Talk:Patrick K. Kroupa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments | ||
Contents |
[edit] Refs for post-2000
I am trying to tie together the important points from 2000 to present day, I've been working on refs for a while and will add it soon. It's taking a while because I want to be very careful about making any statements or comments that are not appropriate, so I am sticking mostly with Kroupa's own writings on drugs, post 2000 from MAPS, Heroin Times, the Stanton Peele web site and material from ibogaine.mindvox.com, balancing it with third-party media pieces and what has aired on television or on film, the LunArt films, bios from the Drug Policy Alliance and Harm Reduction Coalition, published conference reviews, video from NBC, KRON, Telemundo Networks Worldwide, Clearlight video (covering Kroupa, Dr. Mash, Dana Beal, Ed Rosenthal, Chris Conrad and Dennis Peron in San Francisco) CBC, and the BBC. I am also using the two books Black Hat and Hip: the History, which are both recent books covering Kroupa without mindvox and focusing almost completely on drugs. Finally I am using the promo materials sent to colleges, when the Yippe Speaking Tour was doing college campus talks during 2003, with Kroupa, Hunter S. Thompson, Grace Slick, Dana Beal, etc. This comes from the exact media kit mailed to the Offices of Student Affairs (which is where my interest came from in the first place ;-) the web site which I think is on ice now, is at: http://yippie.mindvox.com)
Other pieces I know about which I do not have access to are the Knitting Factory, Viper Room shows, anything with Robert Altman shooting video and a lot of other stuff I have missed I'm sure.
If anyone has further refs from after 2000 not listed above, please drop me a talk and let me know. Thanks.
TrancedOut 03:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
annendum to above, I am also lacking any material from Kroupa talking at Linux security conferences in Eastern Europe, which he appears to do. Black Hat includes photos from these, but I have no information about them.
TrancedOut 03:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Whoever did the last edits it was not bad and comes out of published material from Hip the History and Heroin Times articles [1]. I have changed one date which was different then what's listed, Kroupa is listed as having been in Thailand for 4 months, not 6 and made minor changes, I see the IP in talk edited hundreds of articles but this one wasn't vandalism. It's as good a starting point for after MindVox as anything else.
TrancedOut 15:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Psychedelics
Innacurate change, kroupa does original research and publishes,
http://ibogaine.mindvox.com/Articles/MAPS-Ibogaine2.pdf http://ibogaine.mindvox.com/Articles/MAPS-Ibogaine.pdf
he is also employed by the ibogaine research project, with dr. deborah mash.
TrancedOut 01:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see you've already fixed it. looks good, and thanks for all the work you've put into this article! --Heah talk 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Additional request for references
If anyone has additional published references for the years 2002 and 2003 please share (see below). Thanks!
I am working completely from published interviews and the books I have access to that are listed in the references section. I have also borrowed heavily from the MindVox entry. If any of the numerous MindVox authors have further references or published information (by published I mean in a book, magazine or tv/film interview, not rants on the internet), I would be grateful for the assistance. Thanks
TrancedOut 02:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DOB
Kroupa's DOB is jan 20, 1969 from John Leland's book, Hip: the History. I've seen the phrack piece but figure someone made a typo maybe, I took precedence from the published novel over the old etext. He is also listed as 1969 in drug policy alliance promo materials. Maybe write him and ask the guy? I get no replies. You're in cdc, was Kroupa in cdc or is he in cdc? Or is that a secret? ;-)
TrancedOut 03:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delayed reply. I'd go with the Phrack date, personally, because those "prophiles" are filled out by the people himself and I'd assume Kroupa knows his own birthdate. Doesn't matter much, though. As for whether or not he is in cDc, let me get back to you on that. --Myles Long/cDc 20:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ok, it's public now. Kroupa is in cDc as of now. Added it to the article. --Myles Long 19:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
rm'd the kirschenbaum book. maybe start a agr1ppa article, nothing in the current article uses the book as a reference, it might belong in the mindvox entry, where it already appears as a ref.
6Akira7 20:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one who forgot to give attirubtion to the image uploaded. have re-uploaded using labeling. Use of the image is covered under fair use and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images.
6Akira7 03:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Akira filling in references and links is good, but I've removed some of your legion of doom and dana beal refs. They belong more to Dana Beal's and LOD's entries both of which need some help. You're also filling up the reference section with a lot of refs, its ok I guess as long as they relate to kroupa, but look up some other entries, I haven't listed half the stuff on mindvox and elsewhere, I only listed the references I actually used to write the article, if you want to keep filling it up go ahead but you could fill up 20 pages of references. Check out listings for other people like burroughs, or any musician or writer who has a good entry, they have refs, rarely near as many links as the mindvox entry which I guess is good for completion but you don't need to annotate every second sentence with 5 refs, when only a few relate to what's being written. Thanks TrancedOut 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry youre right point taken! 6Akira7 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Talk Page Cleanup?
