Talk:Rainbow Gathering/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No Alcohol?

They're hippies, right? So it's more a weed thing.

haha, it's not a party. and they(we)'re not all hippies. i mean, i've seen all kinds of kind people there. lots and lots of people being people in the best sense. the atmosphere kinda gets ya high even with out the green stuff. lots of children as well. you know what i'm saying? its a gathering for peace, not a gathering for smoking pot and being crazy hippies. its very spiritual, and alot of the world religions are represented there as well.

what it is supposed to be all over is about peace, not violence, or drugs or alcohol, these things are tolerated to a point, selling is also not allowed, but in the last five years this has not been the case, alcohol has moved into the gathering and is even sold in trading circle, along with powders and other things. to not know this is something i refrained myself from saying, but it happens now with more frequency, this year there was even a keg of molson beer brought to main circle. while there are alot of people who do go there for the spiritual thing, many do not, infact i would venture to say 58% go there for the party, not for the peace. plenty of good people inside the gathering , but also plenty of bad people too! miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net twofeathersTwofeathers 12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Deaths from bad water?...

I deleted what someone had added about 43 people dying from bad water in 1989. I've attended gatherings for a number of years, and I had never heard about that. No source was cited. I've heard of some people getting sick from bad water, but not any deaths, much less 43 kids! And the water sickness that I've heard about has always been from a lack of filtration, not from bad filters. If someone's gonna add that back in, they should find a source. 43 people dying at such a high profile event would be well publicized. Blackcats 08:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


From the twenty-year cycle of my experiences at The Gatherings, no deaths from "bad water" have ever occurred, but such false allegations are part of the price we pay for an egalitarian website. Sometimes a few people will have gastrointestinal problems, but that is due to their not following common-sense public health practises, like boiling or filtering water from unknown sources. Rainbow Dave 11:12 am, 25 December 2005

Of course if someone did die, it was due to "not following common-sense public health practises(sic)," but that doesn't mean that no one has died. Anyway, I take your word for it. Even though Rainbow Gatherings are good, that doesn't mean that bad things don't happen during them. Wikipedia is about facts, not about whether something is good or bad. So, if you have any relevant information, you should add it to the article, even if it might make Gatherings look bad (of course, adding context will help prevent misunderstandings like that). Robotbeat 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


Mythical prophecies

I added content tracking the legend of a Hopi prophecy to its known origins in published literature, and its acknowledged track as it spread through environmental circles. I don't mean to impugn Vincent Brown's scholarship in publishing the legend, but a tracable legend in published literature offers more substance than does popular folklore. This encyclopedia does well to approach with due caution second-hand attributions of statements to tribal elders when a published source is available for attribution. I don't mean to convey disbelief that elder Hopis or other Native Americans found great hope in popular environmentalism and expressed that hope to nomadic environmentalists, but this might not be the best way to establish these hopes as policy declarations by "The Hopi Elders" validating "Prophecies" documented in literature published at a time when poetic license among Anglo scholars often abriged the substance and sourcing of materials they attributed to native people. SeeMoreTruth 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate article?

The section on the Hopi prophesy mentions Greenpeace and the Rainbow Warrior. The connection between greenpeace and the gathering (if there is one) needs clarification. As it is now, readers may assume there is an affiliation. Regardless of this issue, The Hopi prophesy is clearly not just about the rainbow gathering so maybe it needs its own article. How about moving this section to Hopi Prophesy? Dev1n

