Talk:Hippie/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UK Underground

I would really like to get the Swinging London hippies into this and the history article, but I've been having trouble finding sources in the states. Since libraries often archive culture-related news-clippings by subject in special collections, I'm certain that one can find hippie-era archives in the UK. Would you be willing to look into this? Unfortunately, the sources in the UK underground page are pretty sparse. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to go on that I think is to work on individual aspects in seperate articles including that one. Those topics can be adequately researched in that environment. Then some kind of brief synthesis can be included here that is backed up in sufficient depth. Barry Miles's books are likely a rich source of content. I'm in NYC now, since many years. But there's a fair amount online. I promise to pick at it. One thing I note is that the 'hippy' spelling predominates in the UK. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I note the earlier Rastafari and Punks_vs._Hippies comments. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was going to bring that up, but I figured you would find it. :) —Viriditas | Talk 11:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


I challenge whether there is any such thing as a Neo-Hippie, separate from just being a Hippie. It seems to be a made-up word used by people who don't realize that hippies still exist and, though the hippie movement is not by any means the wide-spread popular youth movement it was in the sixties, it never really went away. There have been subsequent Woodstocks and other festivals (some listed in this article), tie-dyes and other fashions associated with hippies are still produced, concerts and recordings in the Jam Band genre' of music (and other subsets of alternative rock, folk rock, folk music, world music etc) are still popular, certain icons like Wavy Gravy, Harvey Wasserman and Stephen Gaskin & Ina May Gaskin still write and make public appearances, and many companies and organizations from Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream to Plenty International, the Rex Foundation, and Hunger International still carry the same spirit on. Neo-Hippie, on the other hand, seems to have very little that uses the term to self-describe, nor is there much that's significant that comes up in a google search. Thoughts? Rosencomet (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The term is meaningless. Recall, though, that the Diggers buried the hippie in San Francisco following the summer of love. So in a sense all hippies after that rose out of those ashes, so to speak.
I have never heard anyone, at any time, in any place describe himself or herself as a "neo-hippie." Kind of a made-up term that never gained any traction. I see no reason for it to appear in any Wikipedia article. Apostle12 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Which brings to mind that somehow we've lost the account of the burial. It had been in the article, but is gone now. To my mind it is hard to overestimate the significance of that event for the movement. Sunray (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It should certainly be discussed in this article. FWIW, I read an interesting account about the incident in The New York Times archive, so there are plenty of good sources. —Viriditas | Talk 11:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it was an important moment that should be included; however, the Diggers didn't own the hippie movement and were never empowered to end it. Stephen Gaskin, for instance, never recognized an end to the movement; The Farm is still "America's biggest hippie commune", and he still lists "hippie" as his religion whenever asked on a form. Many organizations and companies refered and refer to themselves with the word hippie decades after the burial. It did, however, mark a turnng point in the popularity of the movement, and as great a disillusionment as Watergate was for American politics. But American politics and the GOP continue, and there are still hippies doing what hippies do.Rosencomet (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be a mistake to ascribe too much importance to an impromptu Digger "burial of hippie." After all it was just someone's spur-of-the-moment idea, done primarily for the amusement of those involved. Probably a slow news day, so the media latched on--otherwise most of us wouldn't even have been aware it happened, much less remember it forty years later. Apostle12 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Still, you raise an important point regarding the Diggers that should be addressed in the history subpage. That is to say, the Diggers represented one faction of the hippies, and did not necesarily speak for all of them. At the very least, this page should discuss or make mention of Emmett Grogan and the information contained within Ringolevio (1972), and their impact upon the Haight community. —Viriditas | Talk 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The point the Diggers were making (and one that resounded in the media) was that the image of "the hippie" had become a media plaything, hyped beyond all recognition and subject to endless manipulation. They apparently read this right, as it wasn't long before the Nixon administration launched its campaign through the mainstream media to target "the hippie" with imagery calculated to turn the image of hippies into something sinister, subversive, insane, chronosomically damaged, etc. Sunray (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Have you taken a look at Nation of Rebels: Why Counterculture Became Consumer Culture (2004)? They explain the underlying problem that the Diggers were only touching upon. As for Nixon, it would be good to get this information in the history article, but briefly mention it here. —Viriditas | Talk 10:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Interesting source. As to the Nixon administration's actions, an account appeared several years later, in, of all sources, TV Guide, written by a senior network executive. I will see what I can find on it. Sunray (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments, neither totally pertinent. 1) Diggers: In a BBC Documentary on psychedelics, Microsoft founder Bob Wallace talks of the influence of LSD culture on the development of personal computing. Specifically he questions whether it could have ever developed with out the shareware ethos. Although not mentioned specifically surely that is essential digger philosophy. So the irony is that their ethic on some ways outlived the movement and thrives today in everything from open source, free software, P2P to, bless us, Wikipedia. 2) Death: In the analogous case of punk rock - In 1977 Mark Perry declared punk dead the day The Clash signed to CBS. Perry's point was that punk as defined by mass market products & media was no longer alternative and thus no longer essentially punk. That death in fact signified it's birth as a mass cultural phenomenon. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the counterculture and personal computing, see also: What the Dormouse Said (2005) and From Counterculture to Cyberculture (2006). And as far as the death of the hippies/punks, I seem to recall Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters having something to say about the naming of things, which they seem to have stolen from a Buddhist philosopher or two; by naming the thing ("hippie", "punk", whatever) we are removing ourselves from the direct experience. I really don't remember what Kesey was talking about, or if this came from Tom Wolfe. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm foggy, but I think it's also in Plato. My point being that the 'Death of Hippie' was the for all intensive purposes the birth. Wwwhatsup (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. That makes perfect sense. It's beautiful, too. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


This article .. today at least ... gets it better than anything I've read. After decades of The Man's media distortion, that's hard to do. It was sweet, it was right on, and the solutions haven't changed. You can dissect it, argue about it, do all the brain-twisting analysis you want ... but the reality of The People IS simple and profound and relentlessly pushing above the glib, mad surface into a New Day. Hey y'all! rock on. Twang (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture of psychedelics

What influence - if any - did psychedelic drug use have on the art and music produced by the hippie counterculture? This all seems very familiar. The indigenous Huichol people of Mexico use peyote in their religious rituals. Is it a coincidence that the art of the Huichol makes use of fluorescent colors and psychedelic designs, reminiscent of hippie tie-dye and day-glo colors used by the Merry Pranksters? What was the role of psychedelic art in hippie culture? Is it conceivable that those who experimented with an altered state of consciousness through the ingestion of psychedelic drugs, were motivated to recreate this experience during normal waking consciousness, resulting in a cultural explosion influencing every aspect of reality, and manifesting pure imagination? Was LSD the catalyst for the new forms of music, literature, art and fashion? —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Expressing my concerns again

Too much of this article is devoted to the Family Dog, and I suspect there are COI reasons for demanding that such a broad article be focused on such a small aspect of this history. I'm going to ask Apostle12 to once again consider moving non-essential elements out of this article and into the history of the hippie movement. I'm also concerned about the statement, "Some of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College who were intrigued by the developing psychedelic hippie music scene and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs.[33]" I've studied this issue and don't see any support for the claim that they "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs" which is linked to reference 33, attributed to the opinion of a non-historian, Bill Ham, a light engineer, on both his website and in the past, by a an interpretation of a primary source (a film). Unless a transcript of this is produced, showing these particular words, or a link to Bill Ham's words on his website, I'm going to remove it. If those two things are produced, then we will compare them to what notable historians say on the subject. —Viriditas | Talk 00:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