What is Wiki policy about re-writing talk pages? I think that we've turned the talk page into a big mess, I notice that talk pages go from oldest comments to newest, while we've done the reverse and all the newest talk is at the top. I'm guilty of this since I added comments all over the place and now am putting them back on top again. Tranced you've done a lot of work, I added some of the cats in the main article and you've done a lot to make it much much better, but you've also turned most of the talk page into reverse order.
Do we fix this, should I change the talk from oldest to newest or do we not care?
6Akira7 18:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the talk page and put it into chronological order, if anyone finds anything I missed, sorry please change it. I read the actual comments and the page wasn't even in reverse date order, it had replies to comments in the middle, at the end and the whole page was one big mess where it was very hard to follow any kind of convo.
6Akira7 18:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Libertarian cat
Hi, I've removed the Libertarian category as there is no assertion in the article that Kroupa is a libertarian. If anyone has any sources to back this up, please add them --Deville (Talk) 23:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Tag
"They went about it by arresting anybody and everybody and stomping all over civil rights and due process."
Are you fucking serious? This is Wikipedia, not the New York Times. I've tagged this article due to this and smaller texts. --68.48.82.180 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I will take a go through it and change the wording on some of the sections when I have a chance. I contributed maybe half of the actual text, the problems I had were no first hand knowledge and taking everything in it, from published texts, which span a massive collection of refs and different styles of publications, books, etc. Nearly everything Kroupa or MindVox ever appeared in, is very gung ho about their subject matter, be it the NY Times or Wired or whatever and have a lot of strong and positive opinions. There is no conservative, right-wing publication that has ever spent pages or shot movies or written books about why conservatives think that a really interesting heroin addict is a wonderful thing and are going to dedicate a lot of space covering him. Yes, you would go to the NY times for that and that line exactly reflects the NY Times opinion.
I also have the post 2000 material to add, I haven't had time to contribute to Wiki much in a long time, so I'll add some of it and tone down some of the more ultra liberal POV. The one thing I weigh in with is, anything basic in the article is directly referenced, any refs used are real world publications, not web sites, the positive and negative are both there, there isn't any POV that is taken from any one source, it's a massive well documented collection of publications.....all of them ultra-liberal ;-) No, reading it even that's not true, Forbes was ultra-conservative and spent the entire article explaining how hackers were bad and you should fear them, except for of course mindvox, which they called brilliant ;-)
I'll look through some pages that would have identical problems, such as Burroughs, Leary, etc, to see how it was handled within wikipedia and read through the grey hat, black hat hacking sections for more of same. My first exposure to all this was when the Yippie speaking tour showed up at my college, which was more like a rock concert and riot all at once. TrancedOut 07:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
if you could do most of the refs and add post 2000, this would be great. all of that is missing, you did mention you were collecting refs and going to add it back almost a year ago.
Changing some of the ultra ultra liberal tone might be good too, it's really funny that that "They went about it by arresting anybody and everybody and stomping all over civil rights and due process." has been in the article for over a year and out of the 200+ edits nobody disagreed with it except a anonymous ip whose entire history on wikipedia is being banned for vandalism. guess your point is on point, not many peeps who dig mindvox and bush. 6Akira7 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV removed, partial copvio? removed, compressed, re written
I did a massive overhaul of the whole article, it was pretty easy as the refs are solid. All I did was read the refs as they appear in the text, then write the same thing without taking the POV which all the refs use. I cut out entire paragraphs that all seem to be doing nothing but paraphrasing kroupa's entries in Hip: The History of Cool. If I removed anything important, then please add it back in or edit it, I did not mean to delete anything that was relevent, but there are massive changes.
Everything before the MindVox section looks like its using many sources, it's balanced. Most of everything from MindVox all the way to MIA, was not directly related to Kroupa there was the EFF, the state of the online world, etc. The Voices paragraphs were mostly ok, they too are from many sources and POVs, but everything in the entire "MIA/DOA" section is taken from one page of that NY Times' reporters book, Hip: The History. I have that book, while it's not a copyvio, someone took exactly one page Leland wrote, then said the identical thing, using identical POV, in their own words. I removed all of it, rewrote and compressed mindvox and MIA, and put them into one non POV category, instead of 2 huge ones.
Tranced you said a year ago you would add more refs or whatever, you've written phantom access and now Mixter's entry after not doing anything for a long time and still no refs. The entire article is missing the last 6 years.
Everything past 2000 is still missing. That's almost 7 years, this is a ways beyond a stub and has excellent refs, and its now back to facts from multiple sources lacking POV. Compare where it started, to where it ended once cut, compressed, re written. But... its nowhere near complete.
6Akira7 19:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