One problem is that we have no evidence that it is a Hopi prophesy. It is text from a book written by an Anglo publisher, who self-published his own account of things he might or might not have sourced from an individual Hopi, from an undefined group previously cited here as "the Hopi elders" or from his synthesis of conversations with people in the vicinity of Hopi. And as I explain below, another non-enrolled woman who claims Cherokee heritage says an unidentified Cree woman told her a story in almost exactly the same words.
Another problem is that the explanation of the origins of the myth among environmentalists was added to this article after a long period in which the article stated as fact that the Rainbow Gathering was fulfillment of a Hopi prophecy. [1] The legend of a Hopi prophecy has for decades been standard folklore among Rainbow people. That Greenpeace also applied the name to their battleship doesn't diminish the direct connection between the language included in this article of the supposed prophecy shared among Rainbow people and the known source in the Anglo text. Citations are offered from a published scholar studying Rainbow people connecting it to the Naturegraph book.[2][3] Explanation of how the legend spread is all supported with reliable sources. I would concur with moving it, but not to an article titled anything Hopi -- maybe to Legend of a Rainbow Warrior.
"Yet another problem is that the Anglo publisher is not the only source who claims to know the origin of the allegedly native prophecy. An Oklahoma woman, Lelanie Fuller Stone, who represents herself as a non-enrolled Cherokee descendant claims an oddly similar sounding legend originates from Cree prophecies. She says a Cree woman, (her grandmother according to other sites that repeat the folklore) told her the legend:
There will come a time when the Earth grows sick and
when it does a tribe will gather from all the cultures
of the World who believe in deed and not words.
They will work to heal it...they will be known as the "Warriors of the Rainbow."
She is cited as a source of the legend on other Rainbow sites. [4]. Beyond this reference to a legend that is definately Greenpeace folklore and is definately Rainbow Tribe folklore and is definately Naturegraph folklore and might be Hopi or Cree folklore, any other discussion of ostensible Hopi prophecies would best be placed under a title naming the authors who published the supposed prophecies. The book on the topic most widely cited among mystics like the Rainbows, albeit written under standards typical of 1963, is the Book of the Hopi by Frank Waters. But Waters does not refer to a Hopi Rainbow Warrior prophecy. Though his works are widely enjoyed, history has not always reflected well on Waters' scholarly aspirations. His books have been used in college classes but he is not a peer reviewed expert on Hopi lore. Of course, I'd like to offer more scholarly critiques of Waters - here is what I found in a quick search of the Web consistent with reading I have not kept records of over the years.[5][6][7]. An article titled "Hopi prophecies", if ever Wikipedia deigned to know anything about that subject, would best be sourced on named Hopis from recent published literature, or on peer reviewed texts by reputable anthropologists. A start might be the Northern Arizona University Special Collections and Archives which has the papers of Oraibi Hopi White Bear Fredericks on which Waters based his book. But we will need to wait for somebody to do the research, because this isn't the place for original research, and an article sourced solely on Waters' research would best be titled as an article about Waters' research, not as about Hopi lore. SeeMoreTruth 10:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I've now created an article on the Legend of a Rainbow Warrior. Now that part of this article needs to be reduced to only as much as is relevent and this context, with a link to the new article. SeeMoreTruth 11:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

US Nationals/Alternative gatherings

Gathering of the Tribes. Are these rainbow gatherings? They've been inserted into the US calendars for 2004-2006 and See Also but the dates coincide with the US National ... According to this site [[8]] they're a troll - deleting entries. Clappingsimon 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Lookingheart here. The "A Gathering of the Tribes" is/are bonifide Annual Rainbow Gatherings and have nothing to do with the bogus claims on Chaz' hateful boycott site you referenced.
Counsels for the A Gathering of the Tribes are held openly on the land with the invitation going out well in advance, in short these gatherings are focalized by Rainbow Family individuals who have counseled and decided to follow their own path and heartsongs. These gatherings came about in 2003 after certain individuals of responsibility within the Rainbow Family (claimed Elders / Founders) started signing permits and changing the nature of the gatherings here in the United States. These alternative to the permit gatherings are intended as an expansion of Rainbow Ideologies while trying to maintain some measure of unity and respect with the various same type gatherings. For more information on the A Gathering of the Tribes I would suggest that you review content listed on the website located at [[9]]
I think it worthy to note that in 2005, Annual Rainbow Family council gave a blessing to expanded gatherings. Many focalizers across the United States and elsewhere are well informed that this particular gathering is evolving and in its infancy. I am adding the text back to the Wiki and suggest that those dates stay in place as it is a simple truth that these gatherings are happening and are part of the Rainbow Family heritage. As cultural changes happen so does the history. Lookingheart 09:06 pm, 19 April 2006 (CST)
A bit confusing for me and other readers though. Clappingsimon 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
What can I say that would make it more understandable? Lookingheart 09:09 pm, 19 April 2006 (CST)

