Talk:Deadhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please remove the section Celebrity Heads

What's the point of this section? Is it a joke? Or someone seriously wish to promote individuals like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, etc, into (ex-)Dead Heads?!? As about Mr. Clinton, his contribution to the community is really legendary: "When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton

I like the general idea of a section on "celebrity Deadheads," but I think there ought to be a distinction between "Deadheads" and "Dead fans." I do not think it is the place of Wikipedia to judge whether or not a person (famous or otherwise) represents the "spirit" of being a Deadhead. However, I think the same general standard should apply to famous people as to the non-famous.

Examples -- Ann Coulter actually called herself a Deadhead in interviews. I do not remember Clinton or Tony Blair applying that term to themselves. Bill Walton is an avowed Deadhead and friend of the band themselves. Joseph Campbell saw some shows and admired the Dead, but every quote of his I've read about the Dead read like he saw the Deadheads as "them", and didn't consider himself one of them. Etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.139.128 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the section seems fairly self-explanatory--the article itself is about a fandom and the section in question is about famous people within the fandom. I don't see it as an attempt to "promote" any of the named individuals but if you have a legitimate objection to the section, feel free to post your reasoning here. Seelie 08:02, 29 November 2006

I'll post my reasoning instead, while I am still ambivalent about this section, I will promptly remove mentions of Clinton, Blair and the Gores, these guys fit nicely with the trilater commision, the bilderberg and other "think tanks" but they sure don't fit with the dead heads. Just because someone supposedly attended a concert or smoked pot but didn't inhale, or played for a year or two in a band "influenced" by the dead, is not an avid fan. And having as a reference an illustrated book some publisher got out to serve whatever reasons they might wish to serve is not a citation. If arch conservative, elitist and powerful rulers would very much like to appropriate the dead heads, essentially a peacefull hippy crowd, for publicity reasons they should try a little harder. But they can't have it both ways, bilderberg and non inhalation don't really mix with the spirit of the dead, it's actually a blasphemy. 195.134.69.186 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They are included because they are mentioned in two official Grateful Dead books. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there's only one book being mentioned as a citation, and that is not an official deadhead book, whatever the term official means in this context. The afforementioned book is unfortunately not available or browsable in the internet, and because I have not found a single source responsibly and verifiably claim on the internet that these people where ever part of the mass of people following the dead, a direct quote from the book, as well as the sources from where this book makes this supposition I believe are required before we include them in this list. And since we are talking here about heads of states, very prominent for whatever the deadheads DID NOT stand for, namely having been against or oblivious of the counterculture, it'll surely have to be more than a quote of saying say "they attended a couple of concerts" to qualify for that. So, to sum up, if you can point me to sources I can read, and others can too, on the net that make such claims, or to a quote on this book along the lines of "bill clinton on a sabatical, not inhaling, but trailing the dead for the better part of a year in 1969" I will have to accept it. But like I said, claims made by the people themselves appropriatting a counter culture that they were never a part of, but has now become an accepted, even praised part of american mainstream culture, or someone's notion that to go to a couple of concerts and a slip a cd in your player a few times whilst driving is for me, and I think for most insufficient proof. I 'd be inclined to take Bill Clinton's elligibility more seriously than the rest, despite his mass bombing and murdering of the Serbs being a move not as much aligned with the spirit of the dead, if he had only saved us from that ludicrous non inhalation statement, because, let's face it, at a deads concert not inhaling actually means not breathing for a few hours. 195.134.69.97 23:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This people are mentioned, discusses, and sourced properly. It you need, check your local books store. Also, the direct links to Amazon.com are here: [1], [2] The pages are sourced in the article after their names. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, you are introducing this material, the bourden of proof lies with you. I am not the one who should try to unearth these books to see where, how and under what terms this people are considered deadheads and according to whose testimony, it's, let me break it to you, it's you who has to do that, and present the relative justification to the rest of the community here. Moreso, since like I 've already mentioned and won't go into again, since these people where never associated with the hippy culture and there inclusion here is highly contested, and controversial. The links to the amazon bookstore, as well as the "clarification" that the sources are afterr their names (oh really?) are pointless too. If you are so sure that they merit mention, and since you seem to be the owner of both the books you mention, why don't you enlighten the rest of us here with whatever verification is required? Because it seems that this vast knowledge pool that is the internet has somehow ommited this ANY pages that you can source. 213.170.207.36 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all books are going to found in their entirety for free on the internet because their are copyright issues. I have placed the reliable sources, that is the proof. What you are essentially saying is that these people are too controversial, in your eyes, even though they are sourced? That may be true, but that would be a conflict of interest. As for internet sourcing, I suggest you try any available internet search engine. Heck, even the archives of the New York Times has articles mentioning then if you look. Al Gore, in particular, has a lot of information with his relationship to the GD and their culture. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but last time I checked reliable sources required besides posting a book, page no. and a link from the main article, to elaborate on WHY they are reliable sources, and in what way are they referenced in the source you claim. Otherwise everyone here would be "reliably sourcing" their claims and the rest of us would just have to take their word for it. For the time being you have provided no verification of why these arch figures of the establishment, these arch conservatives are or have ever been members of the couter culture of the deadheads other than point us to a page in a book and you are unwilling to share with the rest of the community here what specific proof or verification this book provides. This, to the discerning reader who goes into the extra lenghts of reading the talk pages too, makes it obivous that the inclusion of these people is both bogus and agenda driven, but wikipedia should cater for the casual reader too, and it's an injustice to them if these people remain here. 91.140.56.54 23:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect to Grateful Dead?

