linked it. If for some reason you find it neccessary to see some topless person in a field to "learn" something, you should be able to click it. But the average person, in many first world nations, that is those with computers, (and I spent time in New York and NEVER saw anyone waltzing around with a shirt off [even though it is legal], which has very little to do with discretely breastfeeding by the way), who's browsing this encyclopedia at home or work or whatever is very aware what breasts look like, and won't learn anything new from the illustration. But it may cause an uncomfortable moment when they have to explain what they're looking at to their boss, and saying hippies are supposed to make people uncomfortable won't fly. The pictures of different grades of shit on the Diarrhea article is more helpful than this. Wikipedia isn't by definition a work-safe encyclopedia, but if the content is there (linking isn't censorship), why not make it as accessable as possible? By the way, I'm pretty far from the religious right. CSZero 04:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Put it back. Please leave it alone; Korky's right. Apostle12 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Apostle12, and your sincerity and flexibility, CSZero. No pictures are strictly "necesary", but a well-chosen one saves a thousand words, as the saying goes. This particular one might not be the best possible picture of all, but it does convey a lot of good information specific to this article. As I said, add more pictures for balance, rather than taking pictures away. Korky Day 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that I was not the one who removed the picture, and I merely wanted to spark a discussion regarding that. By the way, the photo has become a bit of a joke at my school, and several students had been penalized because they knew the photo's location, and would constantly move to the hippy page to acquire a few laughs.Political Analysis 16:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You should not presume that everyone is ashamed of their bodies, the hippies of the sixties and seventies certainly were not and this is what this article is about them. The actual photo itself does not disply a full frontal image so could hardly be perceived as pornographic except to perhaps some perverts within a twisted society !kind regards Mombas 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the news, "Political Analysis" 2007 January 29 above. At first I felt sorry for those students whose pathetic school officials (if the story is accurate) had "buttons" so easily pushed. Then I realized that any school with such wardens with time for such nonsense games would probably have relatively few shootings, junkies, whores, crime gangs, etc. Lucky kids. Korky Day 06:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for keeping the photo in the article, especially in an article about the counterculture, but as an encyclopaedic resource, I don't think it should be in the article. It's simply not appropriate for certain environments in which a wikipedia reader might come across it. Myself doing research in a library, for example. Whether or not you agree (I personally think that nudity is fine, even in public), others do not, and for the sake of users around the world, I'll add my voice to the calls to remove the image. --Xshare 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To suggest removing this innocent and completely representative picture suggests either ignorance of, or hostility to, what hippie attitudes about sexuality are. I can't think of a better way to illustrate the author's point. To say that it saves a thousand words is almost certainly an underestimate. -Larry Siegel

Sorry, Xshare, but Wikipedia, like almost all illustrated adult encyclopedias, has similar mild examples of semi-nudity. If you are sitting in a library, turn the page of Encyclopaedia Britannica and unexpectedly find a photo of Venus de Milo, which is more explicit than this example, are you going to panic? Will your reputation be ruined as a porno freak? Korky Day 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much would ditto everything CSZero and Bus stop wrote above. The picture is gratuitious and inappropriate. It really serves no purpose not already served by the _other_ Nambassa photo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1981_People_Pix.jpg ), which conveys its message quite well without any close-ups of nudity. Eitz Chayim 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 30 minutes of work reverted in 3 seconds with flimsy justification--why should I continue?

I started editing Wikipedia last April for a few weeks, then returned a few days ago. I'm not sure I really want to continue. It's too easy for you (or anyone) to delete all my hard work and probably too hard to convince you that I made all good edits. You could've asked me first. But you and so many others just revert first and ask questions later. I'm a hippie from the 1960s. I'm using my real name. I'm well known and respected in the hip community in Vancouver, BC, Canada. You say I should prove everything with a citation. Most of the sentences in Wikipedia don't have citiations. I say the hippie movement incorporated feminism around 1970. Not just in Vancouver, but everywhere. I was reading the media from all over. You doubt it--and delete it. You think that's just the counter-culture that had feminism. You don't have a citation to prove that. Still, you want me to get one. The standard in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, is that you don't have to reference things that no one disputes. Do you really have intimate knowledge of 1970 enough to sincerely believe that I am wrong? If not, you should leave the disputing to someone who does. As someone who was a young adult then, I can assure you that all these labels like hippie and counter-culture and new left were and still are confusing and hazy and disputed and overlapping, at best. Damaging, at worst. 95% of people resisted labelling then and now because of problems of people like you telling them they are hippies so they can't be affected by feminism, but if they quit the hippie movement and join some "other" part of the counter-culture (the civil rights movement or the "new left"?), then they can incorporate feminism!!!! I could just revert it to my version, but then everyone who's made changes since then would have their changes erased, too. I'm too ethical to do that so maybe Wikipedia isn't for me. Leave it to you reverting warriors. I have better things to do. Or do you have good reasons for me to stay?Korky Day 10:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Korky. Apparently you didn't get the memo. A couple of months ago ownership of "Hippie" transferred to Veriditass from longtime editors Pedant, Founders4 and Mombas. A hostile takeover I believe. Apostle12 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

An article on the Counterculture of the 1960s should address most of your points. This article concerns itself with hippies, not feminism, and most of the research that I've seen does not describe the hippie movement as "feminist", but rather the opposite, and feminists have been critical of the hippie movement as a male dominated philosophy that maintained traditional gender roles. If the hippie movement "incorporated feminism around 1970", it should be easy for you to find a source, like Terry H. Anderson, or someone similar. I've been researching hippies, and I've never run across that claim. It may be correct to state that some women who identified as hippies embraced or were influenced by feminism, and I'm sure that's true, but it belongs in a separate section on female hippies, with sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

From Korky to Viriditas and all: You can't say it's all right to have an inaccurate article (Hippies) because you want some other article to have the truth (you refer to Counterculture).

And why do you create an artificial boundary between hippies and feminists? Likewise the civil rights movement cannot be put in apartheid away from feminism. Half of the civil rights people and of us hippies were female, don't you know? We hippies as a subgroup were one of the earliest and strongest supporters of feminism, no matter what your biased sources omit. That doesn't mean we completely conquered sexism in 1970, of course!, only that as a group we started trying to do so consciously around that year, much more earnestly and idealistically than the average non-hippie. Feminists (including feminist female hippies) were not critical of a sexist hippie movement, they were critical of sexist MALE hippies. A separate section for female hippies???????!!!!!!! That's one of the most sexist, silliest ideas I've heard in a long time. Maybe Wikipedia should have separate sections for scientists and female scientists, for lawyers and female lawyers, or even (hold your laughter) feminists and female feminists.

I am male. Are any of you female? Or are we a bunch of males fighting to be the alpha male, as usual--on a question of feminism!!??

