Talk:Drifter (person)
It is important to understand the real political nature of this term, generally assumed to be about homeless people.
"High Plains Drifter" was about the reconstruction of society by an analyst. Why call him a drifter? Because drifters are analysts of society.
It is crucial to realize that in the context of a modern city, homeless and directionless people have no visible markings as such. "Drifter" is a claimed identity of a specific subset, between "Psychoanalyst" and "Punk" This page hopefully describes this subset, referencing the literature of the subset in a verifiable way.
Drug warrior (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Self sufficient non-conformist? Interesting how you could glean that all from an online dictionary.
- Not to mention "free, fufilling life". The dictionary definitely does not say that. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Let it go (virtually) without saying that I hold a great romantic attraction to the lives of those we describe in this entry; nevertheless, I object to the idealized terms with which particular individuals have decided to characterize them. Live several months on the road, guy; then let me know it it fulfills that Karouacian fantasy. Bottom line: it's harsh, unfriendly, and cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.223.103 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
"A completely free, fulfilling life"?
I agree with the above comments that the tone of the article is unencyclopedic and heavily biased. Could the person who has been reverting everyone who attempts to improve this article (usually accusing them of 'vandalism') please explain themselves? It's been going on for months now - if that many people think there's a problem, maybe you should try discussing it? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Reverted again, accused of vandalism again, and told to take it to the talk page again. No sign of the article's owner joining the discussion or responding to any of the concerns voiced on this page, though. Again, please explain why you think your preferred version of the article should stay in place or stop reverting others' changes. And please stop throwing around the word 'vandalism.' Good faith edits are never vandalism. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "owner" here, only people who have devoted their time to this article (me excluded), have made edits that make sense. A few have tried to improve the article, many have tried the opposite. How have YOU been trying to improve the article? Just by looking at this edit, it's obvious that you don't even care what it is that you are reverting, as long as you continue edit warring and becoming the owner yourself. Wikipedia is not meant for that. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why would you say that it's clear I don't care what I'm reverting? I know exactly what I'm reverting - your reversions of my (and other editors') constructive changes to the article. The current tone is unencyclopedic. I was attempting to improve the article by making the tone more neutral and eliminating the flowery, romantic language and defensiveness about terms like 'vagrant'. You, on the other hand, appear to be attempting to prevent any progress on the article. How is that 'improving' it? How does the current tone of the article meet WP:NPOV? And how can an attempt to meet the guidelines in that page be anything but an improvement? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no "owner" here, only people who have devoted their time to this article (me excluded), have made edits that make sense. A few have tried to improve the article, many have tried the opposite. How have YOU been trying to improve the article? Just by looking at this edit, it's obvious that you don't even care what it is that you are reverting, as long as you continue edit warring and becoming the owner yourself. Wikipedia is not meant for that. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The edit you've made that I was referring to was linking back pages in different languages to a completely unrelated article. You didn't even bother as much as checking to see whether that was an appropriate thing to do, all that it mattered to you was reverting something to make the article WORSE, not better. Again, Wikipedia is not meant for such trolling. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I most certainly did check. Those articles are on the 'concept' of being a drifter. They're not identical articles, but they're similar enough. Now, stop with the accusations, please and thank you. Wikipedia is 'meant' to be improved. How does your insisting on retaining this absurdly romanticized language improve the article? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- The edit you've made that I was referring to was linking back pages in different languages to a completely unrelated article. You didn't even bother as much as checking to see whether that was an appropriate thing to do, all that it mattered to you was reverting something to make the article WORSE, not better. Again, Wikipedia is not meant for such trolling. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, they are not similar. One is about this article, the other is about a different one. You said you certainly checked that, yet here is the proof you didn't even after you've been told about it on this page. So yes, you are a vandal and a troll who needs to stop disrupting this article. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, that's not proof of anything. I'm aware of that article. It's linked from this one. That's because they are about similar subjects. But you're distracting from the real issue here. I've asked you several times why you feel that the romanticized language in this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You seem to keep forgetting to reply to that point. Care to enlighten me? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, they are not similar. One is about this article, the other is about a different one. You said you certainly checked that, yet here is the proof you didn't even after you've been told about it on this page. So yes, you are a vandal and a troll who needs to stop disrupting this article. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is beside the point. The point is, the article's current state is good as it is, yet you keep disrupting it with edits that don't make it better, and even claiming that numerous contributors are the same editor as if that somehow proves your right (it doesn't). One obvious proof of this has been linked already, as well as the latest fact that you still deny it despite the evidence of otherwise staring at your face, which clearly shows what your real intentions are. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- Look, it's really not all that common for editors to use proxies to edit wikipedia. It's unlikely enough that multiple editors would all be watching and reverting this article to keep the romantic language in place using the same tactics and the same edit summaries, but it's even less believable that every one of those editors would happen to be using an open proxy. It's blatantly obvious that the five or so ip proxies that have been used to prevent improvements to this article were all operated by the same person. Calling me names isn't going to change the fact that your preferred version of this article is not up to Wikipedia's standards. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, that is beside the point. The point is, the article's current state is good as it is, yet you keep disrupting it with edits that don't make it better, and even claiming that numerous contributors are the same editor as if that somehow proves your right (it doesn't). One obvious proof of this has been linked already, as well as the latest fact that you still deny it despite the evidence of otherwise staring at your face, which clearly shows what your real intentions are. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)