To date I haven't done anything with this because it's not clear to me what you would like to see. Is it, for example, the Family Dog aspect or the Red Dog Saloon material that you object to? Or both? The two are linked, of course, in the sense that the Family Dog came into existence following the summer that participants spent at the Red Dog Saloon. My only desire is that the connections between the various events be established in the article, since those connections were so seminal to what became the hippie experience--not sure how this could be considered a "conflict of interest." (For the record, I did know a few of the people involved, but the Red Dog predated my involvement and I had nothing to do with the Family Dog.)
In order to write the section on the Berkeley coffee houses, Chandler Laughlin's creation of a "tribal identity," the Red Dog Saloon, the Family Dog and the rest, I spent most of a day watching and re-watching the film to make sure I got it right. Simply don't have the time to rent it again and prepare a transcript.
You seem to believe that the section you quoted was attributed to Bill Ham's website, but I don't see that this is so. His website appears elsewhere as a source, but not in reference to this. Apostle12 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. The ref says 33 but actually links to 32 - the film in question; very confusing. Still, it's an interpretation of a primary source which needs to be supported by a secondary source. It should be easy to find or attribute if you want to keep that particular point in the article. It's quite a sweeping statement to make, however. —Viriditas | Talk 05:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It occurs to me that the material would be salvageable if you are trying to refer to specific individuals, which it looks like you are. Who is it that "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs"? —Viriditas | Talk 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is the sentence in question:
"Some of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College who were intrigued by the developing psychedelic hippie music scene and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs."
While I wrote much of this section, it has been edited since then, and I can't quite recall whether or not I wrote "and left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs." I do vaguely recall something to this effect being said during one of the interviews in the film, but that would have been just the opinion of the speaker. I'm sure a good case could be made that "Some...hippies were...students...who left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs." But as written, I agree that it sounds too sweeping, because the qualifer "some" appears at too great a remove from the rest of the sentence. In any case, to me it's not an important point, so I have no objections to a revision.Apostle12 (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're right, it has been revised several times. The problem I have is with the idea that people were dropping out of school after taking psychedelic drugs. I have never seen any evidence for such a claim. While it is true that Leary's dictum Turn on, tune in, drop out was influential in 1966, the particular statement in regards to San Francisco State (Perry 2005, pp. 5-7) concerns 1965. —Viriditas | Talk 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd have to say that it didn't take Leary's instruction for many of us to come to the conclusion that the developing Bay Area scene was a lot more happening than our classes at Berkeley, S.F. State, and other local schools. In my case, it was Fall 1965 and I was a freshman at Berkeley. Many of my parents' upper-middle-class Berkeley friends (Berkeley professors and, especially, the research chemists and physicists working at the Rad Lab) had taken LSD and were enthused. Also I had done some research and had read much of what Leary and Alpert had written about LSD. One night my friend Chopin and I were bored, and we remembered that there was a jar in the fridge containing 3,000 capsules of White Lightning, which my girlfriend was storing for her friend Owsley. After that evening, I returned to classes and none of it seemed "relevant" (remember that favored 60's word); the Vietnam War was beginning to rage, and that evening turned my attention to other matters that seemed much more important. I dropped out of Berkeley soon after. Apostle12 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Of course all of this is OR and I wouldn't attempt to use it for sourcing. Perhaps, though, Charles Perry could confirm that this was pretty common--he was the only writer among our set of Berkeley friends, though he was a bit older, beyond college age as I recall.Apostle12 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can state for certainty that psychedelics caused people to drop out of college. I do think we can put it in the proper context; it sounds like you were saying the people involved in the Red Dog/Family Dog production were the ones who dropped out, so why not just be specific? Problem solved, no? —Viriditas | Talk 08:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I do think it is valid to say that many people experimented with psychedelics (LSD, mescaline, psylocybin) and that these experiences changed their perspectives. Many of the college offerings were over-intellectualized and seemed irrevelant to these people; they came to favor a more direct, experiential approach to life. They left college because they lost interest. That's not the same as saying "psychedelics caused people to drop out of college." The Red Dog/Family Dog initiators and early participants were mostly people in the 25-35 age range who had "dropped out" (meaning they had disassociated themselves from the "straight" world) long before; I can't think of anyone who was a college student. Yet many of those who joined the party once it got going in the Haight were former college students who lost interest in school. And a lot of those came from San Francisco State, especially Gaskin's crowd since that was where he taught. Always nice to get it right, but as I've said before, I have no real stake in this, since I don't think it's an important point. Apostle12 (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Do we agree to remove the "left school after they started taking psychedelic drugs" bit? —Viriditas | Talk 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. It goes a bit beyond correlation and can be read to imply causation, which would not be accurate. I'll take care of it. Apostle12 (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Hippie" scene and dropping out of college

Okay, I made some changes so that this section (discussed above) no longer implies that S.F.S.C. students dropped out of college because they took psychedelic drugs. This topic does deserve some discussion in the article, however, because so many young people who were influenced by the developing hippie ethos left school after concluding it had little to offer them. Their view of life and their priorities changed radically due to many factors:

  • the collective experience of living apart from parents for the first time with an unprecedented number of relatively affluent young people
  • occasional, yet intense, pyschedelic experiences that caused one to question the values and priorities of one's parents--as Bob Weir has written, most hippies did not spend a great deal of time "stoned," yet the time so spent was transformative
  • collective angst regarding the tragedy of the Vietnam War, and the large divide (at least until 1968) that generally existed between young people and their parents with respect to this issue
  • the easy availability of birth control and (in many areas, even pre Roe v. Wade) abortion

The importance and attraction of dry, often over-intellectualized college courses faded by comparison. Many young people were just hungry to experience life, and there didn't seem to be enough time both to live fully and to attend school. So they dropped out.

Yablonsky has written about this to some extent in The Hippie Trip. I'll try to get some of it into the article as time allows. Apostle12 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Great. I would love to see more of this in the article (and I will help expand it) but we need less of the minutiae concerning the Red Dog/Family Dog, which while very interesting, takes us away from the topic. —Viriditas | Talk 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Red Dog Saloon and the Family Dog as they influenced the hippie ethos

During this period Cambridge, Massachusetts, Greenwich Village in New York City, and Berkeley, California, anchored the American folk music circuit. Berkeley's two coffee houses, the Cabale Creamery and the Jabberwock, sponsored performances by folk music artists in a beat setting. In April 1963, Chandler A. Laughlin III, co-founder of the Cabale Creamery, established a kind of tribal, family identity among approximately fifty people who attended a traditional, all-night Native American peyote ceremony in a rural setting. This ceremony combined a psychedelic experience with traditional Native American spiritual values; these people went on to sponsor a unique genre of musical expression and performance at the Red Dog Saloon in the isolated, old-time mining town of Virginia City, Nevada.
In the summer of 1965, Laughlin recruited much of the original talent that led to a unique amalgam of traditional folk music and the developing psychedelic rock scene. He and his cohorts created what became known as "The Red Dog Experience", featuring previously unknown musical acts—Big Brother and the Holding Company, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service, The Charlatans, The Grateful Dead and others—who played in the completely refurbished, intimate setting of Virginia City's Red Dog Saloon. There was no clear delineation between "performers" and "audience" in "The Red Dog Experience", during which music, psychedelic experimentation, a unique sense of personal style and Bill Ham's first primitive light shows combined to create a new sense of community. Laughlin and George Hunter of the Charlatans were true "proto-hippies", with their long hair, boots and outrageous clothing of distinctly American (and Native American) heritage. LSD manufacturer Owsley Stanley lived in Berkeley during 1965 and provided much of the LSD that became a seminal part of the "Red Dog Experience", the early evolution of psychedelic rock and budding hippie culture. At the Red Dog Saloon, The Charlatans were the first psychedelic rock band to play live (albeit unintentionally) loaded on LSD.
When they returned to San Francisco, Red Dog participants Luria Castell, Ellen Harman and Alton Kelley created a collective called "The Family Dog." Modeled on their Red Dog experiences, on October 16, 1965, the Family Dog hosted "A Tribute to Dr. Strange" at Longshoreman's Hall. Attended by approximately 500 of the Bay Area's original "hippies", this was San Francisco's first psychedelic rock performance, costumed dance and light show, featuring Jefferson Airplane, The Great Society and The Marbles. Two other events followed before year's end, one at California Hall and one at the Matrix. After the first three Family Dog events, a much larger psychedelic event occurred at San Francisco's Longshoreman's Hall. Called "The Trips Festival", it took place on January 21–January 23, 1966, and was organized by Stewart Brand, Ken Kesey, Owsley Stanley and others. Ten thousand people attended this sold-out event, with a thousand more turned away each night. On Saturday January 22, the Grateful Dead and Big Brother and the Holding Company came on stage, and 6,000 people arrived to imbibe punch spiked with LSD and to witness one of the first fully-developed light shows of the era.
By February 1966, the Family Dog became Family Dog Productions under organizer Chet Helms, promoting happenings at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium in initial cooperation with Bill Graham. The Avalon Ballroom, the Fillmore Auditorium and other venues provided settings where participants could partake of the full psychedelic music experience. Bill Ham, who had pioneered the original Red Dog light shows, perfected his art of liquid light projection, which combined light shows and film projection and became synonymous with the San Francisco ballroom experience. The sense of style and costume that began at the Red Dog Saloon flourished when San Francisco's Fox Theater went out of business and hippies bought up its costume stock, reveling in the freedom to dress up for weekly musical performances at their favorite ballrooms. As San Francisco Chronicle music columnist Ralph J. Gleason put it, "They danced all night long, orgiastic, spontaneous and completely free form."