Redirect to Grateful Dead? --Robert Merkel 22:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Deadheads (or Dead Heads, in the band's own spelling) now exist even though the band itself as a touring entity does not. Therefore, I think the fan-base, as a group merits its own entry.

Further, the Grateful Dead article itself would be far too long if a comprehensive explanation of "Deadhead" were included.

I also disagree. Deadheads are a separate if linked phenonemon and is notable enough to deserve its own article. Also noted that WP has a separate article for Trekkie, rather than a redirect to Star Trek. Wasted Time R 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"I also disagree. Deadheads are a separate if linked phenonemon and is notable enough to deserve its own article. Also noted that WP has a separate article for Trekkie, rather than a redirect to Star Trek."

Dead Heads exist regardless of whether the Grateful Dead exists. It's an extremely diverse culture that does not need the members of the band to survive. "The Boys" might have created this monster, but they can't control it.

[edit] Subcultures

BTW: perhaps there should be a separate article on all the subcultures that have sprung out of the Dead's odd experiment. There are queer Dead Heads who organized themselves, there are Orthodox Jewish Deadheads, The Merry Punsters (picky Dead Heads with a comical bent), Deafheads (Heads who enjoyed the music via a volunteer interpreter in their own special section that the band provided), the Net Heads, you name it.

Not all of these subcultures still exist, but it was still a fascinating cultural phenomenon.

"Deadhead subcultures" shoould remain subordinate to "Deadhead." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.139.128 (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Testimonial

This is completely not relevant, but hear me out; this is one generous group of people.

I met a man one time who simply could not stand Grateful Dead music, but he heard that the parking lot was a good place to score marijuana. ;-( (just the kind of Dead Head no one likes.).

He went to the lot with no money, no car, no ticket and no dignity. Well, he kept a tiny bit of dignity: he decided he would not beg. He borrowed a sheet of paper, a pen and cardboard six-pack holder from a woman, and then he rooted around in the dirt, making balls out of the turf. Then he walked through the crowd, yelling:

"Mud balls! Get your mud balls! Only one dollar!"

People were so charmed by his refusal to beg that by the end of the evening, he had a ticket, a full pack of assorted cigarettes, several beers, dinner, $15 and a place to sleep. He didn't get the drugs he wanted, but by that time, he was so overwhelmed by generosity that it didn't matter.

Sorry, this isn't related to the article, but I just wanted to let people know that America can be very wonderful place.

