Talk:Neo-hippies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Near total rewrite
I just finished a near-total rewrite. Feel free to add references and otherwise clean up my middle of the night scrawl, as much of this is drawn on my personal experience as one of the discussed neo-hippies. Lostinlodos {talk} 04:55 01 March 2007
- It sucks, and it is unreferenced. You are trying to redefine them from a primarily anti-war group, into a primarily pro-homosexual group. They are all about DISSENT, and that means dissent against the standard television fare. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)
[edit] Speculation?
Isn't the sentance "Some of these are sons, daughters and grandchildren of the original hippies." simple speculation? So it should probably be removed.
[edit] I disagree
It doesn't simply have to be speculation, rather a un-cited statistic, fact drawn from personal experience, or accepted dogma on the matter.
i agree to disagree, this article is a lot of bs,
- It is far worse now than ever; if being drawn on "personal experience" was the main complaint beforehand, now the only one reference it had has been suppressed by an editor who openly admits his source is "personal experience" and has an obvious agenda to push. I am adding the NPOV tag, and that editor should carefully read WP:OR. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)
[edit] Self-applied
this is not a term I believe anyone would use to describe themselves. therefore this sentence will be removed
- I'm wondering about "used by 21st century people". I remember seeing the term in print in 1990. I know that tie-dye shirts experienced a huge (re-)surge in popularity about a year earlier, though the term was not used in that context. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Complete Rewrite?
This could be a very useful contemporary sociological article if it were drafted carefully. It appears that the original author just sat down and started writing his observations on the the "neo-hippies." Is this just my impression or does anyone else concur? T.E. Goodwin 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- It may look like that, but I can assure you, it is actually the product of multiple hands, bellieve it or not. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Humorous Content
This article makes me laugh. The art car is a nice touch. Perhaps it should be refined and moved to Uncyclopedia.org?
[edit] Neutrality
The goal was to get back the neutrality of the article, I'll go through a full research binge on it today and get better sources, but I did my best to remove the conservative spin that was on the article. Neo-hippies are not about dissent. Neo-hippies are about freedom. To make this article encyclopaedic it needs to move away from that conservative hatred and misconception that fills the page now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 07:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC).
- Spoken like the true puppet of the System. "Not about DISSENT" you say??? Toss and gibberish man! Gibberish and toss. In your research, do try actually looking at some of the things that happened in the 60s - there are loads of good resources on the net I could even point you to. Never, ever simply swallow the corporate media portrayal of the "hippie" as a bovine, boring clown. Listen to the music of that timeframe. Really talk to those who were around sometime. Inquire for yourself, don't simply be the projection that the media wants, then tell us what you have learned. Peace. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 13:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References, edits, and changes:
I maintained most of the original author's work. I attempted to expand the entire article, recategorize the article and re-template it to conform to the general standards of the service. If I inadvertently lost any of the original sources, I'll plug them back in. Please have the courtesy not to dump my work, as I have shown by not dumping the original authors work. I have properly tagged my own revision, this time, to call to note that I am not finished and will site references at a later point, if someone else didn't get there first. The original authors work has been incorporated into what I had expanded on. The personal experience I speak of is not from reading/watching the media, but from a complete and total immersion in the culture myself. I accept that I am slightly biased here, but I have edited this as straight down the line as I can at the moment; all the while maintaining the original authors contributions; even though I disagree with some of them. I would rather discuss this matter with you and other users rather than fight and argue. I'm sure you could at the very least understand that I put some fair amount of effort into this article.
Please review this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Revert#Don.27t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Tagging_unsourced_material
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Key_policies Lostinlodos (talk
[edit] I PROTEST
Your agenda is crystal clear. Based allegedly on your "own personal experience", you have rewritten the article in such a way as to subsume modern day 'hippies' into just yet another front for homosexual politics. You may as well rename the movement (in your view) to "Politicians' loyal catamite pages" -- whose only real function is to get their masters' consciences off their war, while sneering at everyone else. Silly rabbit, if you were around during the Vietnam war, or any true rebels, you'd be utterly reviled. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!)
[edit] And also
As I said, I'm not done. It takes 30 seconds for me to write a message here, and quite a few hours (days, weeks) to write up a correct article. It's not a homosexual movement, if that's how you perceive the article at the moment. It's a freedom movement. Each of those little sections will eventually be expanded on. Anti-war, anti-repressive-taxation, pro-earth-rights, including animals and anti-global-warming. And so-on and so-forth As you so eloquently put: "if you were around during the Vietnam war, or any true rebels, you'd be utterly reviled". Neo-hippies are the movement that started in the mid-80s, give or take a few years, and continues on today. They are not the same movement of the Vietnam era. Some things are shared, some are different. There are very different goals, and a much wider movement today than there was in the 60s and 70s. I'm not sure if I would be reviled, necessarily, I get along quite well with some originals, and butt heads constantly with others.
All I ask is stick with this for a few weeks, and once I expanded it out, see what you think. If you are still unhappy with it, maybe we could then pick specifics and see what could be put together better. Or how about expanding on what there is so far. If I'm missing something, feel free to add it in, it will definitely shorten my work load down. I never said don't contribute, I only asked you not to toss out my work so far. Please, expand on it if you think I'm missing something.--Lostinlodos 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Though I suspect the entire article violates the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms rule, every sincere editing effort deserves applause. Go for it. --TheEditrix2 03:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