Here are the three paragraphs in question. Believe it or not, my intention during the original writing was to condense the story as much as possible while still making clear the progression from the traditional "beat/folk" scene, to the Red Dog, to the Family Dog, to "The Tribute to Dr. Strange" (the first public dance in modern San Francisco history), then to the Avalon and Fillmore events and the eventual flowering of full-blown hippie culture. As Bob Weir has written, we were pretty much unaware that our numbers had grown to the critical mass required for self-identity as a group prior to the "Tribute to Dr. Strange" event. Then our freak/hippie identity began to be adopted by more and more people.

I am somewhat in doubt what might best be eliminated. To be honest, I would prefer there not be a separate "History of the hippie movement article" because co-ordinating the edits between the two is so tricky.

Since I wrote most of the above, and I was condensing as I wrote, every word was carefully chosen to eliminate anything I thought was extraneous to telling the story. So why don't you tell me what you think is too detailed and we can work on it here. Apostle12 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. I feel that I understand your position, and in some ways I support it, but this is pure "history" and should be discussed in the history of the hippie movement article. Take a look at the articles contained within Category:Subcultures to see how articles about subcultures are handled. Unfortunately, there is currently no way to sort the category by FA/GA articles, so you will just have to look around. My approach may be to blame for some of this miscommunication, because I am taking a big picture approach. A lot of the Red Dog Saloon and Family Dog material has more to do with music of the counterculture and the development of rock concerts. I know there is a lot of overlap, and that can't be avoided, but I would like for us to concentrate on the hippies themselves. I know you dislike the use of a subarticle on history, but it's just going to keep growing. Take a look at Hip hop culture to see how they successfully manage splitting the topic into multiple articles. Anyway, I'm not done addressing this. I'm glad you created a new section to discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(Revised: 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)) - In the early 1960s, the American folk music circuit was anchored in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Greenwich Village, New York and Berkeley, California. On the West Coast, Chandler A. Laughlin III was co-founder of the Cabale Creamery, one of two Berkeley coffee houses that hosted folk music. In April 1963, Laughlin and fifty people attended a Native American peyote ceremony. The psychedelic experience in a Native American spiritual context led to the creation of a new community that formed around musical performance in the summer of 1965: Known as the "The Red Dog Experience", the Red Dog Saloon in Virginia City, Nevada featured then-unknown bands Big Brother and the Holding Company, Jefferson Airplane, Quicksilver Messenger Service, The Charlatans, The Grateful Dead and others; The Charlatans were the first psychedelic rock band to play live on LSD. Later, in San Francisco, Red Dog participants created "The Family Dog" and on October 16, 1965, the group hosted one of the first psychedelic rock performances at Longshoreman's Hall called "A Tribute to Dr. Strange". From January 21–23, 1966, "The Trips Festival" was held, with ten thousand people attending. During the January 22 event, 6,000 people drank punch spiked with LSD and witnessed one of the first light shows. By February 1966, Chet Helms and Family Dog Productions began promoting events at the Avalon Ballroom and the Fillmore Auditorium with Bill Graham. The San Francisco psychedelic ballroom music experience was brought to life in these venues with liquid light and film projection designed by Bill Ham, a pioneer of the original Red Dog light shows.
Just an example of condensing text down to essentials and moving the rest to linked subarticles where people can find more information. —Viriditas | Talk 09:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize you were working quickly in order to provide an example. However a lot of error made its way into your condensed version, and I think some of the omissions are important--your attempt to isolate "hippies" from the "history of the hippies" seems quite artificial to me because hippies came and went so quickly. The act of becoming determined who and what hippies were. I don't think the hippie phenomenon was comparable to hip hop.
To begin with, the April 1963 "event" did not happen at the Red Dog Saloon. I would have to verify the location with Chan since I didn't attend it, but it probably took place on the reservation at Pyramid Lake, just north of Reno, Nevada, which was where I attended a similar event in December 1965. In the "Rockin' at the Red Dog" film Chan speaks at some length about the genesis of this event, which found its inspiration in his developing awareness of nuclear vulnerability during the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The peyote ceremony I attended was conducted in a traditional teepee under the auspices of the Native American Church; this and the previous ceremony (more were to come) were some the first links formed between budding hippie culture and Native American culture.
Sandoz acid was legally available at the time, though its distribution was limited, and thus controlled. Peyote was more easily available and offered a similar shortcut to transcendent states. As local LSD manufacturers developed their production techniques, LSD became the "drug of choice" for those seeking such a shortcut. Even during the Red Dog's wildest days, the seed of reverence that was planted during the April 1963 peyote ceremony continued to grow and flourish, eventually finding its way via the Family Dog into developing hippie culture.
Now I don't expect much of this to find its way into the article, but it would be nice if ALL the good stuff didn't get boiled out. You have done that to much of the rest of the article, which I find sad. Given your incessant demands for sourcing, your assumption that you are the final arbiter of what is appropriate in the article, not to mention your general arrogance and high-handedness, few of us have been willing to remain (even sporadically as I have) to mount a defense of what we know to be true. I do NOT agree to disagree; what you do seems wrong to me. Apostle12 (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what errors you are talking about. The example above was just that, an example.Ok, I see the errors above. I will attempt to fix them. I don't think we will ever come to an agreement about this because you are writing from your first-person experience; that's why I mentioned COI before. We need to be writing from secondary sources. The primary source you are using is a film called, Rockin' At the Red Dog: The Dawn of Psychedelic Rock. As I said above, your version of early hippie history has more to do with music of the counterculture and the development of rock concerts. And, I'm not denying in any way that your version isn't valid; but it gives too much space to material about early psychedelic rock while ignoring (not deliberately, you've said in a previous section that you want to expand it) the intersection of the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War Movement, and the Free Speech Movement, which like psychedelic rock, also had a large role to play. Again, this is all extremely interesting, but this article is supposed to be about hippies. The history article can contain all the origins, antecedents, connections, and details, but there's a lot missing from this article about hippies. I am not attempting to "isolate" hippies from their history, but rather to clarify exactly what hippies were and are without the excess verbiage that describes things best handled by linked subarticles, such as names, events, and places. I never compared the hippie movement to hip hop, but they are both subcultures that have a lot in common. Lastly, the demand for sourcing is the foundation of the current version of the encyclopedia. It's sad to see you fall back on your usual accusations against me, but I will continue to ignore them. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(By the way, I attempted to incorporate the changes above soon after the original version appeared. An edit conflict prevented me from doing so.)
My point is that you have in the past used sourcing demands to limit the article to selective expression of your favored ideas. And they are not just "my accusations;" such complaints about your approach have been lodged by many editors since you arrived and established effective ownership. When editors attempt to introduce ideas you do not favor, you routinely revert and initiate unending demands for sourcing--nothing is ever good enough for you. Sometimes you have even added themes introduced by other editors months after they gave up in frustration (yes, we noticed), as though they were your own idea...never with an apology or acknowledgement of course.
There is no conflict of interest here; that is a misuse of the term as I know it. I did happen to know many of the people involved, however I am not over-emphasizing their roles. The Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War movement, and the Free Speech Movement were only ancillary to the development of hippie culture, though the spirit of those movements gained experiential expression as hippie culture developed to become racially mixed, anti-war and committed to freedom of expression in general. Apostle12 (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that you revised your original condensation; the new one looks better and probably would have provoked less outraged response. I would tend to classify the "Rockin' at the Red Dog" video as a combination of primary and secondary sources--the primary being interviews with original participants and the secondary much of the commentary offered by the film maker. I think Perry's work corroborates much of what is in the film, though he was also a primary participant, so the sourcing picture is mixed there as well.Apostle12 (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I have never used "sourcing demands" (whatever that means) to limit or promote ideas, and I challenge you to find one instance. You wont' be able to. This article was a huge dogpile of unsourced original research when I arrived, authored by you no less - and now is almost 80% sourced. You apparently appointed yourself WP:OWNER and have raised hell ever since your territory was encroached. (and in case anyone decides to go check, no, you weren't using your current user name) I haven't a clue what this little rant is supposed to mean, but it's highly amusing: Sometimes you have even added themes introduced by other editors months after they gave up in frustration (yes, we noticed), as though they were your own idea...never with an apology or acknowledgement of course. Perhaps you misunderstand what it means to remove unsourced material and then add it back in with actual references to improve the article. BTW, you're welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The "dogpile" you refer to was written by a group of perhaps six other editors who were primary participants at the time; I didn't write it. Of course the article had flaws, as does the current version, and you have encouraged better sourcing, I agree. But that does not change the fact that you have been aggressive, heavy-handed, arrogant and obnoxious in your approach, which is why ALL those editors left long ago.
You are wrong that I couldn't find one instance of your use of sourcing demands to limit or promote ideas, though to prove it with specific, dated references would take more time than I am willing to spend. Besides I have never seen you concede much, no matter how well-documented, and we seem to be the only editors actively involved here anyway, so what's the point?
I will mention just a couple of instances:
  • You insisted (because one source said so) that hippies never accepted the hippie label and instead called themselves "freaks," despite all evidence to the contrary. It took eons to get you to allow the real progression to emerge.
  • You fought tooth and nail against the idea that "hippie culture spread around the world," rejecting as inadequate all overseas references provided by other editors until those editors left in frustration. I am not sure what brought you around, but you never acknowledged that their references to overseas hippies were in any way valid. After they were long gone, you added material supporting their claims.
I have never regarded this article as "my territory." On the contrary I have been consistent in welcoming anyone who has been willing to add valuable material. My tendency has always been towards inclusiveness and support for other editors' efforts--with appropriate re-edits where necessary and more patient requests for sourcing than you have demonstrated. It is you who arrived and savaged the article, with wholesale reversion of whole sections and no respect for anyone; YOU are the reason I changed my name, a symbolic gesture representing an attempt to leave behind the intense hostility I felt towards you. In my present identity, I make sure that I keep it down to occasional disgust that does not rise to a wish for your instant demise. Apostle12 (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I was right; you could not find one instance where I used "sourcing demands to limit or promote ideas". And, I'll be happy to address your continuing distraction from the topic of the Red Dog material you added, so we can get back to discussing it instead of me. Your recollection about past discussions is seriously flawed. The most I've ever commented on the term "freaks" was to say: Hippie as a pejorative. At what point did "hippies" embrace the term? As I understand it the term was derogatory, and actual "hippies" referred to themselves by other names, such as "freaks". That's it. And, it's in the current version of the article. The original discussion concerned the pejorative use of the word, which is now in the etymology subarticle. So, I once again have no idea where you get the idea that I insisted...that hippies never accepted the hippie label and instead called themselves "freaks," despite all evidence to the contrary. Further, you write It took eons to get you to allow the real progression to emerge. No such thing occurred. "Freaks" are mentioned in the main article and the pejorative use is in the etymology subarticle. Second, you claim that I fought against the idea that hippie culture spread around the world, when in actuality, I added a reference to Hirsch describing hippies as "Members of a cultural protest that began in the U.S. in the 1960s and affected Europe before fading in the 1970s...fundamentally a cultural rather than a political protest." Other editors tried to expand this with unsourced material, and I asked for reliable sources. The references provided by "other editors" were not valid or reliable. Since these editors were unable to find reliable sources, I helped and found references to jipetecas in La Onda Chicana, something nobody had ever discussed. Eventually, the lead section was fleshed out to summmarize other aspects of the article which were eventually sourced. So for the second time, you are welcome. Now, if you would be so kind as to stop distracting away from the subject and get back to discussing it, I would appreciate it. Of course, I would be more than happy to clear up any further misconceptions you might have about me, but please use this discussion page to discuss improving the article, as I was doing before you changed the subject...again. —Viriditas | Talk 13:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Viriditas is, forever and always, unerringly "right." It is your recollection of past discussions that is seriously flawed sir. It occurs to me that you might profit from asking yourself a single question, "Why does Viriditas seem to find it so empowering to inspire annoyance, even hatred, in others?" Apostle12 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not the topic of this discussion, so please mind WP:NPA. WP:CIV and WP:TALK may also help you. I have no idea why you think I am "forever and always, unerringly "right" as I have made no less than three concessions in the last 24 hours on this page: one at 05:21, 4 March 2008 (You are correct. The ref says 33 but actually links to 3); the second one at 06:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC) (You're right, it has been revised several times); the third at 10:42, 5 March 2008 (Ok, I see the errors above). I suggest you put your emotions aside as they appear to be clouding your judgment. Stick to the issues, not the personalities. Your "hatred", revulsion, and muderous impulses (instant demise) belong to your own psyche. Try to control yourself. If you can't participate constructively, don't edit. Take a break, walk around, go meditate, whatever, but don't post your invective here. —Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It was not my hatred I was referring to; you had inspired that emotion in another editor. "Revulsion"--well, yes; you have inspired that emotion in me and countless other editors, which you well know because they have let you know on these pages. "Murderous impulses?" Those are your words, not my own, nor do those words represent anything in my own psyche. In a previous incarnation (now abandoned for this more peaceful one) I would have welcomed your "instant demise"--from natural causes of course.Apostle12 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Please leave your emotional problems at the door. This page is for discussing the topic. If you can't do that, please don't edit here. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Board certified sane here; I have no emotional problems. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic

Apostle12 uses the unreleased film/DVD, Rockin' at the Red Dog: The Dawn of Psychedelic Rock (1996) to support his material. Its inclusion in this article is essentially an interpretation of the film. Without transcripts, we have no supporting documentation. I would appreciate it if secondary sources are offered to support its inclusion in an article about hippies. Related articles, such as psychedelic rock, San Francisco Sound, and others are entirely appropriate, but devoting ~700 words to it in this article seems a bit over the top when other important issues related to the hippie subculture are completely ignored. An appropriate subpage titled history of the hippie movement already exists where these topics can be expanded in more detail. —Viriditas | Talk 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rockin' at the Red Dog is available from Netflix. A transcript of the film would be useful and welcome should anyone wish to prepare same. Apostle12 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And it probably won't be needed, as I'm collecting secondary sources for inclusion below. The central issue regards hippie dance concerts. —Viriditas | Talk 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


  • Charters reprints Sally Tomlinson's essay from High Societies: Psychedelic Rock Posters from Haight-Ashbury (2001) a publication of the San Diego Museum of Art. (Charters 2003, pp. 291-305.) Tomlinson's essay, "Psychedelic Rock Posters: History, Ideas, and Art", describes the "dance concerts that so galvanized the hippie community", which she traces to two points of origin in 1965: the Merry Pranksters and the Charlatans. While focused on hippies, she does not discuss the origin of the Red Dog Saloon; that information can go into its own article once it is created. Perry discusses several West Coast "hippie scenes" that preceded the Haight-Ashbury including Pine Street and the Red Dog. —Viriditas | Talk 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Herb Caen

Use of the term "hippie" did not become widespread in the mass media until early 1967, after San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen began referring to "hippies" in his daily columns.[24][25][citation needed]

Please refer me to a secondary source that says this. I seem to recall seeing one a long time ago, but it's not linked to this statement. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
One source says, "Mecchi, 1991, 22 December 1966 column, pp 125-26." This reference doesn't even have a publisher listed, just a page number and date. How can something published in 1966 support a claim about early 1967? The second one is listed as "San Francisco Chronicle, 18 Jan 1967 column, p. 27." Not sure how this supports the statement that Caen's usage "become widespread in the mass media". —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


Good Article nomination failed

According to the quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup or expansion banners (such as the one in Legacy) and/or large numbers of {{fact}} tags, must failed immediately and does not require an in-depth review. Please remedy the issues brought up by such banners and remove them before choosing to renominate the article. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review


