Jump to content

Talk:Woodstock: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 225: Line 225:
== The Beatles ==
== The Beatles ==


As for John, the statement in the article doesn't claim that he ever was in Canada in August, only that that obviously was his intended travel route in case *IF* the whole thing woulda worked out. That's why actual recording dates at EMI or Apple studios during August are no argument against the statement that at some earlier time, John or the band *CONSIDERED* playing there. It's also not true that the Plastic Ono Band didn't exist by August 1969, as they had already released ''[[Give Peace a Chance]]'' in early July, which actually happened to be recorded in a hotel room in Quebec, Canada on 1 June 1969. So we do have proof that John and Yoko were in Canada during that summer *AND* that the Plastic Ono Band did already exist (maybe not yet under that exact name, I wouldn't know for certain, but still), and Yoko had also performed as a musician since the early 1960s. Both make it not unlikely that John would demand her to be allowed to perform wherever he would perform considering their relationship, and it's also a known fact that Nixon didn't want him in the USA.
As for John, the statement in the article doesn't claim that he ever was in Canada in August, only that that obviously was his intended travel route in case *IF* the whole thing woulda worked out. That's why actual recording dates at EMI or Apple studios during August are no valid argument against the statement that at some earlier time, John or the band *CONSIDERED* playing there. It's also not true that the Plastic Ono Band didn't exist by August 1969, as they had already released ''[[Give Peace a Chance]]'' in early July, which actually happened to be recorded in a hotel room in Quebec, Canada on 1 June 1969. So we do have proof that John and Yoko were in Canada during that summer *AND* that the Plastic Ono Band did already exist (maybe not yet under that exact name, I wouldn't know for certain, but still), and Yoko had also performed as a musician since the early 1960s. Both make it not unlikely that John would demand her to be allowed to perform wherever he would perform considering their relationship, and it's also a known fact that Nixon didn't want him in the USA.


As for George, I've re-examined what he literally says at circa 26:00 (PAL version, so that would be around 27:00 in the NTSC version) during episode 8 of the ''Beatles Anthology'', and he says that he first "spent half a year producing an album with Jackie Lomax" and then "hung around with Bob Dylan and then The Band in Woodstock". That Jackie Lomax album was ''[[Is This What You Want?]]'' that Lomax and George produced from October to November 1968 in LA and finished with George back in London in January 1969. In any case, Bob Dylan didn't live in Woodstock anymore since the fall of 1967, and The Band were on tour at the time since the successfull release of their album ''[[Music from Big Pink]]'' in July 1968, up until they re-located to LA in early 1969 to record their next album, ''[[The Band (album)|The Band]]'', the sessions for which took until they left for the Woodstock festival to perform there. So they didn't return to Woodstock before their appearance at the festival. If George "hung around with them in Woodstock" sometime between fall 1968 and the summer of 1969, it can only have been at the festival, even if he didn't appear on the stage.
As for George, I've re-examined what he literally says at circa 26:00 (PAL version, so that would be around 27:00 in the NTSC version) during episode 8 of the ''Beatles Anthology'', and he says that he first "spent half a year producing an album with Jackie Lomax" and then "hung around with Bob Dylan and then The Band in Woodstock". That Jackie Lomax album was ''[[Is This What You Want?]]'' that Lomax and George produced from October to November 1968 in LA and finished with George back in London in January 1969. In any case, Bob Dylan didn't live in Woodstock anymore since the fall of 1967, and The Band were on tour at the time since the successfull release of their album ''[[Music from Big Pink]]'' in July 1968, up until they re-located to LA in early 1969 to record their next album, ''[[The Band (album)|The Band]]'', the sessions for which took until they left for the Woodstock festival to perform there. So they didn't return to Woodstock before their appearance at the festival. If George "hung around with them in Woodstock" sometime between fall 1968 and the summer of 1969, it can only have been at the festival, even if he didn't appear on the stage.

Revision as of 05:36, 3 January 2015

Template:Maintained

How many people attended Woodstock?