All of you are missing my main point about the revert. It is that all my improvements were reverted at once. The feminist part was only about 1/10 of my improvements. None of you are addressing the fact that I feel like I have to form a cadre of Wikipedians to defend good edits. Maybe the "medium" (Marshall McLuhan) of Wikipedia is inherently biased and sexist. It was invented by a male. All in all, I'm still thinking of giving up. Korky Day 06:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Korky, that the revert seemed wholesale and I can understand why you were taken aback. Notwithstanding my empathy, however, I felt disinclinded to defend the edits themselves because you introduced subjective evaluations (not encyclopedic) and because the quality of the writing seemed poor. Perhaps you could try re-introducing your edits at a slower pace and with increased care. Apostle12 10:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone could dig up a copy of this old magazine from Feb. '69 I bet it might be of interest to modern day researchers! I remember running across this old back issue in something like 1985, but don't recall too much of what it said... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 07:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Korky Day -- There is a lot of subjectivity that goes into things around here. I have pointed out just what you are pointing out -- that many things are not sourced. But I think that this article, on hippies, is a particularly difficult topic to tackle in an encyclopedia format, unless a very disciplined approach is taken. Maybe I have missed it but I have not seen any discipline spelled out for how this particular subject should be treated. It is a broad subject that does not have clear parameters. Who was a hippie? I'm sure there were multitudes of people who neither were clearly hippies nor clearly not hippies. And every person who was clearly a hippie was also an individual. Not all hippies thought alike, behaved alike, or were alike in many other ways. If an article such as this is not comfortable with the most bland generalities then much of what is treated can also be disputed. I just wanted to point out the inherent difficulties of addressing such a broad and poorly defined social phenomenon as the hippies. Bus stop 16:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was my above post deleted? Bus stop 17:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Korky, I'm another aging hippie out here, and I remember that we were only just beginning to incorporate the lessons of the feminist movement as early as 1970. There was some genuine improvement, but a lot of sexism and heterosexism was still rampant among the hippies and the new left and everybody else in the various strands of the counterculture. These are slow processes, and operated in different ways in different places, too. A lot of Alpha Male behavior was displaying itself in communes, co-ops, underground newspapers, etc. Go back and read the Georgia Straight or any of our other beloved publications (as I have been recently) with modern eyes, and you will be depressed (as I was) at the level of casual sexism and even backlash against feminst concerns. --Orange Mike 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Orange Mike. I wrote for the Georgia Straight in those days. I agree with everything you write here--except your insinuation that I said that all of us hippies became instantly and perfectly non-sexist by 1970 December 31. No, we incorporated feminism as an ideal then, led by the half of us who were female, but of course we're still trying to perfect it. Korky Day 06:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike -- could you please not delete my posts? Bus stop 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say at the beginning of this section that I was objecting to Viriditas' revert 2006 Dec. 20 (metric dating, which Wikipedia should use!). Korky Day 08:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions to Wikipedia concerning the "Edit Summary" area:

I think the area for "Edit Summary" should have a much larger capacity. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to say all they want to say about why they are making the changes they are making, especially as concerns the reverts of someone else's writing. The Talk page is a good thing, but it is too far away to for the immediate explanation that is called for. I think the "Edit Summary" should be further divided into a "brief" section and a slightly "extended" section. The "extended" section should still be limited. But it should allow several times the length of writing that the present "Edit Summary" allows for. Bus stop 14:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This talk page is really only used to discuss the article. You may want to post the above at WP:PUMP. —Viriditas | Talk 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Bus stop 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last two sentences of introductory paragraph in "Hippie" article.

Apostle12, Viriditas, and any other concerned editors -- In the "Hippie" article there is no source to back up the assertion that "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." That is a broad, sweeping statement. I don't think it should be made at all. I tried previously to change that statement to a lesser statement. I just wanted it to say something to the effect that the "culture," or the "philosophy," of the Hippies was expressed, or "spread," through the various means cited. But it has been changed back to "Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through..." Again: I don't think such a grandiose claim should be made here. But if you are going to make that claim, it needs a source.

I have additional problems with the use of the term "visual art." I don't think it is the correct term to be used here. That phrase includes much more than what is implied here, or what is provided with a source here. A narrower term or phrase is called for, so as not to create the misleading impression that hippie culture had much of a bearing on "contemporary art," because it did not.

All that I am saying is in reference to the following two sentences, which I take objection to:

Hippie opposition to The Establishment spread worldwide through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues and psychedelic rock. To a lesser degree, hippie culture was expressed in literature, [11] the dramatic arts, [12] and many aspects of the visual arts, especially film, [13] posters advertising rock concerts, and LP album covers. [14] [15] Bus stop 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I didn't write the section in question (I think Apostle12 did), it seems to be valid based on the research that I've done in the past. What research have you performed, Bus stop, and how do your sources differ? I have no problem adding cites for Apostle's claims, but I get the sense this all boils down to "visual arts" for you, and not to the passage in question. FWIW, I've already sourced the visual arts statement on your talk page. If that isn't good enough, I can find another one. —Viriditas | Talk 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas that the section in question is valid. Do you doubt, Bus Stop, that the hippie movement spread worldwide, or is it that you doubt that it spread through a fusion of early rock, folk, blues, and psychedelic rock? Both can be sourced pretty easily, so please let me know what you want.

By the way the "spread" we are talking about was not an Americacentric thing; rather it involved a dynamic process, especially between British and American Groups (the Beatles, the Jefferson Airplane, Big Brother and the Holding Company and the Rolling Stones come immediately to mind) and it involved individual artists (Bob Dylan, Donovan, and Joan Baez).

The breadth of opposition to The Establishment was astounding. The French government was nearly toppled, American society was divided, student riots erupted in Mexico, Prague Spring blossomed in Czechoslovakia with Scott Mackenzie's rendition of "San Francisco" playing in the background. All European nations were affected, as well as Argentina, Japan, New Zealand and Australia. "Worldwide" indeed.

In the second sentence I borrowed your phrase, "hippie culture was expressed through," to narrow the scope since you seemed to object to the previous wording. Many aspects of the visual arts were used to express hippie culture; some of the most obvious are listed. No claim is made that all aspects of the visual arts were utilized, nor is there any mention of the overall impact of hippie culture on the visual arts--I tend to think it was significant, you do not. We don't need to debate it, though, since the article doesn't discuss it.

I've read a number of definitions of "visual arts" in the extant dictionaries, encyclopedias and so on. None are as narrow as you seem to want to make it. Why do you think your unique sensibility should prevail in this case? Apostle12 07:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a tangential reference and a source. A source should be able to substantially support an assertion, or even an implication, in my opinion. Also, and related to this, one should make assertions with appropriate specificity. One's statements should not encompass more than is substantially supported by one's sources.

Scott Mackenzie's "San Francisco" may have accompanied Prague Spring. But no causal relationship can be shown. It shouldn't even be implied. Human society is in a constant state of change. "The establishment" evolves too, albeit more slowly than it's culture, generally. More importantly, one can rarely point to an aspect of culture that brought about a change in "the establishment." One would have to find a pretty good source, to support the notion that Scott Mackenzie's "San Francisco" brought about Prague Spring. Prague Spring was a complex unfolding of events. Even if that music played in the background, it could merely have been incidental rather than causal.

Furthermore, the dividing line between "the establishment" and hippie culture is not even always clear. The Byrds sang a popular song, "Turn, Turn, Turn." The origin of the words are the Judeo-Christian bible. The Judeo-Christian bible would be considered by most people to be establishment-oriented, rather than an article of the counterculture.

As for "visual art," it is a phrase that includes too much, for those things to which you are referring. Not that it is wrong. Not that a tie died T shirt or a rock album cover is not art, but that visual art is more than just these things and a few additional items that you have pointed out. Visual art is a broader term. Visual art also refers to contemporary art. A reference here and there to a work of contemporary art that shows a hippy influence hardly justifies a statement that tends to imply the inclusion of a substantial part of contemporary art. Few of the "movements" in visual art show a substantial hippie influence. The way you are using "visual art" is the way it is commonly used, loosely. What I'm saying is that a more precise formulation of words could serve the article better. Bus stop 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Brand quote

I realize, Viriditas, that you removed the Stewart Brand quote once before. That was in the context of its use to support a much more ambitious statement regarding the hippie ethos. We both agree that its use in that context crossed the original research line, because it was used in combination with other legitimate sources to synthesize the statement in question.

At the time you said you thought the Brand quote could be used in a more limited way. Brand was, after all, an original Merry Prankster and quintessential hippie. As a "hippy visionary" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,531898,00.html) Brand created the Whole Earth Catalogue and he wrote the statement of purpose I used. Since the Whole Earth Catalogue was known as "the hippie Bible" (http://futuro-house.net/stl-web/gallery/album08) and since Brand was a hippie visionary, it seems legitimate to me to use the quote in this more limited context.