Note: I'm starting to reformat the references per SG in the PR. —Viriditas | Talk 07:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. But more references are needed. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Removed

Barring source material verifying the claim that "TRENT IS GAY" and subsequent discussion of its pertainance, I have removed that phrase from the first sentence of this entry. (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, there's nothing to verify the apparently widely-held belief that Ashlee Peterson is a 'fake' hippie, either. Rhakaryn (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


In the past, several editors have tried adding material about LGBT, but weren't able to add sources. User:Benjiboi did a little bit of research and found a number of references here for inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that some rose-colored glasses may be donned before editing, and the early hippies described as less homophobic than was, sadly, often the case. We got better; but it was an uphill struggle for our LGBT sisters and brothers to find the acceptance that was their due, just as it was for the feminists. Conversely, the Stonewall rising was perhaps inspired in part by what the hippies were doing; but the Stonewall bar was not, as I understand it, a hippie place. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right about this. Ginsberg was ever-present, of course, but on a personal level most hippies had little to do with him. And gay people were ostracized in many communes. Bi women were cool (as they are today among straight guys), but bi men had to keep a lid on it. Apostle12 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've thought about asking the LGBT group to participate in this discussion. I want to make very sure that the article covers all the bases and doesn't leave any group out. Viriditas (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas was looking for someone who was somewhat familiar with LGBT issues in the 50s and 60s. I've worked on articles for the Daughters of Bilitis and The Ladder, and read a bit on Homophile organizations in the 60s. You can message me if you're interested, and let me know what it is you're specifically looking to add. --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding. I'd like to keep the discussion here so that active editors on this page can contribute. To start with, I'm following up on content that was removed as unsourced and now resides in the archives. This concerns at least four threads, possibly more: [1], [2], [3], [4] If you could review this LGBT material and determine if there are any sources to support it, or find that it is relevant to this article, please let us know. After that, if you could review a discussion I had with Benjiboi here and make the same determiniation, that would be apprecated. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I read those sections, and while they may have been somewhat accurate, without citations they're just WP:OR, and I think you were right to remove them. Hippies have a reputation that far reaches beyond them. I can suggest two sources for one of the issues. Randy Shilts wrote The Mayor of Castro Street about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay supervisor in San Francisco. Shilts describes how the counterculture movement encouraged so many gays to be drawn to San Francisco in the 1960s to create the most famous gay neighborhood in the world. On the east coast was Greenwich Village in Manhattan. I covered this a tiny bit in an article I wrote about Ann Bannon, although the time in question was the late 1950s, so it's more about the Beat generation than hippies. The Stonewall Inn is in Greenwich Village, and any source that describes the Stonewall Riots in 1969 will be able to describe the neighborhood as a gay enclave. The folks who first fought back in the Stonewall Riots were drag queens, although the riots lasted for 3 days and attracted a lot more people. Soon after the Stonewall Riots, the Gay Liberation Front was formed, but from what I've read it was chaotic and without any direction - quite perfect for hippies, actually. It didn't last long and was replaced somewhat by the Gay Activists Alliance.
I'm not sure what sort of help you were looking for, and if I answered something you were asking. Let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm going to start slowly with Margaret Cruikshank as a source. She talks directly about the influence of hippies on LGBT. Viriditas (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


Recently on the peer review, WP:MOS#Quotations was brought up, with a recommendation to use plain blockquotes without graphics. Personally, I prefer what we have now, but the WP:FACR may not allow for it. I wanted to alert active editors to this possible change, as it goes against my personal preferences. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm just reading a rant by Bill Hatch in response to Gerald de Groot's Reflections on The Sixties Unplugged, which argues that the '60s counterculture achieved nothing of lasting importance. I liked this line: The greatest achievement of the hippies was and remains humor -- comedy asserted in the face of tragedies, including their own.Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's his opinion. Mine is that the old definition for the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation probably would apply to him too. (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you're right, that's a rant. Gerald de Groot's criticism and Hatch's response is one of the missing puzzle pieces for the legacy section. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm interested to see how you will manage to summarize it all. Wwwhatsup (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"Straight" in "Hippie" slang

To the best of my own knowledge, "straight" in hippie slang means "not stoned". Any hippie can be straight, if the bread gets tight. I don't believe it is a derogatory term for "others" or "not like us" (except maybe among certain of the self-styled "freaks", but not most hippies) The closest thing for most hippies would be "square" and there are certainly plenty of vintage instances of hippies using this term in the media, along with "the man", "the system", "the establishment" etc. so it was not strictly a "beatnik" term either. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you said a person was in the moment "straight," that meant he or she wasn't stoned. However in general the term was used to mean "enmeshed in conventional society." See for example Lewis Yablonsky's THE HIPPIE TRIP, p. 103 where he says "...They were dressed in "straight" (regular shirts and cotton pants) clothes..." (Emphasis is Yablonsky's.)
Also see John Bassett McCleary where he refers to the word "hippy" and says " was the media and straight society that popularised the term."
"Square" probably never disappeared during the hippie era, however it was never the primary word that was used to refer to conventional society, at least among hippies.Apostle12 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, perhaps "straight society" literally meant "not-stoned society" (non pot-smoking society) at first... "straight clothes" sounds like clothes intended to look less like a stoner... over time, the term may have come to have less to do with mind altering substances. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps so. Of course now the word clearly means "not gay," so for clarity's sake it might be better to replace it with "conventional" in this context. Apostle12 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Summer of Love/Acid House

I'm very surprised that there isn't the merest mention of the Acid House movement of 1987/89. Surely this in many ways was a revival of much that happened twenty years earlier but in a very unselfconscious way. Suddenly in the UK anyway many of those aged 18-25 were wearing hippy type clothing, becoming part of a movement where certain drugs were freely available and based on a philosophy of freedom/love/peace etc and even in the chillout rooms playing certain old late 60s/early 70s music. There were even a few much older figures on the scene who had actually been around on the "hippy" scene in the late 60s. to me this is an extremely obvious connection - the Summer of 1988 even being called the Second Summer of Love in the UK and the obvious use of the word "Acid".It was also a mass movement probably bigger with the average 18-25 year old than any youth movement since the late 60s. Even the use of the word Rave was a revival of a use it had occasionally had (at least in Britain) in the 60s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff for the legacy section, if you can find the sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hippies and Drugs

Um, this page affends me a little becuase I'm a hippie but I don't take druge and many groups have people on drugs wide spread but they don't have sectons about them taking drugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point and worth pursuing, especially in the legacy section where it would be acceptable to state that modern hippies use less drugs than those in the 1960s. Of course, you'll need to hunt down some refs, but that shouldn't be too hard to find. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Right Wing Is Revulsed

Being non-traditional, hippies are universally reviled for their impact on society by social conservatives: questioning Authority, protesting The War, not wearing proper business attire (dark suit, muted neckwear, dark socks on suspenders, wingtips), calling a spade a spade. This point is important and should appear in the main article. -- (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A sourced variation on what you are trying to say used to appear in this article; if it doesn't, then it must have been moved to history of the hippie movement. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Source help entreaty

I'm wondering if the regular watchers of this page can help me out finding sources for a related article. I've been working on Hair (musical), getting it to GA and, hopefully, FA. I'd like to add a section on the show's effect on the counter-culture of the 60s, specifically regarding the widespread use (I would assume) of some of the songs at protest marches and whatnot. Any help at all would be appreciated. And, of course, more sets of eyes at that article would always be appreciated.... — MusicMaker5376 22:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not the place to look for such help. The regulars here have fought against adding sources to this article for several years, insisting instead upon original research and unverified claims, which has prevented this article from getting anywhere near GA status. (see GA nom failed and peer review) Looking at the work you've done on Hair, you've done a fine job. Consider yourself lucky that you don't have to deal with the regulars on this page. Your article is heading towards FA status soon, and I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. That sucks. Well, thanks for the response! — MusicMaker5376 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Last call

The original research in the legacy section is holding up a GA-Class assessement. If it isn't sourced in the next week, I will remove it per the peer review...again. Viriditas (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The list