There is a citation needed tag on "nearly half a million concert-goers." The early news reports give the total as 300,000. Some articles written in late 1969 mention "a half million." These seem to be casual estimates. The festival promoters are quoted in this August 1969 article as saying 300,000 people.

  • "State Investigating Handling of Tickets At Woodstock Fair". New York Times. August 27, 1969. p. 45.

The New York State Attorney General's office was investigating complaints of ticket holders who did not get into the festival. The promoters pointed out that the tickets specified that refunds would be granted only if the show were canceled.

"Mr. [Michael] Lang has said that more than half of the 300,000 people who attended the fair got in free because three times the expected number of people turned up and broke down the entire ticket - selling, ticket taking procedure."

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC) (I was in the crowd at Altamont)[reply]

I've seen numerous sources saying "half million." But honestly, counting crowds is always an uncertain business, so how can you get anywhere approaching a precise number? Also a full count would have to include the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, who were en route but were physically unable to come because of traffic jams etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that "Mr. Lang" had multiple constituencies and agendas, and if nothing else, was busy with other things, as contemporaneously recorded in the movie. I'd argue that he was not in much of a position to calculate attendance beyond "WTF???" IMHO shortly after the event, "Mr. Lang" likely underestimated attendance, if nothing else out of shame from the lack of sufficient "Port-O-Sans." There is, however, lots of wasted time to be devoted to the endeavor to try to find a more refined, and more importantly, reliable number between 300K (estimated from non-indicative ticket sales in advance of an event which clearly exceeded expectations and planned logistics) and half a million (based on other observers without a management agenda). Steveozone (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over 500,000 people attended Woodstock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.93.12 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
since I was there, I would estimate 500,000 is near to short the number. As many people only wanted to hear certain performers and were not siting in the field at the times of show. most performers were listened to and we sat shoulder to shoulder full. there was also a show in a little ampitheater near the top of the hill. also there were yoga classes on going too. not to mention swimmers in Yasgar's pond ETC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.192.139 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I`ve been told by people who live there no one will ever know how many people were there..it kind of depends on what you mean by " being there " a lot of people tried to get there who ended up stuck in traffic pulled over and just started partying..if you include people who were camped out on their way to the show it`s probably a pretty big number..I`ve heard 1,000,000 time and time again especially considering traffic may have stopped as far away as Canada at one point. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no need for ambiguity regarding what "being there" means. People who were there on purpose and were close enough to see and/or hear at least part of the festival are obviously the ones who count. Bethel residents/visitors who wanted nothing to do with the festival were just bystanders. Same goes for those who wanted to attend but got stuck in traffic and camped 10-20 miles away from the site. They might have engaged in hippie like activities while there, maybe even shook hands and exchanged words with concertgoers, but again, why should they be counted as part of the audience? As for the actual numbers, the most often quoted figure I've seen (and it's probably just a guestimate) is 400,000-500,000 people. 143.239.64.169 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism?

Outside of media coverage, why doesn't this article cover more criticism of the festival? It reads very "glowingly" of the festival yet it mentions deaths, arrests, traffic jams, food & water shortages. The media coverage mentions people working together to provide food & shelter to the masses that attended as if it was expected and not provided because it had to be provided. Wouldn't two accidental deaths in two days in any other city of 400,000 cause front page headlines? Surely there was criticism of the traffic management plan and the affect of people not attending and how they were inconvenienced. Did anyone else die because they couldn't get to the hospital due to the traffic jams? The article mentions law suits as a result of mismanagement - wouldn't that warrant a separate criticism section?