Why do you think its use poses a problem? Apostle12 07:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

One additional note: Since the Whole Earth Catalogue was embraced by hippies (easy to source), does it really matter who Brand was talking about when he defined the purpose of the catalogue? BTW I wasn't the one who originally introduced the quote, and it was part of the article for quite a while before you decided to delete it. I really think it belongs. Apostle12 10:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to include the quote in the article, but in the context of Stewart Brand, not hippies. He's notable enough to have his own section, split from the main. I've seen this quote used by other authors in more of a general countercultural context, rather than a specific, particular description of hippies; Markoff observes that Brand's "we are as gods" line pays homage to anthropologist Edmund Leach. Brand's quote wasn't really focused on the power of hippies, but on the potential the new tools of technology held for the counterculture. Brand is a true wizard, one who is able to manifest creative insights from the psychedelic experience and transfer them to the physical world. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your perspective. Though I don't know him personally, we have shared the same social setting since that first Trips Festival in 1966. Articles in his "Co-Evolution Quarterly" inspired my participation in the U.S-Soviet Citizen Diplomacy movement. And I see him regularly at the monthly "Long Now" seminars. I agree that Brand focused on the new tools of technology offered initially in the "Whole Earth Catalogue" then in cyberspace, however I know from conversations with him that this was an extension of his belief in the creative power of the individual--the "Whole Earth" statement of purpose reflected this belief.

I support the addition of a section on Brand in the "Hippie" article.

Still think it would be a good thing to directly quote the "Whole Earth" statement of purpose in the "Ethos and Characteristics" section--perhaps with no ancillary comments. How about it--will you block me? Apostle12 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's go with what other authors have said about Brand and the quote, such as Markoff, Perry, and Turner (check the refs). I'm particularly interested in Turner's book, as it highlights Brand and his ideas. I would also like to consider integrating material into Counterculture of the 1960s, Merry Pranksters, and Stewart Brand, and develop a series/navigation template to guide readers through this timeline. —Viriditas | Talk 20:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just took another look at Fred Turner's book (see refs), and I think it provides the reference we need. In a nutshell, Brand's Whole Earth Catalog was influenced by the ideas of Buckminster Fuller; the catalog served to "network" and support the communes of the New Communialist movement, offering individual hippies tools to both envision and create their future for themselves and their community. According to Turner, "This synthesis generated a social vision in which small-scale informational technologies could be imagined to transform individual minds and, through them, the world. The Whole Earth Catalog presented an informational genre - the network forum - that exemplified that vision." In 1971, Brand gave seed money to Frederick L. Moore, who with the help of Gordon French, founded the Homebrew Computer Club in 1975. By 1972, Brand was "one of the most visible representatives of the New Communalist wing of the counterculture" and the Catalog was circulated widely within that subgroup. However, by 1975 he criticized the self-sufficiency of the movement, preferring the dependency of "coevolution". By 1984, the New Communalist movement had all but dried up, but in 1985, the Communalist ideal of "collaborative communities" found new life in the digital world of the WELL. —Viriditas | Talk 06:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with emphasis on communes following Summer of Love

The Communalist Movement to which you refer seems overrepresented at present. The section on the Summer of Love makes it sound as though the majority of hippies who came to San Francisco (with flowers in their hair) immediately went off to found communes in the locales mentioned.

Just one problem--it didn't happen. The vast majority of hippies went home to their communities of origin, influenced other budding hippies, and the movement spread. Only a small minority of hippies joined communes, and most of those stayed for only brief periods. Apostle12 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We discussed adding this section some time ago, and there was never any objection. According to Gale's Encyclopedia of American Religions, the third phase of American communal history concerns communes founded after 1960. These countercultural communes were part of the hippie movement, and were rooted in the youth who attended the Summer of Love during 1967. In its aftermath, some hippies moved into rural areas, in an effort to get back to the land, while others stayed in the cities and formed urban cooperatives. Hippie communes were active until the 1980s, while Christian and occult New Age communes developed in their wake. —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't recall the discussion. It's not that the countercultural communes didn't happen, and they were certainly a part of the hippie movement. It's only that the way the section is written, it sounds as though the Communalist Movement was more significant than it actually was. For example, if we accept the police estimate that 75,000-100,000 came to San Francisco during the summer of 1967, we need to account for those people. Most communes were small, fewer than 100 people--were there 100 of these, I'm not sure? Gaskin's The Farm was the largest that I am aware of, peaking at a population of approximately 1,200--and many of those people never attended the Summer of Love. In any case it's difficult to account for more than 10,000 people participating in the commune experience. That leaves an undetermined, but much larger, number of people who fanned out to major U.S. and Canadian cities--worldwide in fact. The main Summer of Love article seems pretty good on this, though it errs in the other direction and does not mention the Communalist Movement at all. Apostle12 16:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you have written should be added, and I will try to help. —Viriditas | Talk 22:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks V. I'll start working on sourcing. Any ideas? Apostle12 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Miller is a good source, and both the Hippie Museum and The Farm websites are a good place to find his work if you don't have access to his books. —Viriditas | Talk 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Apostle12 and others will like the re-wording I just put in today. Korky Day 21:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie beginnings

Squeakbox, is the material you added regarding simultaneous development of hippie culture in the United Kingdom and elsewhere supported by the Hirsch reference, or do you need to add additional references to support this claim? We are talking specifically about the period prior to summer 1965 when U.S. hippies began to come into being as a distinct social group. "Rockin' At The Red Dog" documents this development in great detail. Apostle12 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I neither have books nor access to them right now so am unable tor ead up the reference, and no we definitely need to reference the early UK and elesewhere development of the hippy movement, SqueakBox 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be able to provide real references before adding the material. I have no doubt that hippies flourished in the U.K. soon after the U.S. beginning; what is in dispute is whether there was simultaneous development at the earliest stages. By the way, the film I mentioned "Rockin' at the Red Dog" is available through Netflix and Blockbuster in the U.S.--not sure about the U.K. I'll be moving this discussion to the hippie talk page and deleting the added section until you can reference it. Thanks.Apostle12 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent hippies

Weren't there hippies at a Washington proptest recently? That's what my history teacher told my class. Should this be mentioned in the article, or does it need a citation? Because I can't get one.72.11.37.92 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC) It could be considered for inclusion in the article, but try to get citations for it. Bus stop 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Im merely passing thru, and i noticed what appears to be obvious vandalism from some highschool or middle school kids. id fix it, but i've never used Wikipedia as far as creating an article. soooo, ya. evidentially ***** is a slut update- it appears that was corrected, except the article still says "Leggo my Eggo" under the History section; is that of significant importance?

[edit] Globalize tag

I've removed the globalize tag that someone added for several reasons. One, the article contains a small sampling of global links, from festivals to the hippie trail, although they certainly need to be incorporated into the historical timeline. As a start, I've moved Nambassa into the history section, as it seems to fit right in before 1981, which is basically the end of the hippie era, having morphed into the Nuclear freeze movement at that point. Whether or not Swinging London should be added is up for debate, as the hippies seemed to join the end of that era, replacing the Mods. Hippie trail should be explored for obvious reasons. It's likely that those who followed the hippie trail in the early years helped spread hippie values around the world. So, the tag really serves no purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American centrism

Globalising tag sounds good. i have put the NPOV tag as its American centrism gives a false impression that hippies are a US phenomenon and this violates our WP:NPOV, it would have been fine in an old fashioned American encyclopedia but we are international,SqueakBox 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the Hippie movement in particular with countercultrual movements in general. Counterculture of the 1960s addresses this issue. Please give an example of "American centrism" in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Anyway I have changed the npov for the globalize tag as what is here is written in an NPOV manner but is hopelessly American and the hippy movement is not, except possibly in its origins, American at all. For instance the Beatles, one of the most important exponents, are only mentioned in passing, Britain sounds like it only took on hippydom in passing from the US and there is no mentionj of any other country. This is a false impression and needs fixing "before" the tag is removed again, SqueakBox 15:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that more needs to be added regarding hippiedom in other nations. The beginning was American, however it soon became an international movement that included the United Kingdom, all of Western Europe, much of Eastern Europe, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and much of Asia (excluding China). The music scene between 1964 and 1970 became an intense collaboration between American and British groups, and you are correct that the Beatles were prominent in this, especially with their release of Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. The influence moved back and forth from one side of the pond to the other. I might suggest you add material as appropriate to round out the article; there has been little effort to do this so far.