  • and others have helped perpetuate and continue the culture as well as creating an environment of peace and networking for the greater good.
    • Left unsourced for more than six months. Editorial opinion about Rainbow Family Gatherings, Community Peace Festivals and Woodstock Festivals. Viriditas (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Drugs at Stonehenge

Heroin, for example, was banned from the Stonehenge Free Festival. [citation needed]

Aside from personal websites which conflict on this issue, I could not find any RS on this topic. Nevertheless, it's tangential to this article. Viriditas (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics redux

  • Hippies were often pacifists and participated in non-violent political demonstrations, such as civil rights marches, the marches on Washington D.C., and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, including draft card burnings and the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests.[citation needed]
  • In addition to non-violent political demonstrations, hippie opposition to the Vietnam War included organizing political action groups to oppose the war, refusal to serve in the military and conducting "teach-ins" on college campuses that covered Vietnamese history and the larger political context of the war.[citation needed]
This has been unsourced for years with no sources forthcoming. Were all hippies politically active? Were all teach-ins conducted by "hippies"? It seems like the term "hippie" is being used generically here, as in "counterculture" or "protester". Scott MacFarlane in the The Hippie Narrative (2007) writes:

The hippie phenomenon was not metamorphosing into the New Left or radical black politics. The counterculture had many overlapping movements. Leftist politicos-such as Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin-tried with limited success to appropriate the energy of the hippie phenomenon into overtly political causes and, while many highly political activists came to consider themselves hippies, many hippies were apolitical or not leftist.

MacFarlane's position appears to be supported by people like Ken Kesey, Timothy Leary, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the above text does not state that all Hippies were politically active; in fact, the use of the words "Hippies were often pacifists and participated..." is a statement that they were not ALWAYS those things. Nor does anything above imply that they were the only people who conducted "Teach-ins"; Stephen Gaskin's Wednesday Night Meetings in the Haight are famous examples of hippie-conducted teach-ins, but teachers and professors across the country and Europe were experimenting with this method of interesting students in dialog and making learning more relevant to them.
I agree that there were many overlapping movements, and some of their members would not have called themselves hippies. Political and social-activism hippie organizations include the Students for a Democratic Society and the Youth International Party (Yippies), but I would not put that label to the Black Panthers, though they were certainly counter-cultural. Womens' Liberation and the Gay Activist Alliance had plenty of hippie members, but were not hippie political movements or organizations. One might speak of political positions popular among hippies (social libertarianism, socialized aid to many types of people in need, nuclear disarmament, the end to the war in Viet Nam, marijuana & psychedelic drug legalization, etc), but they were not organized as a group enough to be said to have a "platform", and many were either apolitical or even anti-political. Pacifism was often more of a social orientation than a political position for them; many (like a lot of "flower children") had "dropped out" of all that "working within the system" stuff. Others were very politically engaged, and ran their own candidates for office (like Timothy Leary) or supported those they believed sympathetic to their desire to live as they wished and promote a utopian (in their views) society (like Bobby Kennedy). Rosencomet (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hippies were often pacifists. True.
'Hippies often participated in non-violent political demonstrations, such as civil rights marches, the marches on Washington D.C., and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, including draft card burnings and the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests. That's a beautiful mess. On the one hand, the editor is making a sweeping claim about hippies participating in non-violent demonstrations, while at the same time claiming that hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots. Why do I find these kind of crazy, unsourced contradictions in this article and nowhere else? Viriditas (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this sentence lacks clarity and that it should differentiate between the various events that are listed since they were different in character and focus.
However, in using the phrase "crazy, unsourced contradiction" you seem to be implying that hippies participated in violent protests and riots in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which is a very common misperception promulgated by contemporaneous stories in the national press. More recent analysis of the events reveals a very different picture--that the violence was perpetrated almost entirely by the Chicago police at the behest of Mayor Daley. In fact the Walker Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence assigned blame for the mayhem in the streets to the police force, calling the violence a "police riot." I suppose hippies did "participate" in the violence and riots, but only in the sense that they became unwitting victims of the Chicago police. The footage in Brett Morgen's documentary "Chicago 10," which played at last year's Sundance Film Festival, is especially revealing in this regard. Apostle12 (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That was precisely my point and the sole reason I noted the problematic passage. For some reason, you seem to think I was taking the opposing view. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right, I did think you were taking the opposing view. I guess, then, I don't quite get what you are saying. Can you clarify, please? What do you think the article should say about hippie participation in political protests during the 1960s? Apostle12 (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As an editor, I try to read and edit articles with beginner's mind. This artificial (at first, it becomes natural over time) perspective enables one to "see" the content from the POV of someone who doesn't know the topic. If you read the material quoted above with that viewpoint, you will see the problem. In other words, if hippies were pacifists and apolitical (explained in the text) but also engaged in non-violent demonstrations, including draft card burnings and riots at the 1968 protests, then there is a contradiction in terms. Many sources take great pains to separate the American Civil Rights Movement, the Free Speech Movement, the New Left and the Yippies from the hippie movement. Depending on those sources, it may be acceptable to state that hippies were members of some, many, or all of these groups, but making blanket statements about the political beliefs of hippies in relation to these groups continues to be problematic. Let's stick to the sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a little confused on your point myself; perhaps you are responding to something other than the text quoted above. I don't see the word "apolitical" there, and I see no contradiction in saying that hippies were pacifists and they engaged in demonstrations against the war, burned draft cards, etc.

The first paragraph states that hippies were OFTEN (it doesn't say always) pacifists, and lists 5 examples of non-violent political action. I agree with Apostle12 that the Chicago Democratic convention of 1968 can be included, since the violence was perpetrated on them, not committed by them. The second paragraph lists political action groups, refusal to serve in the military, and teach-ins. I still see no contradiction in terms.

Now, I'm not saying the section shouldn't be reworded. I think it mixes pacifism with civil rights marches, for instance, and seems to be confused as to whether it's about hippies' political positions or specifically about their stand on the Viet Nam war, or even war in general. I believe there was more unanimity among hippies on civil rights than on the war, including protesting the draft; conscription being an issue that transcends this particular military conflict. But I don't see the quoted text as, in your words, "claiming that hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots". These are NON-violent protests, at one of which they were attacked by violent cops.

BTW, I agree that hippies were not "not metamorphosing into the New Left or radical black politics". Their detractors often tried to depict the hippies as communists or communist-sympathizers or anarchists, and certainly some of the most vocal hippie celebrities like Angela Davis and Jerry Rubin professed such political stands and used violently anti-establishment rhetoric. But the Youth International Party and the Black Panthers never spoke for the hippie movement at large; IMO, if it ever appeared that they did, it was because NOBODY spoke for them, so the public had only the loudest and most visual individuals to go on. Most were more social activists than political activists, when they were active at all. "Make Love, Not War" isn't a political platform. Rosencomet (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself again. We've over this, again and again for several years. Let's see the sources. Viriditas (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
For what? I'm just saying it's not a contradiction in terms, and the text never said both "hippies are pacifists" and "hippies are engaging in violent protests and riots". If you think it's not sufficiently supported or needs citations, that's different. Rosencomet (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not different, it's what I've been saying all along. This has been unsourced for years with no sources forthcoming. Look at it again. Viriditas (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section questions

  1. Is the interest in vitamins truly to be credited to hippie legacy? Health food stores and herbal remedies perhaps. Maybe nutritional supplements. Herbal teas, I’d say for sure. But the craze for “vitamin-enriched” products predates the hippie movement.
  2. In this sentence: “Hippies inspired many other changes — the decline in popularity of the necktie which had been everyday wear during the 1950s and early 1960s; in literature, books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test;[72] in music, the blending of folk rock into newer forms including acid rock and heavy metal; and in television and film, far greater visibility and influence, with some films depicting the hippie ethos and lifestyle, such as Woodstock, Easy Rider, Hair, The Doors, and Crumb.”