I know this was a huge event for the 60s but it had impacts beyond those attending and the festival itself but the article doesn't seem to cover any of that. Dbroer (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems incidents, difficulties and accidents, as you've noted, are covered in the article. No, two accidental deaths in two days in a city of 400,000 would normally not be front page news. WP:CRITS discourages the sort of separate section you're suggesting. If there's a sense that WP:NPOV isn't being adhered to, a consensus among editors would be welcome. My take is that it's not an issue. JNW (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The murder rate in 1969 was 7.7 and while the deaths weren't murder, you're talking about a much higher accidental death rate relative to the times. While a separate section might not be the best approach, it just seems interesting to me that the problems the festival created are glossed over. For example, there's no mention of sanitation or medical care issues due to poor or misleading planning. It also does not state what the lawsuits mentioned in the article are all about. As one who did not live through the era, it leaves me with questions that I feel the article should answer. I guess my main question stems from the statements stating that the festival was relatively peaceful, but that seems to be from the attendees perspective rather than those impacted by it. Dbroer (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who has ever been associated with Woodstock has always remarked that as far as anyone knows there was never a fistfight or single altercation of any kind at the event..I don`t know if that`s true or not but that`s what they say which is pretty much the point when you get to it...it established the ethos of the jam band hippy festivals whatever you want to call it..on the grounds of the Wannee festival every year they bring in a few security people to be safe...nothing ever happens..the following weekend there is a country music festival where they hire every off duty cop in Florida and they still cant control the violence. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the OP: you might be aware of this (or not), but the establishment and large parts of mass media set out to soil the festival from the get go, partly because they disliked/distrusted the counterculture movement, partly because they expected a lot of violence, not just sex, drugs & rock'n'roll. Yet that didn't happen, so they had to change their story even before the last chords sounded. Some parts of the media focused on the overall feeling of social harmony and good music, while others went out of their way to find every little dirty detail to report. But at the end of the day, all sides more or less agreed that it was an uneventful gathering of almost half a million young people for 3 days, which is nothing short of a miracle. If there's so little meaningful criticism about the festival - both then and now - that's because there's little to criticize. Yes, there were traffic jams, shortages of food and sanitation, disruption for residents, the sea of mud, the litter, the brown acid. Yes there were 2 deaths (one of which had nothing to do with what the festival was about). But that's not the reason we still remember it 45 years later. Scoffers and hippie haters parodied Woodstock for years but they missed the main point: Woodstock wasn't about setting a model for how concert logistics should be handled! 143.239.64.169 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 September 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Calidum 14:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:UCRN, this seems more relevant, as "Woodstock" has many other common uses. For instance if you look at the dab page, you see that there are a lot of places throughout the world called Woodstock. True, in the United States, most people may think of this festival when they hear the word "Woodstock," (which I have doubts about) but throughout the majority of the world, they are probably going to think of a settlement by this name.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: Yaksar , if we are going to argue page views against Google Books results for a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then it requires evidence since some of these 36 towns and villages are quite large (and likewise User:Jusdafax below these 36 settlements all appear to be older than 40 years). Personally I don't know how to do one multiple page view count for 36 pages. Be we need to do a multiple page view count to establish that the 1969 festival attracts more page views than the other 36 articles combined? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User:In ictu oculi -- Page view counts are an incredibly arduous process, especially since I seem to always have trouble loading the website. However, until it timed out on me and I gave up, the numbers I found from a survey of 15 or so of the articles did seem to indicate the numbers we would want from a primary -- the festival article has around 250000 over the last 90 days while most are under 1000. The highest view count of the other pages seems to be 19649 for Woodstock NY. Given that most of the town's notability comes from the festival, I'd argue that this may be an even stronger sign of the festival's notability. Additionally, the higher view counts for the festival's associated articles (such as Woodstock (film)) should probably be seen as evidence for, rather than against, its position as the primary topic. Now, obviously the fact that Woodstock has served as the primary is biasing these numbers, however the runoff to the other pages gives very little indication that readers are usually searching for a similar topic.
I believe I've had a similar discussion before, but including "is" in the google book search provides a slight bias against events in the past, while just "Woodstock" gives a more accurate view. Google books seems to indicate that the festival is the primary topic not in the Wikipedia sense, but in that it has the first and a plurality of the results, especially those providing significant coverage of the topic. While this alone would not be enough of a reason for the festival to be the primary, when coupled with the page views the case seems convincing.