[edit] Unsourced information

Sorry to do it, but I have removed a mass of unsourced, POV claims that contain only original research. I will be fine re-adding these in if viable sources can be found. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be clueless about Dead culture. See http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=rec.music.gdead+%22miracle+seeker%22&qt_s=Search for many references to "Miracle seekers", for example. Wasted Time R 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not "clueless" of the culture. I know most of this is true. The problem is sourcing the information. Please see WP:OR and specifically Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know all about WP:OR. Its rationale in WP is to keep physics cranks out; beyond that, it gets applied in cases where it doesn't really make sense. Like this one. If you know, and I know, and a couple dozen writers in rec.music.gdead knew, and a whole bunch of other people know about miracle seekers, then what is the purpose of pretending that they didn't exist just because no newspaper (whose archives are easily available) wrote about them at the time? Since the miracle seekers bit was added to this article, no one has objected to it on factual grounds, only you on pedantic grounds. Wasted Time R 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Then it would be considered original research on your part. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. as found at Wikipedia:Verifiability. As long as you follow the policy, I have no problem with its inclusion. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
So why pray tell did you leave in the stuff about the Lot? Shakedown Street? The subcultures? Tapers of "on nights"? It's all just as unverified. Wasted Time R 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am waiting to remove it while I work on a cited article, using Garcia: An American Life by Blair Jackson, Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip Jake Woodward, et al, and Phil Lesh: Searching for the Sound by Phil Lesh as my sources. --MOE.RON talk | done | doing 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing in your precious WP:blah about "waiting to remove" unverified material until cite research is done, so I've removed it all for you. Wasted Time R 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it looks relatively WP:NPOV now and the original research stuff has been removed. If there are any qualms about material still in the article, please feel free to remove. If anyone finds sources on stuff that was removed that are reliable, make sure to replace it. There is a bit more from the books I will likely add soon (I just have been a bit busy). Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone think we should mention something about the Live Music Archive problems from last year? I know there were one or two articles run in major publications about it that I can scrounge up. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

>Sorry to do it, but I have removed a mass of unsourced, POV claims that contain only original research. I will be fine re-adding these in if viable sources can be found...

Here's one for you from http://members.aol.com/tedalvy/ts.htm:

Excerpt from the book by Grateful Dead Bass Player Phil Lesh:
The unique organicity of our music reflects the fact that each of us consciously personalized his playing: to fit with what others were playing and to fit with who each man was as an individual, allowing us to meld our consciousnesses together in the unity of a group mind.
For us, the philosophical basis of this concept was articulated by the science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon in his novel More Than Human, wherein the protagonists each have a single paranormal talent – telepathy, psychokinesis, teleportation – and are joined by a quadruple paraplegic who acts as a central processing unit. The process by which they become one is called bleshing, from a combination of mesh and blend. (Today’s archetype would be the X-Men.)

Now I'm going to put the page back the way it was. And I'll add this reference to it.

Moeron, you might want to consider discussing this with us before you go ahead and try to change it again. No one that I know of appointed you Keeper Of The Deadhead Page.

Michael Trigoboff

That is fine for the reference (do you have a page number for it? If not I will just flip through the pages), but the following comment still is riff with WP:POV:
  • "The band and Deadheads also had "off" nights which wasn't surprising given the large number of shows and tremendous travel schedule the group and its fans maintained over the years. An "off" night might be characterized by low energy, mumbled words, Jerry Garcia singing the wrong lyrics or forgetting the lyrics, Donna Godchaux singing way out of key, short set lists, or even a rare missed encore."
So I am going to remove it until we have a source (even though I know that you mean, it still goes back to my above reference to "verifiability, not truth"). As far as your last comment Michael, remember to assume good faith and that we are asked to be bold here on Wikipedia when it comes to editing. I saw an article that needed some work, so I edited it. There were differences between editors and we have talked them out (and will continue to do so). I really appreciate yours and Wasted's time on the article in an effort to make this better. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the quote and then reading the reference exert in the article don't really seem to match up. I will look for other sources about the "X-Factor", but it may have to be removed. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Part 2
Hey guys, just checking in on the page. I took some time off because it seemed like people were getting "hot under the collar" about having verifiablity for the article. I like the information User: Fuhghettaboutit provided! Anyway, I wanted to let people know my train of thought way before hand so there won't be any problems and it will give people some time to work things out. I will return to the page again in a week and a half (about) and at that time I will combine the "X-Force" paragraph (if someone doesn't before then) and removed those statements that still have "[citation needed]" with them. As part of official policy at WP:V#Burden of evidence, "any edit lacking a source may be removed" and I am giving editors ample time since "some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references." Since "the burden of evidence lies with the editors," we can't leave these in and just tell people to go look them up. Again, this will be three weeks since I first added the "[citation needed]" tags, which should be enough time to verify this, since we need to "be careful not to err ... by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long." Cheers! --- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 19:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is one case where WP's rigid notion of "verifiability not truth", meaning relying on the straight press's coverage of a culture rather than the collective testimony of the participants in the culture, is never going to do justice to the subject, so I'm going to sit this one out. Wasted Time R 22:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being bold

As mentioned above, Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. Here goes...

Grateful Dead concerts were psychedelic phenomena. They were explorations into the nature of consciousness, performed by a dedicated band of researchers. They were also Major League Fun, which did not detract from the seriousness of the endeavor. I'm a Deadhead. I participated in the psychic events at Grateful Dead concerts. Did you, Moeron?