I agree with Viriditas that the globalize tag serves little purpose. Many active editors have incorporated all the material that has been submitted that would tend to create a global perspective. By the way, the psychedelic rock article does a good job explaining the seminal contributions of the Beatles after its U.S. beginnings in 1964. Apostle12 21:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Squeakbox NPOV assertions about this article because the contributions emphatically imply that hippydom was essentially an American phenomenon, to which it was not. The student rebellions started well before the Vietnam War period with huge Ban the Bomb demos in London and Sydney as early as 1958. The traditional hippie peace sign came from these early acts of civil disobedience, these held outside of the US. 1956 saw Civil Engineering Graduates demonstrating in acts of civil disobedience at the Sydney University. It can be said that these very early youth rebellions actually spawned the first hippie movement and in fact they gave precedent for American youth looking at avoiding the Vietnam War and its draft. The movement did come into being in any significant way in the US until after the threat to American youth by the Vietnam War. As soon as the Vietnam War ended the hippie movement became less popular. But this can NOT be said for other parts of the world where hippydom and the counter culture have continued to significantly grow and evolve to the extent that these hippie baby boomers now play an integral part in mainstream politics in New Zealand and Australia....the Greens.

The early British music influence on the hippies remains unconsidered in this article.

This globalize tag needs to remain until these corrections are made. Failure to do so simply reverts this article into yet another centrally controlled American farce where history is being incorrectly remodeled within the greate American ego! Mombas 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course the hippy movement also developed into the Greens in Germany, Mombas serves a reminder of quite how extreme the American perspective is in this article, SqueakBox 14:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt that one thing leads to another. However hippies were a specific phenonenon, disdained by much of the New Left both in Europe and in the United States. "Ban the Bomb" demonstrations in the U.K and "down under" may have been partial precursors to student uprisings in the U.S., but the participants were not "hippies" per se.

Hope both Squeakbox and Mombas will be adding well-sourced material to support the existence, and continuing vitality, of hippiedom worldwide. Every effort has been made to include more global information in the article so far; more would be great!

I think there could be a separate article, referenced from the main article, perhaps called "Worldwide Hippie Movement" or some such. This one is getting too long anyway, even though it only describes the beginning. Apostle12 04:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If there was a worldwide article this one would need renaming to Hippie movement in the United States, a somehat more accurate title for what we have. I certainly hope someone will help globalise the article one way or another, this is why I tagged it, SqueakBox 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You and others are confusing the Hippie movement with the worldwide countercultural movements of the 1960s, which has its own article. Sometimes the influences between the two can be sourced. For example, an editor on the general counterculture article has provided a source linking the influence of the Hippie movement to the Mexican counterculture: see Eric Zolov's 1999 book,Refried Elvis: The Rise of the Mexican Counterculture. (ISBN 0-520-21514-1) And while this can be mentioned in this article, along with a description of the Mexican hippie that Zolov describes, this information does not change the article in any way. —Viriditas | Talk 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have switched to a neutrality tag as the article is clearly not neutral. It makes out the hippy movement is American and forgets the rest of the world even exists and thus fails our stringent WP:NPOV policy, SqueakBox 23:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur, there seems to be a definite POV issue as one editor is apparently convinced that only the hippy movement in America is notable of mention and scarcely wishes to acknowledge the hippy movement that was, and is, outside of the US, which is easily verified. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for you to add the tag. There is no POV involved in removing an unjustified tag. If the information can be easily verified, then consider adding it to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, 2 people in a small group of editors is consensus, certainly that there is a dispute and it isnt just one person who thinks so. I just re-read parts of the article and the US-centrism is as bad as I have seen in an international article. I fail to see how you can think the article is neutral and not US biased, SqueakBox 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the tag, as it is Apostle12 and myself against you and Codex, 2-2. Add the gentleman fro NZ to your side and Mike to ours, and you've got 3-3. No consensus to add the tag(s), so why are you forcing them into the article? You haven't justified the NPOV tag, either. —Viriditas | Talk 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem awfully hasty to count "votes" with yourself against the POV tag that haven't even been cast yet... Voting on their behalf? Don't waste your time - it only takes one editor to indicate there is a dispute; we have two. We don't have any dirty stuff like "Senate cloture of debate by the majority party" on wikipedia; there is obviously a dispute, and the tag stays up until the POV dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of all disputants, or a compromise is worked out. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any chance you or anyone else adding the tag(s) will state the nature of the dispute in clear and succinct language, or am I asking too much? From what I can tell, other editors are supposed to do your research while you make unsupported claims of POV. Please let me know how I can help you resolve /your/ dispute, and remove the tag. If you can't do that, then I will again point out that there is no consenss for the addition of the tag. —Viriditas | Talk 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Codex Sinaiticus

Codes wrote: Sorry, but this article does not address the movement in Italy, UK, France, W. Germany, Canada, Australia and you seem to be resisting attempts to globalize the article.

Could someone provide good, reliable sources for the above? The counterculture of the 1960s should address global countercultural movements. This article should concern itself with Hippies, wherever they may be. Nobody is resisting attempts to do either. Tags should not be used to enforce POV. The issue has been raised, and sources have been requested. It is the POV of some editors that this article neglects to discuss international countercultural movements: a separate article exists for that purpose. It is the POV of some editors that this article fails to account for the origins of the Hippie movement in areas outside the U.S. and its influence around the world. The antecedents section addresses reliable sources for the former, and the legacy section the latter. If more sources can be found, wonderful, but I don't see how the tag is helping to do this, unlike, for example, my use of the list to prose tag in a section that requires immediate rewriting. So, unless something can be done to address the reasons for the tag, it doesn't have a purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an issue with the article quality that multiple editors have noticed and asked to be addressed. The purpose of the tag is not to push a POV, but to call for the problem to be corrected. It would not take too much to fix this problem. But there is clearly a resistance on your part to the call for more globalization, and it seems in your general estimation, other editors' assessment is outweighed by your own. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you challenging a source for? My edit summary? Shouldn't be hard. For starters, try looking up "Hippies" AND "Italy". There was a hippie scene in that country beginning in 1967 just like every other country in Europe, and obviously still is one today, instead of challenging this fact, find the best sources and write about it please and stop being so provincial. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC) + == Hippie beginnings ==

