Jump to content

Talk:Woodstock/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Requested move 21 September 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 11 October 2014

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

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

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

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Do you think most people are unaware that "Woodstock" is an abbreviation? That it is actually the name of a place near where the fair took place? Srnec (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe that most people pay no mind to the fact that it's an abbreviation, and would probably be confused if the article was titled with the event's full name For this reason, the description regarding the full name of the event is probably best left exclusive to the lead of the article, and not the article name itself. Steel1943 (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
But the proposal isn't about primary meaning. It's about clarity and recognisability. "Woodstock" is slang. Srnec (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
the proposal isn't about primary meaning... Agree. But it should be.
clarity and recognisability... Agree. And I and some others are saying that the current title satisfies these criteria.
"Woodstock" is slang... This reply completely ignores the relevant policy. You can I suppose appeal to WP:IAR, but you need to do so, and to say exactly why you think this case should be such a blatant exception. Andrewa (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Currently My Lai redirects to My Lai Massacre. This ngram shows that "My Lai" is much more common than "My Lai massacre". This ngram shows that the term "Woodstock" is less common now that it was 100 years ago and that the music and art fair apparently did little to put the term in greater use. When I google "Gallipoli" the results are all WWI-related. When I google "Woodstock" less than half the results are festival-related. Nobody has brought forward any evidence that Woodstock primarily refers to the festival—in this move debate or the last one. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