My hopes for this topic page are that Deadheads will come along and add their perspectives and produce better and more interesting descriptions of the phenomenon. What you are doing instead is to apply a rule without any regard to the appropriateness of that rule to the topic. Most of the important things that happened at Grateful Dead concerts are "recorded" in the minds of the Deadheads, not in books. Restricting this page to what got published on paper will eliminate the main point of why there were Deadheads at all.

The rigid application of an inappropriate rule is totally incompatible with the spirit that animated Grateful Dead concerts, which was to find out what human consciousness could do when it was freed of the usual constraints.

You say things like "may have to be removed," which makes it sound like you're speaking with the voice of some disembodied higher authority. But you're not. You have no more authority in this matter than I do (and possibly less, if you weren't there at the concerts).

I say it's not appropriate to limit this topic to what's printed on paper. This isn't an article about physics. It's an article about metaphysics. I haven't seen any controversy about what's written in this article. No Deadheads have weighed in to say, "No, that's not the way it was at the concerts." It's just you attempting to insist that a rigid and irrelevant rule be applied to this article.

I don't see any reason why I should let you do that. You don't outrank me or anyone else around here. You don't speak with any "voice of authority," just with your own voice - as do I.

Michael Trigoboff 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree whole-heartedly with the above; I made a similar argument in the earlier section above, but Michael Trigoboff makes it even better. Wasted Time R 22:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with the X-Factor stuff and the fans being a part of it, that is cited in the paragraph above the one you replace, making the information redundanct. The problem comes with the on-off nights senario: "The band and Deadheads also had "off" nights which wasn't surprising given the large number of shows and tremendous travel schedule the group and its fans maintained over the years. An "off" night might be characterized by low energy, mumbled words, Jerry Garcia singing the wrong lyrics or forgetting the lyrics, Donna Godchaux singing way out of key, short set lists, or even a rare missed encore." I understand totally what you mean because we Deadheads can pick up on these things. But Wikipedia has two policies that are explicit about this sort of thing.
There is nothing I would like more than to include this information, but we need a source in order to do it. I will keep looking through the six books on the Dead I have and see what I turn up. My best suggestion, though, is to check for newspaper articles that state something about the band having an "off-night". I will be checking the LA Times archive and see if Rolling Stone has anything. Again, thanks for all of your hard work on this article. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of seeking outside assitance on this issue (hopefully from an admin) through either WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:WQA. Cheers! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will continue to restore what you continue to insist on deleting. Michael Trigoboff 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, though I am baffled why you are including the relatively same information in a paragraph as the preceeding one. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, do you want to discuss it, or do you just want to fight an edit war with me? I'll do it either way, but I'd prefer the discussion. What I won't do is cede to you the authority over this page, or the authority to be the arbiter of how to appropriately apply Wikipedia's rules to this page. In my view, the way you're applying those rules is absolutely inappropriate. Michael Trigoboff 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. We need an open dialogue. Ok, so first the duplicate X-Factor paragraphs. What do you suggest? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The paragraphs could be combined, I suppose, if that were to be done without losing any of the concepts. Michael Trigoboff 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applying The Rules

Moeron, here's a quote from one of the rules you cited, reliable, published sources:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

So this rule is a guideline, not an absolute rule. It's not "policy." And you're supposed to discuss it if there's some disagreement about applying the rule.

You, Wasted Time R, and I seem to be the interested parties. I say you're applying the rules in a way that's too rigid for this topic.

Michael Trigoboff 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, what sources are in contention? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand exactly what you're asking me here. Can you provide a bit more detail/context/information? Thanks... Michael Trigoboff 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I guess we are both confused. Why did you start this section and point out WP:RS? What "point" are you trying to make? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
It says right there in that rule that it's not mandatory. It's a guideline. I do not think that your application of these rules is appropriate to this topic. I think that is what we need to discuss. You are claiming that every single thing in this article must have some source in published material. To repeat myself, I do not think that's appropriate in this case. -- Michael Trigoboff 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that applies to pointing out which sources are reliable, but Wikipedia still doesn't allow original thought or original research (ie, statements about on-off nights without sources). -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I finally understand what you were trying to point out. You thought that the rule I stated was a guideline, but it is in fact an official policy. I shall provide the correct Wikilink now:

  • From WP:V:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
    • Further from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.
  • From WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
    • Further from WP:NOR: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