A long string of editors have done all they can to address these concerns. Repeated bland reiterations of "It would not take too much to fix this problem. But there is clearly a resistance on your part to the call for more globalization" without any suggestion of ways in which this could be done seem to hint at a desire to create a quarrel rather than address the alleged problem. If this information is available, use it! Don't merely gesture languidly and say, "Oh, it's out there somewhere, I'm sure; you do the work!" Please, why not assume a little good faith on the part of the dozens of editors who have been working on this article and trying very sincerely to globalize. If you know something about these topics, contribute to them yourself, don't stand around sneering at provincialism. --Orange Mike 21:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC) + Squeakbox, is the material you added regarding simultaneous development of hippie culture in the United Kingdom and elsewhere supported by the Hirsch reference, or do you need to add additional references to support this claim? We are talking specifically about the period prior to summer 1965 when U.S. hippies began to come into being as a distinct social group. "Rockin' At The Red Dog" documents this development in great detail. Apostle12 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do when I find the spare time, but in the meantime please nobody remove the tag until the problem is fixed, or accuse anyone of pushing a POV by means of the needed cleanup tag. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC) + I neither have books nor access to them right now so am unable tor ead up the reference, and no we definitely need to reference the early UK and elesewhere development of the hippy movement, SqueakBox 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The topic is in active discussion, and we have discussed this topic before with the same conclusion. The tag serves no purpose. —Viriditas | Talk 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the globalize tag yesterday and this article still needs globalizing. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with letting our readers know this. perhaps they can help and they can certainly keep it in mind as they read. Until all regular editors feel comfortable with removing the tag it should definitely stay. In this I am fully inn agreement with Codex, SqueakBox 21:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC) + I think you should be able to provide real references before adding the material. I have no doubt that hippies flourished in the U.K. soon after the U.S. beginning; what is in dispute is whether there was simultaneous development at the earliest stages. By the way, the film I mentioned "Rockin' at the Red Dog" is available through Netflix and Blockbuster in the U.S.--not sure about the U.K. I'll be moving this discussion to the hippie talk page and deleting the added section until you can reference it. Thanks.Apostle12 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Why did you add it? Is there a source you want to see represented? Which author? Please help globalize the article by adding to it, not by removing sourced content showing that the movement started in the States. —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to see the article globalized is why I replaced the tag, smae reason as I put it on in the first place. This article is still very US centred. This tag is not a criticism of other editors like yourself but it is a encouragement to other editors and users, SqueakBox 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tags are used to inform and notify readers and editors of a problem. They should not be used to introduce POV, opinions, and editorial wishful thinking. Tags are removed when editors remedy the problem, and when the tags no longer inform or address the issue raised by the editor who added it. How would you like to remedy the problem as you see it? I don't see a problem with globalizing the article. That's not an issue with the current article but more of a featured expansion of legacy and influences; a task request would suffice, not a globalise tag. If you are referring to the origins of the hippies, make sure you cite reliable sources in your reply. I don't see a reason for the tag other than personal opinions and belief. —Viriditas | Talk 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Then you are in total denial of reality. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Codex. Please bill me for your time. Back on topic, we require solutions, not another endless little game of "tag, you're it, no I'm not, yes you are". One answer can be found by looking at the big picture, the forest for the trees: the current article overview is structured around chronology. While this was necessary for the first overview, it is not set in stone for new revisions. Best practice would be to merge the chronological overview into a Timeline subarticle (there is/was a good one on the WELL) and link to it from a history section. There's no reason to confine ourselves to chronology as the primary overview, when we can just as easily portray the article in terms of geography, consequences, comparisons, etc. So, the issue isn't a matter of widening the scope, we agree that's inevitable. The points raised above concern the initial origins of the social group, their goals, conflicts, and cultural influence at the time, and their legacy and existence today. Within those three topics lies the embedded chronology. —Viriditas | Talk 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The disopute is very simple. This article reads like the Hippie movement in the US but when I try top introduce changes they get reverted. We simply need to internationalise this article, its dreadfully over US centred and certain basic statements such as that the hippy movement began in the US are disputed as being, IMO, simply wrong. And a US hippie article masquerading as an intyernational hippie article is not acceptable so needs a radical overhaul, SqueakBox 19:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes. What is particularly unacceptable is the history section, SqueakBox 20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippie beginnings

Squeakbox, is the material you added regarding simultaneous development of hippie culture in the United Kingdom and elsewhere supported by the Hirsch reference, or do you need to add additional references to support this claim? We are talking specifically about the period prior to summer 1965 when U.S. hippies began to come into being as a distinct social group. "Rockin' At The Red Dog" documents this development in great detail. Apostle12 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I neither have books nor access to them right now so am unable tor ead up the reference, and no we definitely need to reference the early UK and elesewhere development of the hippy movement, SqueakBox 16:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should be able to provide real references before adding the material. I have no doubt that hippies flourished in the U.K. soon after the U.S. beginning; what is in dispute is whether there was simultaneous development at the earliest stages. By the way, the film I mentioned "Rockin' at the Red Dog" is available through Netflix and Blockbuster in the U.S.--not sure about the U.K. I'll be moving this discussion to the hippie talk page and deleting the added section until you can reference it. Thanks.Apostle12 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent hippies

Weren't there hippies at a Washington proptest recently? That's what my history teacher told my class. Should this be mentioned in the article, or does it need a citation? Because I can't get one.72.11.37.92 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be considered for inclusion in the article, but try to get citations for it. Bus stop 20:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Im merely passing thru, and i noticed what appears to be obvious vandalism from some highschool or middle school kids. id fix it, but i've never used Wikipedia as far as creating an article. soooo, ya. evidentially kelli is a slut

update- it appears that was corrected, except the article still says "Leggo my Eggo" under the History section; is that of significant importance?

[edit] Congratulation to Viriditas and Apostle12

I would like to thank and to congratulate the above for their long and tireless efforts on the Hippie article...it is informative and much improved due to your unwavering contributions. Mombas 08:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mombas. Apostle12 09:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. —Viriditas | Talk 13:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page deletions by a malicious bug masqueading as Squeakbox

Please explain why you are deleting information from the talk page? [5] —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea how that happened but it wasnt intentional and needs restoring, SqueakBox 00:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored what I can, it looks to me like a bug of some sort, whether deliberately malicious or not I dont know but I could not have made that edit, SqueakBox 00:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Codex is having problems editing as well. I wonder if the two are related. —Viriditas | Talk 01:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Coul;d be, I say it wasnt me as it was too complicated to have been a human error mistake, SqueakBox 19:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus as the "first" hippie

Would jesus be considered a hippie with the unconditional love and turn the other cheek stuff. You always see him wearing some kind of robe and sandals as well and he loved fine wine.He wandered and squated in many locals....a drifter and non materialistic. He challenged the establishment(the man) as well.

Indeed, if one were to take an objective look at the gospels concerning Jesus himself and what he actually said; Jesus certainly looks more like a hippie than a traditional Christian. Jewish and Roman historians by the name of Josephus and Philo, wrote extensively about a group at the time of Christ called the Essenes. Jesus probably an Essene healer, is often thought to be connected to this group. Given Josephus’ and Philos account, the Essenes sound much like an ancient version of the modern hippies and the counterculture. Mombas 10:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Essenes were a group all unto themselves; not very hippie-like. But yeah, a lot of hippies considered Jesus One of Us: hung with the social dregs, "the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath," long hair, sandals, talked about peace and love, fed people for free, got persecuted and killed by The Man (with the collaboration of the existing "religious" Establishment, which didn't want to hear Him). Not sure if it has a place in this article, though. (There is not an article on the Jesus freaks.) --Orange Mike 14:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. The "s" is added after the link, like this: Jesus freaks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not, SqueakBox 14:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NPA

If you want to be seen as a good faith editor please desist from attacking me ie here. Your claim mthat hippies started in the US is plain wrong and your defence of a fallacy in defiance of consensus is not good. Are you American? Your article would be great in an American encyclopedia but in an international encyclopedia, to use an Americanm term, it sucks, SqueakBox 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You changed a cited, direct quote to what you wanted it to say and then inserted original research that was not supported by the source. You also added a NPOV tag to reflect your POV, as there is no consensus for the tag. Please do not engage in tendentious editing. You should be familiar with the policies, so you should understand that criticism of your edits is not a personal attack. —Viriditas | Talk 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your bizarre claim that hippies didnt also begin in the UK is simply false and I have added a ref to cite this. At least 2 estabklished editors support the POV tag and I assume that your removal of it is proof that you are acting in a POV way unacceptable in this encyclopedia. You quote "Reverting vandalism" is an attack and its too late to take it back now. i think Codex is right about an Rfc, we dont have to tolerate this article being hijacked by an American centred POV that will merely misinform our international clientele of readers. Apparently good faith isnt enouigh for you, anyone who disagrewes with you is aggressively shot down, SqueakBox 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostle12 and I have removed the tag, and there is no consensus for its addition. I have not made any of the claims you state above, so you must be mistaken. You altered the Hirsch citation to say something it did not, multiple times, and this has been explained to you previously. If you have good, reliable sources for any of the things you feel are missing from the article, then by all means, add them. But, please do not alter cited sources to say something they don't, add original research to cited content, or add unreliable sources. Thank you. I look forward to your contributions. —Viriditas | Talk 23:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Codex re:NPOV tag