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

The Beatles

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

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

For further evidence, let's have a look at the recording dates at EMI studios: [2] No basic recording took place in all of August 1969, only overdubs. According to Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Beatles Recording Sessions. New York: Harmony Books. ISBN 0-517-57066-1, p. 184, all five overdubs that took place during the actual Woodstock festival from 15-17 August were orchestral arrangements done by George Martin with one or several orchestras and none of the Beatles involved. Not a single recording was made at EMI by any Beatle during the time of the festival, and adding the information from [3] and [4] , no Beatle made any recording at EMI between 11-20 August, and even those few hours they spent in the studio from the evening on the 20th until early night of the 21st would be their last until Paul, George, and Ringo would gather one last time to record George's I Me mine half a year later without John, in January 1970. --87.180.197.207 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose. It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that. The existence of other Woodstocks doesn't mean this can't be the primary topic; there are plenty of Londons in the world, yet the UK city is still primary. These requests are getting somewhat disruptive, and I hope the closing admin strongly considers imposing a moratorium when this is closed. -- Calidum 21:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Calidum: the difference between this and London is the festival name comes from the name of a city; it is not the original PT. I've cited this just above, and it has been cited in the previous requests presented above. See search results from other Googles [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. The list goes on and on. So your statement of "It is in fact the primary topic for the term; no evidence has been presented in this or other move requests to refute that" is blatantly incorrect and could be interpreted as dickish and an unwillingness to support claims with evidence.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943:- NO- if you read the reason for this request, you'll see that I've cited that this is the commonname, but not the primary topic to everybody! Serously, would you all please read & consider the reason for this request instead of fucking off about the results of previous requests???? Note that I am not requesting the same title as before, and some people have supported this title.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
See this_ think outside the US'Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that WP:WORLDWIDE applies to moving this article's title due to this event's international significance and fame. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It undoubtedly is internationally famous, but I'd never heard of this event (suprisingly, considering the classic rock fan I am) until I was searching on WP for a list of places in the UK by this name. According to Woodstock (disambiguation) there are over 50 notable places named Woodstock, and the character appears to get a lot of hits. Its definitely not the primary topic to most of the world. Being sat in the UK, I'd be willing to be that as many as two-third of all Europeans have never heard of this festival, as its promininence appears to be mainly North American. About 97% of the news articles on the festival on GNews are American.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Also most of the hits on the US Google are not about the festival [14]Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Try searching regular Google and not Google news. The top results are all about the festival. But that was a nice try. And while we're on it, WORLDWIDE is just an essay so it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. -- Calidum 23:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I struck my vote above, given that I just realized that the move is to add a disambiguator rather than change the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject. Steel1943 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Just want to make sure everyone is aware of the move discussion from 2011. Mlpearc (open channel) 07:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
No it hasn't.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Consensus says leave it alone. It ain't broke, so don't keep trying to fix it. Jusdafax 03:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: this appears to be a rehash of the same proposal above without any new arguments or points of view. Resubmitting this so soon after the last proposal failed makes me grumpy that someone does not assume we knew what were were doing before. —EncMstr (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. It's been a long, long time since the events of 1969. Red Slash 09:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Despite protestations to the contrary above, this is clearly the same unsuccessful proposal from three months ago with slightly different formatting for the suggested new title. From September: True, in the United States, most people may think of this festival when they hear the word "Woodstock," (which I have doubts about) but throughout the majority of the world, they are probably going to think of a settlement by this name. From yesterday: To people living in a city called Woodstock (esp. outside the US), for instance, that is probably the PT. What has changed in three months? Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Egsan Bacon:- your argument is irrelevant; this time I'm still proposing using the WP:COMMONNAME; last time I didn't. You haven't even given a rational reason for your opinion, and this argument appears to be solely WP:LASTTIME.Qxukhgiels (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Qxukhgiels, back in September, your move proposal was based on there being many places called "Woodstock", and you specifically focused on a claim that only people in the US thought of this Woodstock. Yesterday, your move proposal... was based on there being many places called "Woodstock", and you specifically focused on a claim that only people in the US thought of this Woodstock. That you are claiming that two so transparently similar arguments are not, in fact, almost exactly the same argument because you slapped some parentheses on this one and used different WP:CAPITALLETTERS... well, it's rather difficult to give a claim like that much credence.
Additionally, your citing of WP:LASTTIME does little but suggest to me that you haven't read WP:LASTTIME. Even if you want to overlook that that page is referring to deletion discussions, this is what it says in the second paragraph: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." (Bolding mine, other formatting in original) Only a short period of time has elapsed since your last RM. Your argument remains essentially the same, no matter how much you say it doesn't. It is frivolous. It is disruptive. There is nothing wrong with objecting to proposals that are disruptive on the grounds that they are disruptive, and WP:LASTTIME doesn't say that there is. If you'd like to see what happens when people keep bringing up the same move proposals with slightly different arguments, go take a look at the RM histories for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Sarah Jane Brown, both of which are currently under moratoriums. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:LASTTIME isn't necessarily just for deletion discussions; it can apply here. At the last move request, I was not using the WP:COMMONNAME; at this one I am; the parentheses implies that the festival is referred to as simply "Woodstock;" the title "Woodstock Festival", which it never appears to be referred to as implies that that is the most commonly used name. Someone in the UK, for instance, who attended would probably say "I was at Woodstock," yet it probably wouldn't be their PT. I don't get how WP:WORLDVIEW doesn't apply here. Before commenting, I suggest all users consider the fact that this is not the PT for most of the world. Just because a proposal with a different name failed doesn't mean we can't do one this time- essentially what WP:LASTTIME says except that applies mostly to deletion discussions. Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
See Walrasiad's argument above.Qxukhgiels (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed- at least four of the above oppositions are irrelevant; they simply say that we shouldn't move it because of the previous discussions. Those should not be included in the discussion. I encourage those users to rethink their opinions. If you can't come up with something else, I encourage you to strike your comments. Qxukhgiels (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That's entirely false. There is nothing wrong with a user saying they concur with the findings of a previous move discussion, especially ones that happened less than three months ago. -- Calidum 16:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support There are more things in the world known as Woodstock than the Woodstock Festival. I don't see any reason that the festival should be the focus of the Woodstock name globally and here in the U.S. given the prominence of many places, characters and others that carry the Woodstock name. Dbroer (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Clear primary topic. I don't think many people living outside native English speaking countries have even heard of places called Woodstock, this is what they think of when they hear the name "Woodstock". JIP | Talk 20:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
You sure about this? Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
It's time to close this, but at least five of the oppositions, above are irrelevant arguments. We never said "it ain't broke." And for you self-centred Americans, can you just once and for all think outside your environment? Also, what I don't understand, is, for people living in Woodstock NY who attended the event, do they not say "I was at the Woodstock festival" or "I was at Woodstock in 1969?" Because if they simply say "I was at Woodstock," would that not be confusing for other people living there?Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Qxukhgiels: The best method in which to request this discussion closed would be to post your request on WP:ANRFC. Also, this discussion has been open for only about a week and a half, so it's not that deep in the backlog yet. Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't requesting closure. I do, however, not agree with the some of the oppositions above, where I believe it would be okay to WP:IAR WP:TPO this time. I've been here before.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Qxukhgiels: I would actually say that trying to request this discussion closed was exactly what you were/are trying to do. And also, I have reverted your strikeouts of others' comments; not only is it against WP:TPO, it is also very disrespectful to the editors who made those comments. The closer will take their own action to determine the weight of those votes. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They better think about it and not just act. More likely this will be a non-admin closure, and a non admin is more likely to include those. One of the reasons I oppose non-admin closures. And I'm not going to request a closure.Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although "Woodstock Festival" would be better yet. Sure, it's the most significant topic that goes by the name "Woodstock". However, when we have the un-disambiguated title and need to decide whether it's used for the disambiguation page or the most significant topic, we generally need to decide whether the most significant topic is more significant than basically everything else put together. This is clearly the case in many situations; Mississippi is much more significant than all of the other uses of the term at Mississippi (disambiguation), since the entries are either significant things abbreviated as "Mississippi" (e.g. the river), and we'd never expect to see them at abbreviated titles even if the state didn't exist, or a few insignificant things (e.g. the song). In this case, the Woodstock Festival really doesn't outweigh all of the others; we have so many other possible meanings that together they're more significant than the festival. Nyttend (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support (to my surprise). While this is arguably the primary topic (the character was named after the festival, for instance), it does make sense to disambiguate and to move the disambig page here, due to the sheer number of alternate possibilities. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment: if you're referring to Woodstock (Peanuts), that character appeared over three years before the festival.Qxukhgiels (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but as the article states, "Schulz did not give him a name until June 22, 1970. Schulz acknowledged in several print and TV interviews in the mid-1970s that he took Woodstock’s name from the rock festival." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Most of the arguments are already made, there is little reason to add more. "Woodstock" is at best music slang, much like "Watergate" is political slang - but the latter article title disambiguates the scandal from the building. So should this one. Title here loses nothing and gains a lot from adding a descriptor. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but follow WP:NATURAL policy, and use Woodstock festival (lower-case, since not part of its proper name). "Woodstock" is not actually the common name of the event, it's just a frequent shorthand for it. This is, in essence, exactly the same case as Stonewall; only those who are part of a certain subculture sphere just call the Woodstock festival "Woodstock", just as only a particular crowd automatically think of the Stonewall riots as "Stonewall" (more to our point, only people in these self-selecting groups automatically think of these events when those names are used, and we cannot count on any particular reader being in either of those groups). In other words, it's patently a case of WP:JARGON. Cf. Watts riots, etc. We don't refer to events like this as simply "Watts", not matter how frequently journalists or whatever in particular circles may do so. Last I looked we have an article called Vietnam War, too, not 'Nam.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As noted in the previous discussion, the most significant stats for determining the primary topic, the page views, indicate that the current situation is the correct one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose on grounds both of common usage and of cultural significance. Either would be enough. Both makes it very clear indeed. Andrewa (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:WORLDWIDE. I've no doubt the festival is the overwhelming primary usage in the US, and yes, it is known around the world as well. But at least here in the UK, the primary usage would probably be the town in Oxfordshire, best known for Blenheim Palace, and being the birthplace of Winston Churchill. Disambiguation serves the readers best.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Woodstock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Media Coverage section