What does “books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test” mean here? How does it relate to the phrase “Hippies inspired many changes”? The book was written DURING the hippie movement, so it’s not part of a legacy. Does the author mean “stream of consciousness” novels, or books with an anti-establishment message? Is this really a statement that part of the legacy of the period is books written during it about it? Also, the film Easy Rider was written and released during the movement. The others could be called part of a legacy. Or is the author saying the existence of hippie works of art still appreciated today is the legacy? If so, what's the change that was inspired? Rosencomet (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea how both of those slipped into the article. Every time I turn around, someone is adding someting here or there and changing the original intent and sneaking in OR. I'll look at earlier versions and see if I can restore what it originally said. Viriditas (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out the source for the vitamin claim on Google books, and it doesn't say that vitamins were credited to the hippie legacy. It does say that hippie food cooperatives and chains that grew out of the movement became "important purveyors" of vitamins and other supplements. I think the wording needs to be changed to reflect the reference. Viriditas (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the source for "books like The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" in the legacy section, most of these things are "influences" which have been lumped into "legacy". Jon Hunner [5] describe this influence as a literary legacy of lasting cultural impact, noting that a book from 1968 is still being widely read 40 years later. Viriditas (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Moved text to later section (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Variety of English

Til Eulenspiegel argues that this article does not fall under the "strong national ties" provision of WP:ENGVAR. Maybe not; fair enough. However the main fallback position is then the original variety used in the article. As far as I can tell from the history, that's American English. The very first version of the article, already too long to be a stub, contains the word publicized. Therefore flavour should be changed to flavor. --Trovatore (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Even more important, to me anyway, is that the lead section states that Hippie is an American ideal. It also goes on to mention that the word 'hippie' derives from 'hipster' - another American English word. That coupled with the original variation (American English) gives no footing, that I can see, behind changing it to 'flavour.' I look at ENGVAR and I do think this article has strong national ties - just as strong as Tolkein's book, which is used as an example. Maybe I'm missing something, which is quite possible, but what is the argument from the other side of the issue? All this over a 'u'...:] XF Law talk at me 08:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, certainly if there are strong national ties, then they can only be American — I don't think anyone is going to propose a different nation and argue that hippies have stronger ties to it. But what I'm saying is, even if there aren't, we still reach the same conclusion. The article is mostly in American English, started out in American English, and probably has always been mostly in American English, though I'm certainly not going to wade through the entire history to check the third claim. --Trovatore (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How ironic so much work goes into the hippie article ;) This early revision (non-stub) uses 'color.' There is a clear standard that the article was written in US English, so the MOS says we leave it be. Ya dig? :P XF Law talk at me 08:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I reach. --Trovatore (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to change it back. I'm not thrilled with Til referring to my edit as 'edit warring' in the edit summary. I simply undid an edit - which anyone is free to do. The MOS is clear that it's not in the interest of anyone to change the variations arbitrarily. As far back as I can tell, there has never been the use of anything other than American English. This should be a clear case of the MOS ruling over any potential nationalistic views. XF Law talk at me 08:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a message on Til's talk page in an effort to get the editor involved in this discussion, as they are insisting on reverting and using edit summaries in lieu of any consensus. XF Law talk at me 11:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay Stevens quote

User:EmilEikS modified the quote by Jay Stevens by adding sic.[6] This does not belong here as there is no error or unusual spelling. As a result, I'm removing it. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm also removing the weasel words added to the drugs subsection. EmilEikS is welcome to use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
EmilEikS, could you explain why you added "sic" back into the article? Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer below under Drugs. EmilEikS (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I find your answer unsatisfactory. You can't alter a direct quote because you disagree with it. On Wikipedia, we reserve sic for use in quotes where there is a typo or archaic usage. Viriditas (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If common use of "[sic]" does not coincide with your views and you have the upper hand, by all means feel free to remove whatever you please! EmilEikS (talk) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Fashion and astrology

New additions are welcome, but I doubt astrology was a legacy of the hippies; There's nothing about hippies in the astrology article. This should either be removed or added to a different section with actual sources for the new content, especially the quotes which don't have sources. I certainly think astrology should be mentioned but including it under the legacy section in addition to a heading about fashion doesn't ring true. I understand that EmilEikS is a new editor so perhaps somebody can help him. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you can leave a verifiable reference for your point that astrology was not an integral and important part of hippie culture worldwide, and fashion, please do so! I have left one that goes to my point here. The astrology article is guarded very carefully by certain editors who remove anything that is not scientific and scholarly (see history there). There is hardly any reference at all there to popular culture, in any case miniscule compared to what there should be in my (and your?) opinion. EmilEikS (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. The burden of proof is on the editor making the claim. We don't prove negatives here. In other words, it is your responsibility to show that astrology is a legacy of the hippies, not the other way around. Currently, most of what you added is unsourced, especially the quote, and we call that original research. Please refrain from reverting until these issues are met. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the unsourced quote. EmilEikS (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
And the rest of the paragraph? I've added a fact tag. If sources aren't added for this, it will be removed as well. Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How long are you giving me? I have rewritten a bit, thanks to your input, and hope you will appreciate the direction we are going in. EmilEikS (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Take as much time as you want - on the talk page or in user space, not in main space. Unsourced material may be removed at any time. You are of course, free to persaude me on th talk page. Start naming sources I can check out for myself and verify immediately. If what you are writing is true, you should be able to help me confirm it with a few well-placed names and titles. In fact, why don't you tell me what the source you added says about hippies? Provide a small quote, please. I want to see the word hippie in the quote. Also, there is no link between fashion and astrology, so connecting the two is a bit of OR on your part. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot respond instantly as I have a paying job to maintain and another big project also. Sorry! Do as you feel you must. EmilEikS (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See below. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed text

Astrology, including everything from serious study to whimsical amusement regarding personal traits according to sun signs and more detailed charts, was universally integral to hippie culture. Though seeming to contradict their accepted ideals to avoid social classification in community, this interest in astrology could be felt by hippies as an understated part of a peaceful revolution against established religions, as well as against the logical philosophies and sciences of yore. Personal characteristics were of interest in such astrological activity and entertainment, whereas horoscopes and predictions normally were not. Major revivals of the musical mentioned above, in particular, and other period entertainment have contributed to a re-emergence more recently of hippie fashions and of astrological interest and alleged such knowledge among children and grandchildren of the flower children so indoctrinated and trained during the hippie era.[citation needed]

A physical emulation of animal images representing sun signs to which some individuals belonged was common among them and influenced fashions. The strong general advancement of long hair was partially attributed by some to the manes of dominant Aries and Leo sun signs.[83]

Drug use

All hippies did not use drugs. A significant amount were strongly against the use of drugs and alchohol as a health issue. If it is to be claimed here that all hippies used drugs, that needs to be referenced with a reliable source. Please bear in mind that many hippies are concerned with this article as an indirect BLP issue before publishing generalizations that many may offend some people (my uncle and many of his friends among them.) EmilEikS (talk) 11:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, again. The article does not make any such claims, nor can we use your opinion as evidence. BLP has nothing to do with the issues here. This is an encyclopedia and we are dealing with general statements about a group. These claims are also sourced. Your addition of weasel words isn't ideal. If you would like discuss alternatives, then feel free to do so with sources, but please do not revert war. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a asked a known language scholar to look at the drug text and her opinion is that the text, as it was before my rather modest adjustment, claimed by omission of fact that all hippies did drugs. Shall I ask her to create an account on English Wikipedia and log in and comment here, or can you take my word for it? All hippies did not do drugs, no reliable reference exists to prove they all did, and such a claim is unfair to their legacy, not to mention inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. What is wrong with the current correct wording? EmilEikS (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I already explained what was wrong with the current wording two sections above. You also haven't answered why you added unsourced original research pertaining to astrology and why you added "sic" to the Jay Stevens quote. Viriditas (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I need to answer to you about why I added the material, which I considered such common knowledge (not borderline even) that the Linda Goodman reference I added might suffice (all of it is in her book)? Finding an additional reliable reference and page numbers within a week or so won't be enough? Assuming you are familiar with "[sic]" (written exactly so) it means here that it is a quoted opinion that can be questioned that "the" hippies (i.e. generally speaking all of them) used drugs. What source is given for the definite inference in this particular article in three places that all hippies used drugs? EmilEikS (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
We don't use [sic] on Wikipedia the way you are using it. Editors do not get to choose what material they think should be challenged, especially in a direct quote. And, you haven't used it correctly per your own standard so I don't think you understand how to use it. Please take a step back from this for a moment. Find me a single article on Wikipedia that uses sic in the way that you have. You won't find one. This isn't a personal essay or research paper. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I could quote Webster's about "[sic]" - "to show that a quoted passage, esp. one containing some error or something questionable, is precisely reproduced" ... , but really, what's the use when your mind is made up that I do not know what I am doing? Won't you continue to find fault interminably even in the face of being wrong as per Webster's? I give up. EmilEikS (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are misinterpreting how we use sic on Wikipedia. There is no indication (or evidence) that the quote is in question, nor would we use sic in that way if it were. See below. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