In an edit summary dated 23:20, 23 March 2007, Codex Sinaiticus wrote:restore NPOV tag - multiple editors challenged POV of this article for reasons clearly outlined, no satisfactory compromise reached, but one side of dispute unilaterally deleting tag against policy

To reply: Codex and SqueakBox have repeatedly added a NPOV tag without proper justification, and Apostle12 and myself have repeatedly removed it. There is no consensus for the tag. The tag is being used to promote a POV not supported by the current sources, and in some cases, editor(s) have altered reliable sources and inserted original research to promote this POV. Proponents of the tag claim the article does not represent a worldwide view. Opponents of the tag claim that the addition of reliably sourced perspectives contrary to the ones in the article at present, are welcome and encouraged. When asked how this alleged NPOV issue can be solved, proponents have remained silent, reinforcing the opinion that disruptive tag warring is being used against best practices of tagging problem articles. A survey of topical, reliable sources does not support the placement of a NPOV tag, and one wonders how an issue that does not seem to exist can be fixed. —Viriditas | Talk 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry but there is definitely a dispute, the dispute is not resolved by pretending it doesn't exist, there has to be some dialogue. Please read up on the WP:NPOV policy for more to see about resolving disputes. If this continues, I am going to opt for a RFC. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Describe the dispute in 50 words or less. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but first of all, I do not recognise the authority you imagine you have to issue me such imperative commands. The problem has been sufficiently stated on this page numerous times, as the incoming RFC will quickly pick up. The real problem is basically YOUR editing patterns, continually removing the globalize tags, denying that any such problem exists, quickly reverting most attempts at widening the horizons past the borders of the US that you didn't write yourself, challenging the attribution of practically every single word of the article, the talkpage and even the edit summaries to an unprecedented degree, and for quite some time, having a generally proprietary attitude toward this particular article, making it difficult and frustrating for other editors to work with. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

How can I address a dispute when you repeatedly refuse to describe it? Ok, so now there isn't a NPOV dispute like you claim, nor was there ever. Thanks for clearing that up. The globalize tag was removed by multiple editors, after you failed to explain how to address the problem. Is there a reason you are incapable of explaining a dispute after you tag an article? I've personally.worked on globalizing the article for some time as the talk page and edit history shows. You engaged in personal attacks when asked how to address the problem s you see it, calling me crazy and provincial. Another editor addressed the problem you fail to describe by inserting unsourced, original research and falsifying published sources, deleting mention of the origin of the hippies in the U.S. and adding unreliable sources to boot. This is unacceptable. In the future, if you can't describe a dispute, don't tag the article. —Viriditas | Talk 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute has been described and patiently explained, at your request, over and over again, by more than one editor here, but amazingly no matter how many times it is explained to you in really, really simple English, you still don't seem to want to get it, instead seem to want to keep pretending there is no dispute and summarily keep removing the tag like you alone are the arbiter of all things here. That's the kind of thing that is immensely difficult to work with here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no dispute at this time, nor was there one regarding this issue in the past, nor have you ever explained or justifed one. Not a single editor has ever opposed expanding this article to include notable, reliably sourced descriptions of international hippie movements. But, don't let little things like facts get in the way of your "dispute". —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There IS a dispute, you either have reading c0omprehension difficulties, or are in total denial of reality if you cannot see that there is a dispute, and guess what, you don't get to make decisions about things here all by yourself and call that a "consensus". Do I actually need to go through this talkpage and highlight all the different times the dispute has been explained to you in baby English? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You've never explained or justified any kind of dispute. You only seem interested in blindly slapping tags on an article but not doing the necessary work of explaining why you added the tag, and how other editors can fulfill the criteria in order to remove the tag. This has been explained to you many times with no response on your end. If you can't explain why you add tags to an article and what other editors have to do to remove them, don't expect anyone to take you seriously. —Viriditas | Talk 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Without proper justification in whose eyes? Its easy enough to solve the pov, get rid of the US centrism. If you think this issue doesnt exist you are ignoring the evidence, 03:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)SqueakBox

Your "evidence" seems to consist of links to rockabilly.com - unreliable web sources that fail to meet WP:ATT nor support your content in any way. —Viriditas | Talk 09:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False vandalism claims as a POV promotion

Until Viriditas stops making what he knows to be false and bad faith vandalism allegations concerning this edit then we will clearly get nowhere but it strikes me that such claims are an indication that he is coming from a good faith space himself and these false allegations are completely unacceptable especvially after he has been warned but continues with the behaviour. Editors whose main goal is to making editinf as unpleasant as possible for other editorts in order to promote their POV, as Viriditas has now done twice, only damage wikipedia. Please desist, SqueakBox 03:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question: if an editor changes the user or article talk page comments of another editor in such a way that it changes the original meaning and import of the statement, and if this editor is warned about doing this, but instead, chooses to continue changing the comments of other editors, not once, not twice, but four or five times, and each time the editor in question does this, it changes the meaning of the original comments made by other users - is this behavior vandalism? —Viriditas | Talk 07:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise for lead

Through a series of edits, I reconstructed the lead of the "Hippie" article to effect a compromise that I hope might satisfy Viriditas, Squeakbox and Codex Sinaiticus. I have remained true to the Hirsch quote, though I have also addressed a central point made by SqueakBox and Codex Sinaiticus, which I believe has merit.

Specifically the development of the hippie ethos was an interactive affair, with its earliest beginnings in the S.F. Bay Area (Chan Laughlin, Ginsburg et al in Berkeley and San Francisco, Neal Cassady and Ken Kesey in Menlo Park and La Honda). Then very soon afterwards a direct connection was established with the Beatles, especially after Ginsburg's visit to the U.K. and their visit to the Bay Area in 1965. Subsequently the Beatles and other English groups directly influenced the development and spread of the hippie ethos through their music.

In other words, the early cultural influences traveled back and forth, from one side of the pond to the other.

The lead as previously written did not convey this. I am sure that the lead as currently written can be improved, and the sourcing can be made better. Anyway, a start...all I have time for this evening.Apostle12 08:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do the sources used to justify these claims meet WP:ATT? —Viriditas | Talk 09:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it seems that all of these "hippie" type said to be in foreign countries, do not exist, unless I can provide their exact geographic coordinates, social control numbers, plus central polit-chik authorisation signature, in triplicate. Nothing else will be good eough or reliable enough. I do not have this info, ergo, these "hippies" do not exist. I imagine many of them will be dissapointed to hear of their non-existence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Have you folks considered mediation? This seems like a pretty typical global-view versus reflect-the-sources dispute, and I think a mediator might help a lot. (I also think knocking off the accusations of vandalism would help.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've protected the version in front of me, no endorsement implied blah blah blah. Go to dispute resolution with this. I'd recommend mediation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I am all for mediation, if only we can get the other party to acknowledge that there actually is a dispute here. Would you be willing to mediate. MIB? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If me mediating is amenable to Viriditas and other involved parties. I'm not sure how I can really resolve the disagreement, but hopefully I can get things rolling so that you guys can resolve it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I support MIB's involvement, and I would like to see Codex explain the dispute as he sees it with a resolution provided so the issue can be addressed and the tag removed. Apostle12 updated the article yesterday and removed the tag, and Codex added it again without acknowledging Apostle's contributions or explaining why he added it or how it can ever be removed to his personal satisfaction. —Viriditas | Talk 00:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are actually abundant sources. I just now did a search for "Italian hippies", and found out there were beatnik hippies there livign in tents in 1966 who got attacked by the police http://parole.aporee.org/work/hier.php3?spec_id=20484&words_id=943 . There are also lots of hippies still there today. Also elsewhere in Europe: France, Netherlands, Germany, UK, same story. Lots of hippies there today, and have been since the 60s. Australia, NZ. Why would these easily verifiable facts repeatedly get pulled from the article? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What is that site, and how is it a reliable source? It seems to be a poor translation of an unspecified article, translated well after the fact, putting the word "hippie" into the author's mouth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, well would you consider this newsreel a reliable source? Note how many hippies were in Rome in 1967, in the last minute of the tape. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I'm going to try and take this on tomorrow, if everyone is amenable. (Should I be waiting for input from anyone besides Apostle12?) In the meantime, I'd like everyone to take a night off, since this article isn't going anywhere, and think about a brief statement of the problems they have with the current version of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in after a busy day. Yes, mediation sounds good. The sources I provided are the best I could find within the hour or so I had available to me. I am sure they can be improved, however there seems to be no doubt that hippiedom spread worldwide. Apostle12 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What problem do you have with this article?