A gathering of the tribes is a small local rainbow gathering that has only taken place for 3 years. No other local or regional rainbow gatherings are included in this article even though most have been in existance longer than a gathering of the tribes and many have quite a bit larger attendance. If local or regional gatherings are to be included there are many others that have several times more people in attendance and that have been in existance for many more years. If someone decides to include in this article a section on local gatherings, a gathering of the tribes could be listed there, along with the larger more established regionals, as one of the smaller, newer local gatherings. I am removing the misleading reference to a gathering of the tribes until the more well known, larger attended, more estabished regionals are included.

Adding the information for the A Gathering of the Tribes back to the Wiki and making a backup copy. Reason for inclusion is relevent as it pertains to actual history that over the years will become more important as Rainbow evolves and/or devolves whatever the case may be. As a side note: The A Gathering of the Tribes is not parse a regional or local event but rather an expansion of Rainbow energy that has been borne out of the Rainbow Gatherings. I would be more then happy to invest some time listing some of the better know local regional gatherings which will take some effort, any help you would like to provide would be appreciated. Clappingsimon, my contact information is avalible just by clicking through and I would appreciate you not deleting content based soley on your ideologies regarding what may or may not be valid. Beyond that I do appreciate your help in making sure the Wiki is content neutral and provides a full scope review of Rainbow Family values and history, thanks. Lookingheart 05:17, 27 May 2006
Lookingheart, the unsigned comment on the Rainbow Gathering talk page was not made by me. I didn't remove the A Gathering of the Tribes entries on the 27th May 2006 (though I did once before, on the 18th Apr 2006, you reverted them) as an examination of the page's history shows. I'll copy this info to your talk page. Cheers. Clappingsimon 10:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed a gathering of the tribes from the list of national rainbow gatherings. A gathering of the tribes is a small local gathering. Two gatherings of at most a couple of hundred people does not belong included in a list of national gatherings of 8,000 to 25,000. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to promote your small local gathering. There are at least a half dozen regionals that have been in existance far longer than a gathering of the tribes and have several times the attendance. A gathering that is only having its 3 event this year is not yet a part of the history, especially when regional gatherings that have been in existance 10, 15, or 20 years are not included. Neither you nor I can prophesy whether or not a gathering of the tribes will become relevant in the future, whether it will become more important or fade away as some regionals do. Two gatherings going into a third is certainly not enough to make any prediction.
Re-uploaded current information for gathering listings from backup documents. Unsigned hacker keeps deleting information posted to help inform and document the expansion of Rainbow Gatherings. Lookingheart 12:44 CST, June 03, 2006
Lookingheart, this has nothing to do with a gathering of the tribes. On March 30, 2006 someone added the Ocala regional to the list of National gatherings. I removed it as well. If someone from Ocala, Shawnee, Khatua, Arizona, Alabama, or any other area attempted to publicize their local event via this article I would remove it just as I have a gathering of the tribes. The ocala gathering has been in existance for about 20 years and has had attendance of 800 to 4,500. Shawnee has been in existance for at least 15 years with numbers that exceed a gathering of the tribes. Khatua has been in existance for at least 10 years with about the same number in attendance as a gathering of the tribes. These are just a few of the regional gatherings that have had annual events longer than a gathering of the tribes. A gathering of the tribes has had *two* gatherings with estimates that range from less than 75 to possibly 200. A gathering of the tribes is one of the newest and among the smaller of the local or regional gatherings. The simple and objective fact is none of these gatherings are national and none of them should be included in the national gatherings list. I would not object to a gathering of the tribes being included in a list of local and regional gatherings.