EmilEiks, in your edit summary, you state: Drugs: all hippies díd not use drugs - many advocated health issues such as non use of drugs or alchohol - section was almost like drug propaganda. Actually, the section was fully sourced the last time I checked (it may not be now). Could you be so kind as to support your statement about the many hippies who advocated not using drugs or alcohol with a reference? This would make a welcome addition to the article. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I will do my very best if you can give me a week or two to find something unquestionably reliable (also see above). Meanwhile, will you just ask a couple of 60-year olds so you feel good about waiting? EmilEikS (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I will be removing the material later today. You are free to add it back into the article with sources or to discuss it here on the talk page, where I will work with you to improve it. Those are your only two options. Viriditas (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't make your deadline, so do as you please. EmilEikS (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You have chosen to be agreeable. In order to show my good faith and reciprocate in kind, I will waive my right to remove the disputed material and allow more time for discussion. However, this does not apply to sic, which I will remove immediately as you are using it incorrectly in this instance. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, too late. It has already been removed by another editor. In that case, I will try and help you prove your case as a devil's advocate as I am able. I will report back here with my findings. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, see Talk:Hippie#Disputed_text. Viriditas (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the drug use discussion above, it might be instructive to look at the Wharf Rats article and see if there is any useful content in the following source: Epstein, John and Robert Sardiello. 1990. "The Wharf Rats: A Preliminary Examination of Alcoholics Anonymous and the Grateful Dead Head Phenomena." Deviant Behavior, 11: pp. 245-257. Viriditas (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Peer review revisited

The problematic legacy section (and other parts of the article) are holding up a GA assessment. Many if not most of the issues in the current article have been addressed in a peer review. I will use this section to highlight outstanding issues before I make each edit to correct the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The basis of the following suggestions for improvement are from the original peer review linked above.

  • Lead: WP:ITALICS on foreign phrases, In Mexico, the jipitecas formed La Onda Chicana ... and what the heck are jipitecas? Define terms the first time they're used. (from SG)
    • The term, jipitecas should appear in the Revolution (1968–1973) section with a brief description. As for the lead, that would be easy to do with something like, "Hippies in Mexico, known as jipitecas, formed La Onda Chicana... Viriditas (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Travel: The "travel" section suffers from the same severe lack of citation as the Legacy section; unclear how much is original research, since so much of it needs to be cited. (from SG)
    • This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Legacy: Various (to be added)
    • Daniel Pinchbeck, Breaking Open the Head: A Psychedelic Journey into the Heart of Contemporary Shamanism, Broadway Books, 2002, ISBN 0-7679-0742-6
      • Although I always tend to prefer more academic sources, Pinchbeck's book provides support for including more about Burning Man in the legacy section, as he refers to it as a child of the hippie movement, inheriting the values of the Diggers and the artistic spontaneity of the Be-Ins, etc. Obviously, it has gone way beyond that, but more needs to be said about it. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Sourcing: Shannon, Phil (1997-06-18), Yippies, politics and the state, Cultural Dissent, Issue #, Green Left Weekly,, retrieved on 10 December 2008
    • This doesn't appear to meet the standards for WP:RS in the context that it is being used, but I haven't yet looked into it in depth. Viriditas (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Images: Image:Leo Poster.jpg
    • I'm not sure what to make of this, so I'll defer to the judgment of others. If we are talking about fashion, it might work, but as it currently appears, it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps it doesn't appear in the right article, I don't know, but I think a good image of Burning Man should replace it. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I happened to check the talk page after I saw this before I removed it as unrepresentative. My comment on this particular would be to remove it. It was placed, along with a section on Astrology, and used to illustrate that. Now all that remains is the sentence "Astrology, including everything from serious study to whimsical amusement regarding personal traits, was integral to hippie culture", which is a questionable claim as to how integral it was, and the reference for it is "The musical Hair and a multitude of well known contemporary song lyrics such as The Age of Aquarius". Those are both the same production, and it does not support that astrology was integral. It really seems more an attempt to justify the image, which doesn't, in reality, reflect a hippie very much. A more relevant image would be supported here. LaVidaLoca (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not everyday that we get photos of Swedish hippies, so I haven't removed it for that reason. The mixture of early 1970s scouting with a water gun holster is probably (I'm guessing here) representative of late hippie fashion (in Sweden?) so there is a ring of truth to it. Remember, the early hippies (post-beat) were mixing Victorian outfits with a combination of Native American and western garb. There may be something to this, however strange. Of course, without provenance, and some kind of supporting reference describing this type of hippie fashion, it probably shouldn't be in the article. Viriditas (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The hippy from Stockholm, Sweden is actually a boyscout i believe. If you look up their can see the ascot and the troop number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
(I moved the previous entry here from farther above.) Right you are and this is also mentioned above here and on the image description page at Commons. Especially in Europe, early 1970's hippies saw free dress ideas as license to mix all kinds of clothing and gear in as unconventional a manner as they could imagine. It almost became an art form in itself. Everybody did their own thing and had his or her bag.The typical California fashion of suit jackets with jeans also began then and has lasted and lasted. I believe these basic ideals are covered in the two books on fashions in the references for this article. This photo is of a trend-setting Swedish-American disc jockey (Lars Jacob) doing his best on his birthday to honor the free dress code as well as his sign (Leo, cub scout, get it?). The ideal is what's important however, not the identity of the model. And what's the most astonishing is that the photo was released to public domain. (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Im rather unsure what the image has to do with the hippie movement (apart from perhaps the haircut). It features a Swedish boyscout in front of a poster with lions, and seems entirely out of place. Perhaps it should be removed? Or replaced with a image of a actual Swedish hippie. Im sure there are plenty available.Kayshera (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It looks to me like the image fits the brief mention of astrology? Wasn't the Cub Scout shirt a fashion statement (he's too old to be a real one)? And what should make us believe this is not an "actual Swedish hippie"? Any evidence to support that? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary work still needed for 1968

It was mentioned here a long time ago that the events of the year 1968, which represent the apex of hippie activism, are something like a mysterious black hole in the history section of this article. It was also agreed that this should be rectified, but to date it has not. The relevant subarticle, History of the hippie movement is somewhat more comprehensive in this regard, so what we need, is someone who can do a good "summary style" from that page, for the year 1968, onto this article. All we would need for this article is a simple, short recap of the basic points and events that took place that year, if that is not too much. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple points: I mentioned above that the jipitecas should be moved into that section. This also implies referring to the Tlatelolco massacre. Both of these items are sourced to Zolov 1999, and he discusses Mexican hippie culture in detail. But, that's just one item. The history article you refer to above has a completely unsourced section on 1968, and we really don't need more unsourced content at this point. The section above this one is an attempt to get the GA review back on track. Instead of adding a summary of unsourced original research, it would be much better if editors like yourself simply make a list here on the talk page of details that should appear in this article, and editors like myself (and hopefully others) will attempt to add them with sources. Or, switch that around; I would be happy to make a list if you (or anyone else) would add them to the article with sources. I don't care who does what, as long as it gets done. So why don't we start making a list of what's missing? If you want to take the lead in organizing this effort, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Need to add/expand

Great start, These type of things shouldn't be hard to verify. Someone, I think it was NPR radio, did a dedicated series to events of '68, for the 40th anniversary, that could even be a good source. I don't see why we (wikipedia) can't be a little more competitive resource here...;) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
So much happened in 1968, it would make sense to supplement this section with a sidebar timeline that lists the most important events and dates. Viriditas (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to followup, the 2008 NPR audio series dedicated to the events and trends of 1968, was called "Echoes of 1968" and it can be accessed here. We might be able to comb it for more ideas. Note that this page gives the most recent installments; the link at the bottom reading "More in this series" has the rest, 50 in all. I caught some of them on my car radio as they were being broadcast last year, and they sounded well-researched and like they could well be on-topic here. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)