Also, WP:V and WP:NOR combine to provide the first standing point of Wikipedia:Five pillars. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As Trigoboff has pointed out, you are obsessing over rules that are designed to keep crank scientific theories and libelous biographical articles out of WP. Neither is at play here. There are jillions of articles in WP that don't reference every fact according to the above rules. Many of these articles are full of non-truths, distortions, and the like, and deserve to be gone over. You've never claimed that one thing in this article was untrue, just that it was unverified. I'd suggest you find a more serious article, where your attentions would make a much more positive contribution. Wasted Time R 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
No way! I want to help make another article a good article and as close to fact as possible. Again, Wikipedia articles are about verifiablity, not truth. This is a particular high interest of mine, so I will continue to make this article better with yours and Trigoboffs help and I appreciate it a lot. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Problem is, it won't be a "good article." It will be a useless and boring article that captures nothing important about the Deadhead phenomenon. See my comments in the "sources" topic below. Michael Trigoboff 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A picture

I was thinking, one thing this page needs (other then working out the unsourced, POV statements, haha) is a picture of some sort. I am going to look around for a picture of the "Dead Freaks unite" statement. If not, I was thinking a "steal your face" skull. Thoughts? -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 05:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures would be great, assuming you get them past the (legitimate) copyright/fair use rules. Wasted Time R 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rec.music.gdead postings as a source

I'm going to use Usenet rec.music.gdead postings as a source for some of what needs sourcing. Now yes, I know that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet says no to this. And for any one posting, they are right; there's no way to know its authenticity. However, taken en masse, Usenet posts are a valuable primary source. If there are, say, several hundred posts from several dozen different posters over the course of several years, and all say that some Deadhead subculture or practice exists, then you'd have to be a full-on conspiracy theorist to think all those posts were fabricated. Deadheads were one of the first groups to form virtual communities, and it would be silly to ignore such a valuable historic record.

And I am sure there are academic papers that mine Usenet archives to draw sociological conclusions about all sorts of topics. Indeed, academic researchers have always drawn on personal diaries, newspaper letters to the editor, and other forms of public statement by ordinary people; any one instance can be suspect, but if examined in large enough numbers, they form the basis for reasonable conclusions. So Moeron, does this avenue for sourcing seem legitimate to you? Wasted Time R 05:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And I should point out that such a resource is verifiable; everyone has access to the same Google groups archive. Wasted Time R 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

An example of such a cite would be http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=rec.music.gdead+%22miracle+seekers%22&qt_s=Search, which gives 193 posts for "miracle seekers". There are also two additional advantages of using Usenet archives: they tend to be more contemporaneous, and they don't throw up false positives from cloned versions of earlier Wikipedia articles (a constant problem with regular Google searches). Wasted Time R 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then the statement may be original research and should not be included. Wikipedia is not a fansite; documenting what is said on Usenet is the job of a fansite. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
JzG, I don't think you're understanding the point here. This is an article that describes a particlar set of notably famous and unusual fans. As such, the volume of writings by these fans is a useful source. Any one particular writing is, of course, inherently unreliable. If I find a 1992 post that says someone ran into Bob Weir in the supermarket, and Weir said that he was embarrassed by the band and that they hadn't put out a really good album in 20 years, then of course that's unreliable and unusable. But if I find hundreds of postings across multiple posters and multiple time periods that say that a certain behavior among this fan group existed, then on what grounds are you doubting this? I don't think WP:RS was formulated with this usage of Usenet in mind, which is why I don't think it's appropriate to apply WP:RS here. Wasted Time R 12:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
And I don't think you're understanding the point here. Anything whihc can only be substantiated from Usenet, is functionally unverifiable. From what I can see Dead Heads was originally an official or semi-official fanclub (a point not made in the article) and much of the rest is trivia. We do not exist to document the tremendously exciting things which go on in a Usenet group. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
If you think Deadheads were just a fan club, then obviously this article has not done its job well :-( Wasted Time R 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite possible - {{sofixit}}. With references from reliable sources. NME is fine. Just zis Guy you know? 19:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia page describing "reliable sources":
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard.
Applying strict rules of scholarship to a topic like this is going to result in losing all of the actually interesting and useful material about this topic.
Replying to JzG: No, the Deadheads are not and never were a "fan club." The Deadheads were the audience part of the group phenomenon that was led by the band. At a certain point in time, the band got curious about who the Deadheads were, so they put notices on their albums and put together a mailing list. But the Deadheads existed before the notices and the mailing lists.
If you insist on the rigid application of these rules to this topic, then you might as well just delete the whole topic -- because all you're going to have here is a useless compendium of irrelevant (but highly documented) "facts" that won't provide an accurate description of the phenomenon.
Michael Trigoboff 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Remember the bit about not what is "true" but what is verifiable? The problem here is that we can't take each other's word for it - every Wikipedia article suffers from editorial bias, because people rarely write about things for which they have no strong feelings. Wikinfo has a very different approach. Just zis Guy you know? 19:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kind of following on from this, but am I correct in thinking that a subsection of Deadheads actually lived a nomadic lifestyle, making them a precursor of Britain's new age travellers? The article doesn't seem to mention it so perhaps my memory fails me? --kingboyk 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] riot at deercreek