That being said, I was just a weak oppose, so I certainly am not 100% set in any decision!--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jusdafax, this may be, but you obviously missed the above. We default to WP:WORLDVIEW here, the main reason being that there are a lot of settlements throughout the world named Woodstock. The current title is based on the United States viewpoint. Looking at the settlements by this name, there are a few towns with a considerable large population. People living in those cities and nearby are going to view the cities as the primary topic.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woodstock (disambiguation) indicates about 35 towns and the like around the world called Woodstock. The link on the disambiguation page redirects via Woodstock Festival and this is followed by: Woodstock '79, Woodstock '89, Woodstock '94 and Woodstock 1999. I was born in 1969 and the phrase, for whatever reason, that I remember is "remember Woodstock"? Increasingly the answer to this question will be "no". See also: Category:Rock festivals in the United States Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- just because this may be the primary topic in the US doesn't mean it is in other parts of the world. It definitely is not an internationally known event as compared to the September 11 Attacks, for example. I, being in the UK, had never heard of this festival until I saw this article. I was directed to this page looking for a list of all the places in the UK called Woodstock, expecting it to be the disambiguation page.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, less than half the GHITS for "Woodstock" are about the festival. [1]-Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't assess a primary topic on a country by country level and then only choose one if every single country agrees. But you might have a point if it was actually true that it wasn't heard of at all in other parts of the world. But I'd note that in the link to the search on Google UK that you gave, results 1, 4, 7, and 8 are about the festival, and one is actually from a British source, the BBC. And the UK is not the only other English speaking place. A search for Woodstock on Google Hong Kong, for example, shows that of the top ten results 8 are about the festival. On Google New Zealand it's results 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. For Australia, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10. And to look at a country where there is no place named Woodstock, Google Germany has results 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, with 9 and 10 about festivals named in reference to it. There's little question that the festival is the overwhelming primary topic in terms of overall viewers -- it would certainly take a lot more than what we're finding at a country by country level to overcome that.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just because many other Googles have hits for the festival, that doesn't mean it is the primary topic in those countries. I was just using the GHITS to point out the low worldwide significance; I am not trying to use this as a main argument.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Australia - Woodstock, New South Wales, Woodstock, Queensland, Woodstock, Victoria, Canada - Woodstock, New Brunswick Woodstock (electoral district), Woodstock, Newfoundland and Labrador, Woodstock, Nova Scotia, Woodstock, Ontario, Ireland - Woodstock Estate, New Zealand - Woodstock, New Zealand, South Africa - Woodstock, Cape Town, Woodstock railway station (Cape Town), United Kingdom - Woodstock, Oxfordshire, Woodstock (UK Parliament constituency), Woodstock Palace, Woodstock, Pembrokeshire, Woodstock, Belfast, United States - Woodstock, Alabama, Woodstock, Alameda, California, Woodstock, Connecticut, Woodstock, Georgia, Woodstock, Illinois, Woodstock (Metra), Woodstock, Maine, Woodstock, Maryland, Woodstock, Minnesota, Woodstock, New Hampshire, Woodstock, New York, Woodstock (CDP), New York, Woodstock, Ohio, Woodstock, Portland, Oregon, Woodstock, Vermont, Woodstock (village), Vermont, Woodstock, Virginia, Battle of Woodstock, Woodstock, Northampton County, Virginia, Woodstock, Wisconsin, Buildings - Woodstock, Burwood, Woodstock (Upper Marlboro, Maryland), Woodstock (Natchez, Mississippi), Woodstock Elementary School (Utah), Woodstock Academy and Woodstock School. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we're aware of these, I'd hope. But lots of articles existing doesn't really affect the arguments if the numbers still point to the topic being the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the move succeeds, we might should consider redirecting Woodstock to the new title.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
