Talk:Rainbow Family/Archive 1

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

Group composition + SCotUS ruling?[edit]

It is my understanding that the group doesn't have a leader & that all decisions are made by consenses. This has also lead to the group refusing to seek permission to use various sites, as noone would technically be permitted to sign such a permit.

Also, I understand that they went before the US Supreme Court to argue for their right to assemble anywhere they want on public property under the First Amendment's right to free assembly. Does anyone know what happened to that case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDLarsen (talkcontribs) 11:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the 11:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC) post above was changed by at 21:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC) to read "It is my understanding that the group does have a leader & that all decisions are made by NRMT consenses. This has also lead to the group to seek permission to use various sites, as no one would technically be permitted to sign such a permit, except for nrmt members." (diff) [changes shown in bold]. — Athaenara 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am curious who wrote the above. It is unsigned but rings of rhetoric I have read on various Rainbow-related message boards. In any case, it cites no original work, nothing published and is entirely unsuitable to be included in the article. Bstone 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that the NRMT (National Rainbow Management Team ie: Individuals) are working in backroom dealings with the Forest Service, it would be a falacy to believe that they are in any way represenetive of the autonymous individuals who attend the Rainbow Gatherings. Rainbow Gathering participants have voiced in open circles, on the land their objections to such liberties turned to licence. No one speaks for the Rainbow Family, there are no leaders or organized head office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, we have no leaders, it's actually part of the point of a rainbow gathering. ---Wolfe 06:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The court case mentioned above is a 2000 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals case entitled US v. Adams. The court found in favor of the government, upholding the Forest Service's authority to enforce their regulations.

Wojohowitz (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Two articles from this one?[edit]

I get the distinct impression that this should be split into two articles: one on the rainbow family itself and one on the Gathering itself. They are two distinct topics which I'm not sure deserve to be merged together like they are here. Triddle 21:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

More than One Article?[edit]

There seem to be three things needed to clear up this article.

  1. ) Social history of the group, origins in late '60's counterculture and comparison to other groups.
  2. ) The Rainbow Families' Opinion of itself as expressed by quotable sources.
  3. ) The history of the Gatherings and conflicts with the Forestry and Parks departments and the related Supreme Court case.

--BillWheeler 12:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving content to Rainbow Gathering[edit]

It seems to me that there is a great deal of content here that needs to be edited and moved to the Rainbow Gathering article. If we aren't going to merge the two articles we just need a brief description of the gathering in the Rainbow Family article. There is a great deal of POV material to sort through. If you see something important has been deleted from this article, please check the Rainbow Gathering article before putting it back in here. Dev1n 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Living Light[edit]

This sentence, "The use of the phrase: Living Light in the longer title is a reference to "living lightly", or living with little mass or impact on the environment." seems plainly wrong. "Light" was used in a spiritual sense as in "I am the light of the world" John 8:12. Living Light referred to living people who manifested spiritual values. Fred Bauder 15:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and no. Living Light is both directed to a spiritual context and living light on the land, or more accurately 'stepping lightly. ---Wolfe 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ITs been a while since this argument, but I have to say it was quite silly, as living lightly and being the "living light" of the rainbow are pretty synonymous.Neotribal42 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Neotribal42