I was surprised there was no mention of coverage by ABC and NBC who both had crews there as shown clearly in the film. Is this a deliberate omission or a case of no one getting around to writing about it? Just curious.THX1136 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be a "deliberate omission". This is the encyclopedia that anyone edit, and if someone felt strongly about it I'm sure it would have been added. If you feel it's important, I think a brief mention in "Media coverage" section already in the article is appropriate. But keep it's importance commensurate with the other information discussed in the article. A sentence is probably sufficient, well sourced of course. I'm not challenging what you saw in the film, but I've seen the film many times and have no memory of media that I clearly identified as NBC or ABC. Maybe that's just me. Sundayclose (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The instances I was referring to is the crew talking with Michael from ABC. I will admit that it an assumption on my part as the lead reporter looks similar to one employed by ABC at the time. There is also footage of a crew talking with Kornfeld with the mic in view with a NBC logo on the "block" that is used on the body of mics to id the broadcaster. No worries either way. I have no direct memory of specific media coverage of the event. I thought something as remarkable as Woodstock was would have surely had television coverage also. It doesn't need to be mentioned, but if I can come up with a good citation/source I'll add a modest mention if it seems appropriate. Thanks for your response.THX1136 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Creedence Clearwater Revival playtime

The 'Planning and preparation' section states that Creedence Clearwater Revival played starting from 3.00 AM. But later on, in the listing of when each gig played, they're listed as playing from 12:30 AM to 1:20 AM. At least one of these statements must be false. 2001:981:4B0C:1:651F:15C6:233E:79BB (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Beatles / John Lennon

I'm quite sure they were invited too, but declined obviously. Lennon, as a solo artist, seems to have seriously considered it. But why did the story disappear? It was in it, once.