??? Could you clarify that suggestion? As I interpret it, it seems that it would make the entire exercise pointless. 2600:1006:B011:BA79:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense, assuming that using the fuller name Woodstock Festival (or Woodstock Festival '69 or something) is the most appropriate for this article (I'm inclined to think so), and the 1969 festival is nonetheless the primary topic for the name "Woodstock". I'm inclined to think not, because of Woodstock, New York, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, and all the others. —innotata 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I have reservations on the exact title (1969 modifier perhaps?). Popular does not mean primary topic. It just means there are a lot of music fans. It wouldn't confuse them if the article was "Woodstock Festival" (or "1969 music festival" or something like that), and would be helpful to non-music fans. Walrasiad (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- before we close this discussion, I'd like to see more input from our non-American users.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 11 October 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Combined with the previous discussion, I'd add that the problem is not likely to be the title suggestion; there does not appear to be a consensus that the page needs to be moved anywhere at the current time. Dekimasuよ! 00:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock → Woodstock Music and Art Fair – Unlike the move proposal above, I am not proposing to change the disambiguation page or the primary topic, just to change the title in line with both our own opening line and Britannica's article on the subject. The festival is named after a place. We customarily use full titles for things commonly named after the place they are associated with: battle of Trafalgar, Gallipoli campaign, Princeton University, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Cannes Film Festival. These things are commonly called Trafalgar, Gallipoli, Princeton, Tiananmen Square and Cannes. We can continue to redirect Woodstock to the new title, just as we do with Obama. Srnec (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • I believe that most people pay no mind to the fact that it's an abbreviation, and would probably be confused if the article was titled with the event's full name For this reason, the description regarding the full name of the event is probably best left exclusive to the lead of the article, and not the article name itself. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the proposal isn't about primary meaning. It's about clarity and recognisability. "Woodstock" is slang. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the proposal isn't about primary meaning... Agree. But it should be.
clarity and recognisability... Agree. And I and some others are saying that the current title satisfies these criteria.
"Woodstock" is slang... This reply completely ignores the relevant policy. You can I suppose appeal to WP:IAR, but you need to do so, and to say exactly why you think this case should be such a blatant exception. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently My Lai redirects to My Lai Massacre. This ngram shows that "My Lai" is much more common than "My Lai massacre". This ngram shows that the term "Woodstock" is less common now that it was 100 years ago and that the music and art fair apparently did little to put the term in greater use. When I google "Gallipoli" the results are all WWI-related. When I google "Woodstock" less than half the results are festival-related. Nobody has brought forward any evidence that Woodstock primarily refers to the festival—in this move debate or the last one. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I do not quite understand the resistance to "additional words". "Woodstock" may be shorthand in a US rock music context. But outside that context, "Woodstock" mean a myriad of things, e.g. the Catskills town, Sir Walter Scott's novel, Snoopy's companion, Edward II's strongman, etc. I expect many watchers of this page are interested in music, and so this may be their natural inclination to associate. But may I ask that our commentators please make an effort to remember to think outside of a musical context and outside of the US. Walrasiad (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just in the US. I'm Australian. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 28 December 2014