I'd like anyone who has a problem with this article in its current form to make a subsection here, briefly describing their problems with the curren version. It seems a lot of the problem is that nobody has clearly articulated what they want, and once we have that we can make a bit of progress. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening is much better. I think if we moved the history in the US section to a new article called History of the hippie movement in the United States and just had a summary here that we would have made some considerable efforts towards globalising the article but with the history section being very one sided at the moment the globalisation issue is likely to conitnue until a more world-wide history can be built up. Even tiny sections for various other countries would improve things greatly in the history section, SqueakBox 22:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the problem; that's what you think the solution should be. What's the problem? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply US centrism, SqueakBox 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I support splitting the history section as a whole, not by region, but as a History of the hippie movement overview, using summary style on the main page. —Viriditas | Talk 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, SqueakBox 22:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you want to add more info in the history of...um...hippieism in nations other than the US. Fair enough. What sources are you going to use to do so? There seems to be running revert wars over the quality of this or that source, so let's get a list and start figuring out which ones will be useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As presently written, certain sections seem forced--perhaps the result of attempts on the part of some editors to underscore a perception of U.S. centrism. For example, I believe "History of the movement in the US" should read simply "History of the movement"--just because U.S. material dominates is not necessarily an indication of POV. If editors will simply add well-sourced material that tells the story from a global perspective, balance will be restored.

Similarly "Antecedents" begins with "The foundation of the hippie movement in the United States..." The various entries in this section are not U.S. centric, however, so there is no justification for the recent addition of the phrase "in the United States."

Much of what has been added over the past several months regarding global hippism has been unsourced, obvious O.R. I have repeatedly called this to the attention of the various editors, however they have made no attempt to source their additions. Nevertheless, I have not reverted or removed much of this material, choosing instead to tolerate its presence. Perhaps the involved editors could become more conscientious in this regard. Apostle12 05:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to go through the article and make a list of the parts of the article you find problematic, so that we can discuss them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, although not much is left by now because other editors have acted on it.

"Hippies were also influenced by the ideas of Jesus Christ, Hillel the Elder, Buddha, St. Francis of Assisi, Krishna, Henry David Thoreau, Madame Blavatsky, Gandhi, and others.[35]" Krishna and Madame Blavatsky were added, though they are not supported by the source. I asked one editor to provide a source, and he referred to several (not very good) sources, but never chose to include them.

"Another influence was the Jamaican Rastafari movement who, while openly espousing Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia as God, also wore long hair (called dreadlocks), smoked cannabis as a sacrament, rejected the establishment (which they called Babylon) and espoused a back-to-nature and back-to-their-African-roots philosophy. Due to large scale immigration from Jamaica to the UK during the 1950s, this movement influenced the developing UK hippie movement, with contacts often formed when young whites would buy cannabis from black communities." Either Squeakbox or Codex (I think)added this section during the past few days--pretty typical of the sort of stuff that has been added over the past few months. I edited it only for various technical aspects; haven't yet had a chance to request sourcing.

"While the Haight was the undisputed epicenter of a growing hippie culture, college campuses and cities throughout the United States and as far away as Sweden boasted a vibrant counterculture, including New York's East Village, Chicago's Old Town, Boston, Detroit, Lawrence, KS and Paris." Someone else requested sourcing here; I'm not sure who authored it. Seems kind of spotty and disjointed, needs work along with the sourcing.

"Harder drugs, such as amphetamines and the opiates, were also used in hippie settings; however, these drugs were disdained, even among those who used them, because they were recognized as harmful and addictive,[60]notoriously heroin was banned from Stonehenge Free Festival." I wrote the beginning of this sentence, providing sourcing from Yablonsky's work. Sometime during the past few days, the last section ("notoriously heroin was banned from Stonehenge Free Festival") was added--ungrammatical and no sourcing.

"In Britain, the term, spelled hippy, is generally seen as a pejorative label, and is thus disdained by those to whom it is applied. The spelling hipy (with one p) is considered even more insulting." The second part seems a bit improbable and, again, no sourcing.

Guess that's about it for now.Apostle12 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can help Apostle12 out if he has limited time. I concur with his assessment above. —Viriditas | Talk 06:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Update as of 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC). Codex and SqueakBox are continuing this dispute over at Counterculture and Counterculture of the 1960s. I hope the current mediator can help. —Viriditas | Talk 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. YOU are the one who has provoked the identical dispute at both of these articles faced with the fact that YOU have succeeded in getting this page locked. Tell the Truth, it won't hurt you to be honest. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

MIB locked the page: request unprotection if you need it. —Viriditas | Talk 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Folks, if this is bigger than this article, you're gonna have to find another mediator. I'd suggest the Mediation Cabal, if they're still active.