Do you have a source of this rumour? warpozio (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the story straight from the mouth of Michael Lang in 2012, one of the organizers: [15] At the very least, they wanted John and lobbied very hard for him to appear. Lang even mentions a telegram where Apple offered the entire Plastic Ono Band, but that it all went to nil because of Nixon. This 2009 book on Woodstock [16] mentions that the organizers were trying to get all the Beatles, but that it remains unclear whether the band considered coming. While not giving a definite source, this website[17] obviously quotes Artie Kornfeld, sounding like Kornfeld met John in person in Canada in the summer of 1969 and that John really wanted to be there but said that Nixon didn't let him. It's also not true as some people have claimed that Nixon wasn't president by the time of the festival, as he had been in office since January 20th, 1969.
Also see my entry in the talkpage archive with sources that George *WAS* at the festival but didn't appear on the stage, that John and Yoko were indeed in Canada just a few weeks before the festival, and how no Beatle made any recording at Abbey Road for the time of the festival. In fact, no Beatle appeared at Abbey Road during the entire August of 1969 prior to the 20th, all recordings that took place all month for the Abbey Road album up until then were only orchestral overdubs done by George Martin. --2003:71:4E23:7B30:B4EA:9F0F:E1B8:706B (talk) 05:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
There's a difference in meaning of the words "wanted" and "invited". One of your sources says they "wanted" Lennon. Your second source says nothing. Your third source is unreliable. Sundayclose (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Our article section here is titled, Declined invitations *AND MISSED CONNECTIONS*, so the difference between wanted and invited is irrelevant, really. Also, the 2009 book confirms that some form of communication occured between the festival organizers and EMI/Apple over it. With that out of the way, unrealiability of one source is not enough for exclusion if a rumor is well-known and attested or acknowledged in other sources, see for instance our Paul is dead article on that. In fact, the two sources of Lang and the 2009 book confirm not only the existence of the rumor but that the organizers very hard wanted Lennon and, if it could be managed, all The Beatles to be there, and that obviously some form of communication occured between them and EMI/Apple over it.
The only thing really unclear here is whether the band members really considered performing there or even knew they were being asked about it. Kornfeld as the only source that says John really wanted to play there may be unreliable, but again, due to the aforementioned that's not enough for excluson as we have other sources on the entire affair (except as to what the band members themselves had on their minds), and all that combined reeks to me like Kornfeld can very well be included with a caveat as to why his claims can be considered dubious.
I mean, c'mon! I've already busted the reasons originally cited for the deletion of The Beatles at the section which at the time were the two claims that a.) Nixon supposedly wasn't President in the summer of 1969 when in fact he was, and b.) that John and Yoko weren't in Canada during that summer when in fact they were. And now you're coming up with even worse excuses which if held up would mean we'd have to delete articles such as Paul is dead. And even more reasonably so, because the organizers themselves confirm they were really trying to get at least one or even all of The Beatles to perform at Woodstock, while on the other hand, Paul is in fact very much alive and, IMHO, hasn't really been dead so far even just once. --2003:71:4E6A:B409:F0C2:BF33:943F:4CCD (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ticket sales limited to greater NY area?

I bought mine in downtown Wayne, PA, a western suburb of Philadelphia, hardly "greater New York" (unless perhaps you're an arrogant New Yorker, or geography-challenged). Yes, it was in a record store. Login54321 (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

How Much Did the Musicians of Woodstock Get Paid?

I'm not adding this myself, but if anyone feels it might make an interesting section, here's a source showing how much the different artists received in 1969, and can be sourced to Variety Magazine if anyone can find the original publication:

https://priceonomics.com/how-much-did-the-musicians-of-woodstock-get-paid/

— Marcus(talk) 08:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Filippini Pond?

The article states "Yasgur's land formed a natural bowl sloping down to Filippini Pond on the land's north side. The stage would be set up at the bottom of the hill with Filippini Pond forming a backdrop." If I look at a 1967 USGS Topographical map of the area, Filippini Pond is a larger pond north of West Shore Road and is clearly retained with a short brook leading from it. That brook widens at one point on what would be the north side of the land and at the bottom of the hill that formed the natural bowl. The brook then continues east and connects with the Lemons Brook.