one article is sufficient for this topic considering it's simply a loose organisation of individuals who conduct gatherings, i.e. the family and the gathering are essentially the same thing. it would be exactly like having an article for Critical Mass or Food Not Bombs the "organisation" and one for the actual events themselves. "family" seems to be the best collective term for an article title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I would disagree with the idea of merging the Rainbow Gathering article with this article. If the editors were in agreement with the need to merge, this article could be a section in the Rainbow Gathering article. The rainbow gathering is a real event attended by @ 10,000 or more people. Rainbow Family is a rather nebulous term that some of those attending claim to be part of. I doubt that you could get a dozen people to agree on what the Rainbow Family of Living Light is. While its my understanding of the history of Rainbow Gatherings that there was a Rainbow Family of Living Light that was one of the "sponsors" of the first Rainbow Gathering, that group no longer exists. I would guess that less than half of those who have attended Rainbow Gatherings consider themselves "members" of the Rainbow Family. Of those who call themselves "Rainbow" or "Rainbow Family" I believe most do so only because they are at a rainbow gathering. I've been at at least a dozen national gatherings and more than a dozen regional gatherings yet I don't consider myself to be part of the rainbow family. I know several people who were at the first gathering and most of the subsequent national gatherings who do not consider themselves part of the Rainbow Family. I'm not sure exactly what the Rainbow Family is other then a self selected designation that some who attend rainbow gatherings use for themselves. Oceankat 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
    • That really doesn't align which my experience. I heard of the Family long before I heard of the gatherings. Come to think of it, I would usually here them refered to as exactly "Rainbow Family Gatherings" rather that the short form. -- Kendrick7talk 05:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What can I say? Simply our experiences are different. I've pretty much mostly heard them called rainbow gatherings and didn't hear much of the "family" until I started going to gatherings. We are now entering the heart of another one of the major controversies associated with rainbow gatherings. All that time sitting around a fire without a TV gives us a lot of time to argue. (laughs) Are rainbow gatherings manifested by autonomous individuals working cooperatively or are they hosted by the rainbow family? Put that question on alt.gathering.rainbow and then duck for cover as the flames fly. I have never felt such discussions had much value other than as an intellectual exercise and have mostly been concerned with doing my small part to facilitate the gathering itself. But placing the Rainbow Gathering article within the Rainbow Family article means that wikipedia is taking a stand on that controversy and I wonder on what criterion? Since there is a fair amount of disagreement over whether the Rainbow Family hosts the gathering.Oceankat 07:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree with any manner of merging. The Rainbow Family exists both inside and outside of the Rainbow Gathering. It is like saying that the Smith Family only exists at the Smith Family Reunions. While the reunions (aka Gatherings) are a time when the Family comes together, the Family exists outside of the actual Gatherings. Bstone 16:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • while some people might concider themselves rainbow family outside of the gathering does not mean that all concider themselves rainbow family outside of gathering. even the name rainbow gathering has alot of controversies involved, and those controversies will still happen no matter what is written. first name of the gatherings were world family gatherings, this changed when someone came along and said the rainbow family is having a gathering, hence the name started to be used to describe the gathering.this is documented in the archives at and in a few books too! and while the rainbow family of living light house is no more, there are a few who still go, myself included. even at rainbow house in eugene, i never concidered myself a rainbow, and never will. that was the name of the house, not the people in it. all references to the rainbow family of living light which is christian based,with living light comeing from the bible, is a misnomer since the house has not been around for many years, and those who were at that house have not sponsered a gathering in as many years too. but some still attend. the gatherings are a gathering of all tribes of man, as stated in the first invite, not just one tribe which people call rainbow now. to change it, a person would have to go back to the first gathering and name it such. another problem is even if one is to use the books and articles written on the gatherings in the beginning, one would also have to accept that the gathering in SF had nothing to do with current gatherings as such because then you would also have to include the gathering that happened with the contact tribe in missouri in 1972, which happened much earlier than the first world family gathering(reference) mike twofeathers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketwofeathers (talkcontribs) 14:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is hard for me to say, as I have never been to a gathering, and don't know much on this subject. But from my understanding the "Rainbow Family of Living Light" has no membership, and can include you and me, and that it is not about the gathering itself per se, or even about a select group of people, but it is about a social/ecological/freeconomy/non-politics/spiritual ideology or way of living and being. It is a widely held and widely excepted belief system that is just dieing to be born into being widely practiced. (I would say it is similar to libertarian socialism but with spirituality included.) I think the song Colors of the Wind from the Pocahontas (soundtrack) encompasses the basics of this belief system beautifully. (Correct me if I am wrong). The Rainbow Gathering, on the other hand, is just the physical manifestation of this ideology, intended to be a living example of a better way of living, so that others can go home and duplicate this on an ongoing basis into their own community, changing the way we live our daily lives in relation with each other and with the "Great Spirit" or "Brahman." The "Rainbow Family" ideology is of equal status to the similar and opposing ideologies of Democracy, Corporatism, Libertarianism, Socialism, etc., etc. (Maybe it will come to be called Rainbowism :-D ). I don't really think that they should be merged, but if they do get merged, I think that the "Family" is more important than the "Gathering," and so the Rainbow Gathering page should redirect to the Rainbow Family page. Its all relatives (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


I would argue that it is not the nature of this forum to seek permission from a group or individual before posting information about them. Wikipedia is meant to contribute to the greater public knowledge, and is not meant to act as advertisement for anyone trying to promote themselves. Therefore, any information somebody wishes to contribute ought to be respected - so long as it meets with the general editing guidelines of this forum.