By the way, nobody was "successful" in getting the page locked. Edit warring, which took everyone present and several others, got this page locked. Ideally, we could get the deadlock on the talk page undone and the article unlocked, but I'm not sure I'm quite the one to help you do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case, can you unprotect? —Viriditas | Talk 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the dispute is nowhere near over and unlocking now would be a tragic mistake. The other two pages may need to be locked as well since Viriditas is determined to disrupt them being bored with the fact that he can't be provocative here. Basically, he does not want the British Invasion of 1964 to be mentioned in any article about counterculture, apparently can't see any connection, and tooth and nail resists all attempts of other editors to expand those articles beyond the confines United States. This is pure historical revisionism. We wouldn't have an article called British Invasion if there were no such thing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why doesnt't the Britsh Invasion article cite sources? Should I add an unref tag? The Brit. Inv. was not the origin of the countercultural movements nor the hippie movement. See the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Noone is saying it is the only origin, but it is a significant factor that fueled the counterculture, that the encyclopedia looks very foolish to ignore. Not just the Beatles, how about the Stones and the Kinks, they also go back to 64. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you read the policy on requesting cites and references, they are supposed to be provided in those situations whererever someone has challenged the veracity of a statement, indicating that there is a dispute. They are not supposed to be requested frivolously for statements like, say, "the Sun is in the Solar system". I haven't been involved with editing the British Invasion article, but I would guess that the reason it has no cites, is because nobody on the entire globe before now has ever been bone-headed enough to challenge the veracity of things that almost everyone knows are true and can easily verify if they have any doubts. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple search for "British invasion" AND Counterculture is turning up a myriad of good, reliable sources that testify to the obvious conenction between the two. MSNBC for one example explicitly states that the Feb. '64 arrival of the British "began popular culture's seismic shift" in this great article, which has some really great quotes (search for the words 'counterculture' and 'hippies') that we should be able to use in all of these articles to set the record straight. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3833078/ ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Markoff, 2005, Perry 2005, Judt 2005, and Turner 2006, describe an American counterculture that influenced the UK and the rest of the world. The electric British Invasion converted the acoustic folk counterculture into rock fans. The counterculture had already been in existence, since the Beat movement started in 1944, influenced by Hubbard's distribution of LSD post-1955, the civil rights movement, the election of Kennedy in 1960, the Free Speech Movement, the formation of SDS in 1962 and much, much later, British rock, which influenced the hippies in 1965. —Viriditas | Talk 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well your books clearly exhibit one POV, but clearly it is not the only POV that can be sourced... So, you are still denying reality and sticking to what your select book sources tell you eh??? I think the whole story needs to be told according to policy, you can't insist that we leave out a crucial chapter of counterculture history just because you for whatever reson want it suppressed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hubbard (1955), Leary, Kesey (1959) and the Stanford bohemian culture were already dropping LSD by 1961, leading to the formation of collectives. Brand joined the club in 1962, although he had already worked out the countercultural thesis in 1958. "The liberation of the individual was simultaneously an American ideal, an evolutionary imperative, and, for Brand and millions of other adolescents, a pressing personal goal." (Turner) Kesey's "Acid Tests" are considered the "harbinger for the making of a counterculture": Woodstock. (Markoff, 2005) Youth culture started in France in 1963. Swinging London wasn't even recognized until 1966. In the UK, hippie fashion was an alien creation: "In contrast to the 'Carnaby Street' and 'Street-fighting Man' looks, which were indigenously European in origin, the hippie look - obscurely 'utopian' in its non-western, 'counter-cultural', asexual ethic of conspicuous under-consumption - was an American import." (Turner, 2006, p.397) British musicians borrowed from American blues guitarists (Turner) and influenced American protest song folk musicians (Perry) who then developed Acid rock, forming the backbone of the hippie movement in the late 1960s (Britannica, Vol. 26, 15th ed.)—Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it follows from any of this that we aren't allowed to talk about the developments that definitely occurred in the UK and Europe, or why all mentions of the UK influence on the movement keep getting stripped, as well as the globalization tag. Your insistence that there is no problem or dispute with the article being almost entirely focused on the US, is a problem in itself. The globalization tag was identified as an issue by numerous editors whom you single-handedly overruled, and the tag needs to stay until the article is globalized. When I look through the talkpage archives, it appears your micromanaging WP:OWN actions here and your rigid insistence that only your own approved sources are worthy, have been so disruptive that they have caused a number of knowledgeable editors to leave in frustration over the last 6 months or so. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you add the globalize tag to this article, and according to what criteria can it be removed? —Viriditas | Talk 15:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec):It may be that the US centrism in this article hasnt been an accidental occurrence but a deliberate one, SqueakBox 15:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since you also added the globalize tag, I will also ask you to justify its placement. What criteria needs to be met before the tag can be removed? —Viriditas | Talk 15:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have done so to the point of exhaustion already, SqueakBox 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostle12 and myself must have missed it. Could you briefly repeat yourself for my benefit? Apostle12 updated the article to take your criticism into account. Do you find his modifications acceptable or not? At what point will you allow the globalize tag to be removed? —Viriditas | Talk 15:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. In the opening the claim that it only devel;oped in the States is challeneged. Though generally Apostle has greatly improved the opening stuff lie "By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population" is classic US centric material. The history section, renamed by me to History in the US, still dominates. I think, as I said before, that if we mopve that to or the entire history to its own section that it will solve a lot of the problem, SqueakBox 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where the article says the hippie movement only developed in the states. So, you aren't challenging the material, you are offering to expand it. What would you like to add, and which source are you going to use? Be specific. Splitting the entire history section as a whole, not by region, is ok with me. —Viriditas | Talk 15:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to online material (living in Honduras) so it isnt so easy for me to expand with references but I will try to do so when the article is unlocked. I will also create a new history article and then see how the article looks, SqueakBox 15:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to work this out before the article is unlocked, and Apostle12 hasn't weighed in yet on the split. If you need a particular point sourced, just ask. —Viriditas | Talk 15:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Viriditas. Work out the new history version in your sandbox and let us all have a look at it before posting, please. --Orange Mike 18:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Better to use Hippie/temp and put a link to the original article for copyright security. And if someone does please let everyone else know, SqueakBox 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please create the temp page and add the missing content that will fulfill the globalize criteria, and if you can, add a summary of hippie history. Maybe Codex will participate? Orange Mike and I will help out, and hopefully, Apostle12 will show up soon. —Viriditas | Talk 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been following the discussion with interest. I find myself extraordinarily busy this week, which has prevented me from taking the time to participate more fully.

Regarding Squeakbox's comment regarding "U.S. centrisim" in the sentence ("By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population.") this is just a simple statement of fact with a credible source provided. The appropriate way to enlarge (i.e. globalize) the picture is to add material, perhaps: "In England the hippie community also grew to exert significant cultural and political pressure." (Source) "In France, the Netherlands and Italy significant hippie communities also arose." (Source) I am just giving examples here; haven't done the research.

Regarding the proposed split, I am not sure how it would work. Has work proceeded on a separate article? If so, I would like to review it.

I do not think the article should be unlocked until something is worked out here. It is simply too disruptive to readers who may wish to inform themselves regarding the subject. Apostle12 17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hippie/temp History of the hippie movement/temp, SqueakBox 17:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The politics section is a classic example of the US centrism affecting this article. In its present state it simply isnt acceptable in an article aabout thwe international hipie movement, SqueakBox 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So, why don't you simply insert a subheading under "Politics" that reads "In the United States," and then add other subheadings that read "In Great Britain," "In France," "In Denmark," "In the Netherlands" and so on? No need to stomp around; just add appropriate, well-sourced material. Apostle12 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for minor edit

At some point during the recent dispute the following two paragraphs were merged, which makes the resulting one paragragh inappropriate. If an administrator could please separate them as follows, that would be much appreciated. I have also eliminated the first comma in the first sentence of the first paragraph, following "counterculture." Thank you. Apostle12 17:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hippie or Hippy refers to a subgroup of the 1960s and early 1970s counterculture that found its earliest beginnings in the United States, becoming an established social group by 1965 before declining during the mid-1970s.[1] The developing hippie ethos soon influenced the Beatles and others in the United Kingdom[2] and Europe,[3] and they in turn influenced their American counterparts.[4] Hippies, along with the New Left, and the American Civil Rights Movement, are considered the three dissenting groups of the American 1960s counterculture.[5] Eventually, the hippie movement extended far beyond the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe, affecting Australia,[6] New Zealand,[7] Japan,[8] Mexico, Brazil and many other countries.[9]

Hippies were originally part of a youth movement composed mostly of white teenagers and young adults between the ages of 15 and 25 years old.[10][11] Inheriting a tradition of cultural dissent from the bohemians and the beatniks, hippies rebelled against established institutions, criticized middle class values, in the United Kingdom opposed nuclear weapons and in America opposed the Vietnam War, embraced aspects of non-Judeo-Christian religions, promoted sexual liberation and the taking of psychedelic drugs, and created intentional communities, leading some to describe hippies as a new religious movement.[12] By 1968, self-described hippies had become a significant minority, representing just under 0.2 percent of the U.S. population.[13]

Please take your request to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for significant edits to a protected page, SqueakBox 17:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}. Because this page was protected due to edit warring, it is not appropriate to make this edit. Please contact User:A Man In Black to ask for unprotection. Once the dispute is settled, you will be able to make the change yourself. CMummert · talk 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and made my request on ManinBlack's talk page. However, from other posted comments I gather that he may have withdrawn from the project. Neither requested change has anything to do with the disputed items. Apostle12 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page. Hopefully the dispute has passed. CMummert · talk 18:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)