Lookingheart, I have no desire to play some back and forth game with you but I will if it is necessary. Of about a dozen gatherings held each year you are the only person who has decided to use this article to promote their small local gathering. I think the facts are clear and any rational, objective, unbiased person would agree with me. Calling me a hacker doesn't make any rational point. Most of the changes to this article are unsigned. I fail to see how it makes me any more anonymous than "Lookingheart" "Clappingsimon" "Robotbeat" "Blackcats" or any of the other people who have signed their changes. But if it will facilitate discussion I will be happy to join wikepedia so I have an identity to sign with as clear and verifiable as "Lookingheart" "Clappingsimon" and "Robotbeat" June 3, 2006

Fine, if you want to play delete games then so be it, no one can stop you. If you want to help the Wiki grow and become then write an article on the regional gatherings and be sure to inform people about the alternative Rainbow gatherings as well. The Rainbow Gatherings are starting to change to the point where several of the past years they have become permitted events. This means that they are hosted by private individuals and groups and are not in form with the true nature and Spirit of Rainbow Gatherings, (Read FREE and OPEN to EVERYONE) If you want to engage in open discussion PRIOR to deleting other peoples contributions here then that would be appreciated otherwise lets scrap the whole article and start fresh and be sure to include the historical truth, facts man, not some philisophical bullcorn that reads less then true.
first off, I would refer you to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes I have in every way endevoured to resolve this dispute in rational discourse. I have carefully addressed each of your points as clearly as I can. I have offered a compromise solution. I see no effort from you to address any of the points I have raised.

First, for what objective reason do you claim a gathering of the tribes is a national gathering that should be included in the national gatherings list? A gathering of the tribes has existed for meerly two years and has at the very most 200 people in attendance. The National Gathering has been in existance 33 years with approximatly 100 times as many people in attendance. Can you even claim that there was a single person from each state at what you suggest is a national gathering?

Second, as there are numerous local and regional gatherings, what objective measure do you use for the inclusion of a gathering of the tribes in a list of national gatherings as opposed to the other local or regional gatherings? Do you believe all local or regional gatherings should also be included in the national listing? What objective rational do you use to suggest that two gatherings of at most 200 people should be considered national when the gathering in Ocala of 800 to 4,500 that has had annual events for about 20 years is not considered national? As well as several other regional gatherings that have had annual events many more years with greater attendance than a gathering of the tribes.

I have no problem taking this to mediation. If you continue to refuse to discuss this issue I will have no choice.

Cool, I have updated the page and as you see there are several locations Nationally as the energy starts to unfold. The Rainbow Gatherings are starting to evolve and expand, yea Spirit! Lookingheart

Since you refuse to discuss this issue I have begun to take the necessary steps to get wikipedia to mediate this issue. june 11, 2006

Thanks, that would be much better then you just deleting whatever you dont like.
Dear Lookingheart - when you restored your "US National - A Gathering of the Tribes" entries you wiped out multiple edits by other editors, including spelling corrections, factual corrections and other changes. Please don't overwrite the page blindly, you are not the sole contributor to this article. It is now your responsibility to restore all the other edits that happened between the last time you took a copy of the page and when you restored your entries Clappingsimon 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, It was not my intent to replace any valid edits and I apologize if I have caused any undue extra work. I will pay closer attention in the future as I know several folks are working hard to insure the document is correct and punctual.
Double checked, the edit was uploaded from a current copy, no changes made and the text looks good.

Made a recent backup of the Rainbow Wiki and have edited the National listings, someone keeps striking content for the A Gathering of the Tribes. Shine!!!!!