In addition, if there are no leaders or spokespeople for the Rainbow family, then who is making the decision to restrict information? Is this an arbirary decision made by one person? In any case, that person or group should be identified, as such an act seems to run counter to the statement that the Rainbow family has no leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are several people within the Rainbow Family who make decisions and/or attempt to control the flow of information. Wikipedia is also inindated by several of these individuals who attempt to control what gets out into the public arena. Many of these people have been called on their transgressions however, their numbers are many here on Wikipedia and so ultimately their voice is stronger. Rainbow is suppose to be about diversity among other things but there are those who sequester the truth and control information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Valid Link Removal[edit]


I host a Rainbow Family Community website that is very popular and an active site. The site has a calendar that is updated daily and a forum that gets a lot of traffic. The website has a lot of information that is Rainbow Family related and includes most every gathering that is announced. I have listed the site on several occassions only to come back to visit the Wikipedia and find it removed by a user named Bstone. My question is: Whom do I speak with to insure that this very valid website stays listed and/or what process do I need to take to mediate Bstone's vandelism on the link inclusion? (Lookingheart (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is about content not about promoting external links to "an active site", nor is Wikipedia a "repository for links". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to promote a site.
Specific guidelines and policies to review on this:
While some external links may be permitted by the External link guidelines, they are in no way required, guaranteed or mandated by any Wikipedia policy whatsoever to be included. Arguments of "Merit" is neither a trump card nor does it make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy.
In many cases, where there is disagreement on what should be linked from an article, a single link to an appropriate category within a web directory such as dmoz has been used. A possible candidate (but not the only possible option) for such a link here could be --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Merely to add another opinion - I support Barek in his comments. I have also removed a link to this organisation. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. If users remove external links it is because they feel that they are unnecessary. If they are placed by a single user (or by IPs) then this linkage may be deemed intentional and may lead to blacklisting of the site. We always welcome the submission of material that enhances the project - this rarely includes external links. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Barek and Herby's rationale in this instance. Communal editorship and genuine policy-based stances are standards that all editors should follow. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not appropriate, especialy when they do not meet specific guidelines for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that there has been a great deal of previous discussion- on this very talk page- regarding a non-notable camping trip which Lookingheart advocates. He attempted to insert these trips into a list of Rainbow Gatherings by year but they were ultimately removed, by consensus and discussion, due to their non-notable status. There are no WP:RS and nothing non-trivial to support them. The websites which he is attempting to insert into the external links are advertisements for these very events. I would also like to point out that there have been some anonymous IPs in recent months that have been inserting the very same websites into the External Links section. I will be filing for a checkuser investigation to see if Lookingheart is indeed behind any of these to determine if he is a sockpuppet. Lastly, Lookingheart specifically calls my edits "vandelism" (sic). Simply put they are not, but instead an edit dispute. There is precedent on this project for official warnings and even blocks for those who accuse another of vandalism when it is not. Bstone (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Suspected Sock Puppet case opened here. Bstone (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

People of teh Rainbow a Nomadic Eutopia[edit]

I just read thsi book while at a Rainbow gathering in Karlsøya Norway. It seems that the article her ei not a neutral point of view, is written at very recent history (Rainbows have been meeting for 30 years plus) and also is very American centric. As a result there are many thing s written her e that are not so. Also although there are critiques these dio not seem to be in the article. FOr example the A Camp is the main cause of contention and an uneasy relationship with the forest service. Why this is so is well explainined in the book. BUT these are USA phenomena, this shoudl be contextualized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)