I think it is a glaring omision to leave out any mention of the riot that took place at Noblesville IN in 94. It was a major news story and showed a Definite change in the group dynamic.--The Emperor of Wikipedia & Protector of Wiktionary 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Major news story? Change in the group dynamic? This seems like original research as does most of chronilogical portion of the article. --Tom 13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This event was covered by NBC, CBS and ABC. It was featured on the cover of USA today. Was it a major event from a world perspective? No. It was a major event in terms of Deadhead culture. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I must have been high or already inside at the time since it doesn't even really even ring any bells all these years later :). If you can dig up some references and post them here I guess it can be included as long as its in some kind of context. What do others think? It just seems that there is so much original research/commentary in this article, but thats just my small opinion. Cheers, --Tom 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't remember the july 4th show being canceled? The end result was that Nobelsville bared the Dead from playing at Deercreek again, not that it mattered much as Jerry died a few months later. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh i am sorry, i was thinking of an earlier show at Deercreek. At that point, I had actually slowed down the number of shows i was attending. Also, Jerry died in 1995 not 1994?? Can you link some cites to the riot events? I vagely remeber mention of it? I do remember Bill Graham yelling at a bunch of dead heads (myself included) outside of the SF civic center for not having tickets on NEW YEARS EVE of all nights. That was one of the few shows I did have to "sneak" into :). The problem with gate crashers was a problem, but providing sources is an issue. anyways, --Tom 17:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it took place on 7/2/95. Google didn't help. --Tom 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I added a "celebrity head", but I cannot cite the source the same way sources were cited for the other celebs. Something is really wrong with this section. Footnotes 25-29 are all in footnote 25.

All I know how to do is copy what has already been done. (I find this a more effective learning technique than using the largely incomprehensible WP help pages.) Unfortunately, it looks like I'm copying something that wasn't right in the first place. It sure seems like I did the same thing as the web link to Patrick Leahy, and I tried to do the other web links the same way, but the references from 25-29 are all still listed with #25?

Someone needs to fix this.

.s

X ile 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk

[edit] Bill Clinton was a deadhead

Do you have to have attended a show to be a deadhead? Did Bill ever see the boys perform? Just curious. Thanks, --Tom 21:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know for sure he was at RFK in 94 or 95 (i dont remember) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.47.128.202 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major original research, commentary, POV, cruff, whatever the hell you want to call it

It seems that there needs major work here. Is it Moeron?, could you chime in, not that you own it, but you seem pretty involved, thanks --Tom 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that the touchheads and minglewood council ect was added back with an edit summary about me not liking it. It really isn't about whether I like it or not since I really don't care one way of the other, it just seems like original research and not really notable. Who is doing this research and what makes them an authority on this subject? It seems that alot of the cites are from the same source? Anyways, --Tom 16:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Flag fans of the Dead?

It's common knowledge that Greg Ginn and Henry Rollins are publically anti-hippy, and the source given for their supposed appreciation of the band is some kids high school presentation uploaded to a media-sharing site. I can find no solid evidence for this entry, unless anyone pipes up to the contrary I'll remove it in a weeks time - Al.locke (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The source given on that presentation is an entry from Rollins' book "Get In the Van". I don't have a copy of the book, but it should be easy enough to check.

Rollins has certainly mocked the various excesses of hippie-dom in that some hippies (trustafarians come to mind) can embody the hypocrisy he has spent most of his life battling, but I do not believe that he is "anti-hippie" so much as he is anti-dogma, and specifically hates dogma bred of ignorance. As such, much of the knee jerk liberalism and soft-minded platitudinalism of the hippie scene would greatly offend him. But that does not make him anti-hippie. Just anti-d*&^chebag. UncleCheese (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, and the quote from the book is correct. My point is that enjoying a Dead show doesn't make one a deadhead - Al.locke (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)