This issue is not going away and neither am I. I see you have added a gathering in VA and GA to the national gathering list. I ask you again what criterion do you use to determine whether a gathering is local or national? Is it simply your word that makes it so? There are in excess of 8000 people at the national gathering in Colorado with 20,000 expected. How many have arrived at the private land in GA? 20, 50? How many are at the undisclosed location in VA? You claim the gathering in VA is national when there are no directions to the gathering posted anywhere? These are local gatherings that do not belong on the list of national rainbow gatherings. This article is not the place for you to advertise your small local gatherings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-01_national_rainbow_gatherings oceankat


Relisted historical gathering information: 01:41, 2 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 02:21, 2 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 22:17, 3 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 05:07, 4 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 22:19, 5 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:02, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:39, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 05:02, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 23:12, 13 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 20:50, 14 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 03:50, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 07:51, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 16:15, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 18:08, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 15:23, 17 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:55, 18 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 06:54, July 18, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 10:38, July 19, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 17:32, July 19, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 07:11, July 23, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 21:43, July 25, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 13:56, July 26, 2006 Lookingheart


Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 13:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 08:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 21:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 14:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 00:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reset page to non-vandalised version Bstone 14:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Notability.

This was the text moved from POV-section in the article-space: 'Due to persistent hacking, this section of the Wikipedia is constantly monitored and updated by team members. If you have content you would like to added please feel free to edit though there is no guarantee that the content will remain available as there are too many irregularities at this time.' It has no place in the article space - the POV category directs readers to here, which should be sufficient until a consensus is reached Clappingsimon 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that the gatherings have reached their official end point I have a few questions about the gatherings you suggest are important enough to be included on a list with the national rainbow gathering. There were an estimated 15,000 people at the national gathering. There were dozens of newspaper articles written about this gathering as well as numerous reports from attendies on traditional rainbow websites. Can you list any newspaper citations for the gatherings you listed? I assume the gathering in GA happened since the people who hosted it live on the private land it was held on. Did anyone who was not a personal friend or aquaintance of the land owners go to this gathering? How many people showed up? As for the VA gathering can you list a single newspaper citation as evidence that this gathering actually happened? If not, is that because it was so small that it passed with out any notice or was this gathering simply a wish and a dream that never came to fruition as so often happens with gatherings that are announced? How many people, if any, were at the VA gathering? The rainbow family and gatherings are an important cultural phenomina not because an invitation was sent out in 1972, but because over 25,000 people showed up in response to the invitation. If only a few dozen had been there in 1972 and in subsequent years it would have been meaningless and there would be no wiki article. Sending out an invitation to your gatherings does not make them important if almost no one shows up. Again I ask you what is it about these small local gatherings you promote that they deserve recognition along side the national getherings attended by thousands? Again I ask why do these gatherings get this recognition when there are many other local and regional gatherings that have several times the attendance and have been held annually for many more years that are not listed? oceankat

Again I see no effort from you to dialog on this issue. In the past week I have seen no reports from your "gathering of the tribes" in any on the traditional rainbow websites. I have seen no newspaper articles even verifying that these gatherings even occured. This is not "welcomehere" your personal server where you can put up any information you desire, but is meant to be an encyclopedia. Do you have any citations from any of the local newspapers with information on the number of attandees or even to verify that they actually occured? Since you will not discuss this I have no choice but to continue this edit war. july 13, 2006 oceankat


If you want to engage in an edit war that is your business, I will not participate in any war. Further, I am not bound to be your charge and do not have to engage you in conversation if you can not be civil. I am filing a formal complaint with wikipedia since your attitude and demeaner is less then par. Good day. Lookingheart

Lookingheart, removing comments is poor form. Please stop or I will file a formal complaint against you.


___________________________________________________________________________

1. Rainbow Fallout, A-Camp violence, Lawsuit agains the Feds per
Posted by: "David Crockett Williams" xxxx@xxxx.xxx gear2001us
Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:49 am (PDT)
  • All the foibles of the Rainbows
  • Rainbow rental returns wrecked ("A" Camp out of control this year)
  • Suing the feds per Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Other reports indicate the alcohol and commensurate violence was more of a problem this year and real "not good" the reports of abuses by "A Camp" folks doing the "front gate" with recommendations that a remedy be determined to prevent this in future.