– While we've ruled that "Woodstock is the WP:COMMONNAME, it's not necessarily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. To people living in a city called Woodstock (esp. outside the US), for instance, that is probably the PT. It does not appear to be the primary topic in most of the world, and this title is more suitable per WP:WORLDVIEW. Note: this is the PT, however, over the other Woodstock festivals, which is why I do not support the move to Woodstock (1969 festival).Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC) Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that. The existence of other Woodstocks doesn't mean this can't be the primary topic; there are plenty of Londons in the world, yet the UK city is still primary. These requests are getting somewhat disruptive, and I hope the closing admin strongly considers imposing a moratorium when this is closed. -- Calidum 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Calidum: the difference between this and London is the festival name comes from the name of a city; it is not the original PT. I've cited this just above, and it has been cited in the previous requests presented above. See search results from other Googles [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. The list goes on and on. So your statement of "It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that" is blatantly incorrect and could be interpreted as dickish and an unwillingness to support claims with evidence.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943:- NO- if you read the reason for this request, you'll see that I've cited that this is the commonname, but not the primary topic to everybody! Serously, would you all please read & consider the reason for this request instead of fucking off about the results of previous requests???? Note that I am not requesting the same title as before, and some people have supported this title.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See this_ think outside the US'Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that WP:WORLDWIDE applies to moving this article's title due to this event's international significance and fame. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It undoubtedly is internationally famous, but I'd never heard of this event (suprisingly, considering the classic rock fan I am) until I was searching on WP for a list of places in the UK by this name. According to Woodstock (disambiguation) there are over 50 notable places named Woodstock, and the character appears to get a lot of hits. Its definitely not the primary topic to most of the world. Being sat in the UK, I'd be willing to be that as many as two-third of all Europeans have never heard of this festival, as its promininence appears to be mainly North American. About 97% of the news articles on the festival on GNews are American.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also most of the hits on the US Google are not about the festival [11]Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching regular Google and not Google news. The top results are all about the festival. But that was a nice try. And while we're on it, WORLDWIDE is just an essay so it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. -- Calidum 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my vote above, given that I just realized that the move is to add a disambiguator rather than change the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to make sure everyone is aware of the move discussion from 2011. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This looks to be a rehash of the first October requested move discussion, with slight difference in the proposed name of the page. Still no credible evidence in English that the festival is not the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 00:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what "evidence ... that the festival is not the primary topic" could mean. Primary topic is something we get to decide, not something we find evidence for or against. Ambiguous terms should not have primary topics unless they are pretty obvious and attain consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you haven't given any evidence about why you think this is the PT, and your argument appears to be solely based on WP:LASTTIME, which is not an argument to use.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the primary name claim still seems bogus, given the huge number of important alternative topics by this name. The previous RMs suffered from a common name problem, which has been fixed in this one. Dicklyon (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - This has been hashed before and settled. I also echo Calidum's moratorium plead Mlpearc (open channel) 03:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Consensus says leave it alone. It ain't broke, so don't keep trying to fix it. Jusdafax 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this appears to be a rehash of the same proposal above without any new arguments or points of view. Resubmitting this so soon after the last proposal failed makes me grumpy that someone does not assume we knew what were were doing before. —EncMstr (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's been a long, long time since the events of 1969. Red Slash 09:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Despite protestations to the contrary above, this is clearly the same unsuccessful proposal from three months ago with slightly different formatting for the suggested new title. From September: True, in the United States, most people may think of this festival when they hear the word "Woodstock," (which I have doubts about) but throughout the majority of the world, they are probably going to think of a settlement by this name. From yesterday: To people living in a city called Woodstock (esp. outside the US), for instance, that is probably the PT. What has changed in three months? Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Egsan Bacon:- your argument is irrelevant; this time I'm still proposing using the WP:COMMONNAME; last time I didn't. You haven't even given a rational reason for your opinion, and this argument appears to be solely WP:LASTTIME.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qxukhgiels, back in September, your move proposal was based on there being many places called "Woodstock", and you specifically focused on a claim that only people in the US thought of this Woodstock. Yesterday, your move proposal... was based on there being many places called "Woodstock", and you specifically focused on a claim that only people in the US thought of this Woodstock. That you are claiming that two so transparently similar arguments are not, in fact, almost exactly the same argument because you slapped some parentheses on this one and used different WP:CAPITALLETTERS... well, it's rather difficult to give a claim like that much credence.
Additionally, your citing of WP:LASTTIME does little but suggest to me that you haven't read WP:LASTTIME. Even if you want to overlook that that page is referring to deletion discussions, this is what it says in the second paragraph: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." (Bolding mine, other formatting in original) Only a short period of time has elapsed since your last RM. Your argument remains essentially the same, no matter how much you say it doesn't. It is frivolous. It is disruptive. There is nothing wrong with objecting to proposals that are disruptive on the grounds that they are disruptive, and WP:LASTTIME doesn't say that there is. If you'd like to see what happens when people keep bringing up the same move proposals with slightly different arguments, go take a look at the RM histories for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Sarah Jane Brown, both of which are currently under moratoriums. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LASTTIME isn't necessarily just for deletion discussions; it can apply here. At the last move request, I was not using the WP:COMMONNAME; at this one I am; the parentheses implies that the festival is referred to as simply "Woodstock;" the title "Woodstock Festival", which it never appears to be referred to as implies that that is the most commonly used name. Someone in the UK, for instance, who attended would probably say "I was at Woodstock," yet it probably wouldn't be their PT. I don't get how WP:WORLDVIEW doesn't apply here. Before commenting, I suggest all users consider the fact that this is not the PT for most of the world. Just because a proposal with a different name failed doesn't mean we can't do one this time- essentially what WP:LASTTIME says except that applies mostly to deletion discussions. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Walrasiad's argument above.Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed- at least four of the above oppositions are irrelevant; they simply say that we shouldn't move it because of the previous discussions. Those should not be included in the discussion. I encourage those users to rethink their opinions. If you can't come up with something else, I encourage you to strike your comments. Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely false. There is nothing wrong with a user saying they concur with the findings of a previous move discussion, especially ones that happened less than three months ago. -- Calidum 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There are more things in the world known as Woodstock than the Woodstock Festival. I don't see any reason that the festival should be the focus of the Woodstock name globally and here in the U.S. given the prominence of many places, characters and others that carry the Woodstock name. Dbroer (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Clear primary topic. I don't think many people living outside native English speaking countries have even heard of places called Woodstock, this is what they think of when they hear the name "Woodstock". JIP | Talk 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about this? Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles

As for John, the statement in the article doesn't claim that he ever was in Canada in August, only that that obviously was his intended travel route in case *IF* the whole thing woulda worked out. That's why actual recording dates at EMI or Apple studios during August are no valid argument against the statement that at some earlier time, John or the band *CONSIDERED* playing there. It's also not true that the Plastic Ono Band didn't exist by August 1969, as they had already released Give Peace a Chance in early July, which actually happened to be recorded in a hotel room in Quebec, Canada on 1 June 1969. So we do have proof that John and Yoko were in Canada during that summer *AND* that the Plastic Ono Band did already exist (maybe not yet under that exact name, I wouldn't know for certain, but still), and Yoko had also performed as a musician since the early 1960s. Both make it not unlikely that John would demand her to be allowed to perform wherever he would perform considering their relationship, and it's also a known fact that Nixon didn't want him in the USA.

As for George, I've re-examined what he literally says at circa 26:00 (PAL version, so that would be around 27:00 in the NTSC version) during episode 8 of the Beatles Anthology, and he says that he first "spent half a year producing an album with Jackie Lomax" and then "hung around with Bob Dylan and then The Band in Woodstock". That Jackie Lomax album was Is This What You Want? that Lomax and George produced from October to November 1968 in LA and finished with George back in London in January 1969. In any case, Bob Dylan didn't live in Woodstock anymore since the fall of 1967, and The Band were on tour at the time since the successfull release of their album Music from Big Pink in July 1968, up until they re-located to LA in early 1969 to record their next album, The Band, the sessions for which took until they left for the Woodstock festival to perform there. So they didn't return to Woodstock before their appearance at the festival. If George "hung around with them in Woodstock" sometime between fall 1968 and the summer of 1969, it can only have been at the festival, even if he didn't appear on the stage.

For further evidence, let's have a look at the recording dates at EMI studios: [12] No basic recording took place in all of August 1969, only overdubs. According to Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Beatles Recording Sessions. New York: Harmony Books. ISBN 0-517-57066-1, p. 184, all five overdubs that took place during the actual Woodstock festival from 15-17 August were orchestral arrangements done by George Martin with one or several orchestras and none of the Beatles involved. Not a single recording was made at EMI by any Beatle during the time of the festival, and adding the information from [13] and [14] , no Beatle made any recording at EMI between 11-20 August, and even those few hours they spent in the studio from the evening on the 20th until early night of the 21st would be their last until Paul, George, and Ringo would gather one last time to record George's I Me mine half a year later without John, in January 1970. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodstock&oldid=640758709"