I've removed cut-and-paste of the articles. Please don't post copyright material here. Please sign your posts if you're not logged in. Please avoid posting someone else's email address. Please wikify your text so it can be read. Thanks! Clappingsimon talk 03:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to balance the newspaper article above, in my experience, after the site was cleaned up/seedlings planted over the toilets/the trails aerated, the rangers have said that a month-long gathering has less impact in terms of trash/trails/destruction than a troop of boy scouts or Off-road's camping for the weekend. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of welcomehome external link

Welcomehome is a notable and informative website. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Notability. Clappingsimon 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

and if a body was to read the hip story on this site, it is from others reporting about one or two different people, with no validation of the facts other than a fictional story in a book, by an author or authors with no real contact with gatherings. while there is some truth in the articles, they are mainly based on one individual's memory of the facts. but no words from the dozen others who were actually there in person to uphold these facts. while i know some is true, i do see a distortion of facts, and or a glamourizing of same by the author. it is well to note that rob savoye used to keep a calender on his site till he ran into the problem of who to beleive when different states were calling in different directions for different gatherings. other than that, there is no hip story concerning changes in the family nor any updates to facts that actually happen now. again this site is the work of just one man, and reflects his desires too! miketwofeather@sbcgloabl.net 4.245.4.166 19:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hopi prophecy & welcomehere links

Removed sections which are covered on Hopi prophecy page, and on the external links, on the grounds of relevance. Whether someone's father owns a pipe reputed to have belonged to a traditional person adds no weight to the legend. Cleaned up the links on the basis of relevance as they point to things not covered in the Rainbow Gathering article; they are all accessible from a link that remains Clappingsimon 10:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Removing cleanup tag. Grammar and spelling look okay. Clappingsimon 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Relations with law enforcement

This section seems a little light on citations. The last paragraph, in particular. Note: I'm not trying to cause a fight here, just noting that it doesn't seem to be up to the level of citations that is the norm for Wikipedia. enordgren 06:54, 30 June 2006.

I agree, it's not cited, though there are plenty of identical newspaper articles (mostly smaller local papers). First sentence fails NPOV, as there was no actual 'violence'. The newspaper reports were written from the Forest Service POV. None of the on-the-day newspaper reports mentioned a rock being thrown. The FS NIMT has a media site for RG's [10] but the 'incident' is not covered. However yesterday the USDA FS has declared fire restrictions for the area, which is very tactical. Guess the gathering needs a solid night of rain Clappingsimon 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

if needed i could forward all the personal accounts to the violence to see both sides of the incidents recorded, to share a point of veiw. as far as fire danger goes , it is not the ground that needs the rain, but the dead trees killed by beatles that is the danger of fire. ground water could be 100% and a fire would still be just as devastating in that forest. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Counsel / Council

The term in common use is Council in the mini-manual. I've reverted 65.65.225.1's changes of Counsel to Council until they can show a reason for the change. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com shows "Council" to be a governing body of elected officials who have power to administrate and impose sanctions while the spelling "Counsel" is more in the nature of egalitarian views and conotes the exchange of ideas through conversation. While the two spellings do sound similar, there are major differences in their meanings. The spelling "Counsel" is more proper for what Rainbow Gathering Counsel circles actual do when engaged in an informal conversation, which is discuss issues and work towards solutions without any authoritarin body to oversee. This is of course working from the primise that Rainbow Gatherings are non-hierarchial and that there are no leaders or vested offices to be held
Please sign in or sign your posts, I can't tell who you are (see WP:SIG). On http://groups.google.com/ there are 51,000 hits for - rainbow council - and 8,000 for - rainbow counsel -. Council is the common use, though there seems to be regional differences. Counsel is not used outside the US. Most readers won't understand the term counsel the way you do. If you do a google search on - counsel defined - or - counsel definition - the definitions actually relate to one-to-one-advice-seeking or to lawyers. Please see Counsel. You won't want to wikilink to that :-) Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i would think the tradional way it was used for years is council, even tho the meanings are different. you could even find reference to this in the mini-manual. original writers were not concerned with how it was spelled but in the fact that they used it for other meanings. and the fact that it is still used today. without any thought to the exact meaning of the word. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.245.4.166 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)