That would mean that the body of water immediately behind the stage was NOT Filippini Pond. Was that body of water incorrectly identified as Filippini Pond or did people go to the larger pond across the street that was actually called Filippini Pond? If it was incorrectly identified, was that a contemporary record that indicated that or some other source? Dbroer (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Title

I know similar things have been discussed before, but shouldn't the title be Woodstock (festival) with "Woodstock" as a primary redirect? This is without a doubt the primary topic, but titling it as just "Woodstock" seems a bit too strong. It's not the "overwhelming" primary topic as is, say, Chicago or Los Angeles for that matter. Other instances of the word "Woodstock", most notably cities, are very prominent even compared to this festival. Not to mention the fact that "Woodstock festival" or "Woodstock fair" appear to be relatively common names for the event. I would support a move to that title, but we might should discuss it first. 184.43.19.237 (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Artie"

So who's Artie Finsterstein then? Found this name in the Declined Artists section. Prank? Krankmeister1917 (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Woodstock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Dove/catbird

https://www.newsday.com/long-island/who-gets-credit-for-legendary-woodstock-poster-1.1357807 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ten Years After - one hour only ?

Can't show any source, but in the early 1980's I once read something in line with "Ten Years After's performance at Woodstock must be considered as one of the most memorable concerts in the history of Hard Rock" - although a subjective opinion, it stands to some reason that their part ought to have been longer than just an hour. This isn't my opinion, but a question rather. Anyone who might know something more about the time they played ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Most notable Woodstock?

Is there really a good reason why a single event should be the first “Woodstock” article? Surely the original English town, home to a World Heritage Site, birthplace of Churchill, and site of various historical events, is both more notable and less subjective (this festival is of doubtful long-term significance). This should really go under “Woodstock Festival” including the year if it was repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euclidcrescent (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

With all respect for Woodstock in England (and perhaps at other locations in North America ?), "Woodstock" was not just a huge event. It was the height of the Hippie movement, which affected the entire Western World (and beyond). It's also the most legendary music related event ever. The name "Woodstock" is overwhelmingly associated with this event, not just in the US but globally. That's a few reasons, but there are more. (I myself was not even 5 years old, and have absolutely no recollections of this event at the time (though some of Apollo 11, from the same summer), but as I grew up, "Woodstock" couldn't be avoided to hear about.) Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
But its not called just "Woodstock" always, there are many topics on the DAB and this only gets around 75% of the total views just from sampling some titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Woodstock (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we mention the Woodstock 94 and 99 events?

Those events commemorated the 25th and 30th anniversary of the Woodstock festival? Plus, the latter was known for its rowdiness.2605:6001:E7C4:1E00:1C94:4DAB:DD80:A9D4 (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Assignment for my class.

Yes, I found everything in this article to be relevant to the topic and there was nothing that distracted me. I didn’t find that anything was over-represented, but I would’ve liked to have read more about the artists that performed there. I did not find any information that was out of date or that could be added.TDoncovio51 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Max Yasgur's Status

Edits on 1 August 2019 revolving around Max Yasgur's status as a conservative Republican and as an "operative" are not well substantiated by citations, or by actual content at cited sources.

A "Republican operative" means someone working for the Republican Party but there is no cited evidence that Yasgur was anything but a Republican by mundane membership or policy agreement. It's accurate to call him a "conservative Republican", but not an "operative".

Likewise there is no cited evidence for "conservative influence over event" other than a farmer who happened to be a conservative renting their field to offset their farming losses. With the exception that a citation notes that Yasgur supported free speech even for people he disagreed with, but that was a core value of the hippies he rented to. If the "conservative" aspect of free speech is mentioned it's worth mentioning that was something that he agreed with hippies about.

Further, the citation for "tame the 1960s generation gap" calls it "close" the gap, not "tame" the gap, so this article's phrasing is unnecessarily inflammatory.

Overall even the scant evidence for Yasgur's attitude and motivations is not reliable. One of the citations (to Aaron Goldstein in the Canadian Free Press, in the now deleted 13:12, 1 August 2019 revision explained his difficulty in getting even secondary sources on record. While festival producer Michael Lang, who is such an unreliable source that he originally nearly failed to deliver the event that suffered so many catastrophic planning problems, and this year presided over a catastrophic failure to deliver a 50th anniversary event, is quoted out of context calling Yasgur "our hero" - an ironic remark in reference to Yasgur providing the field that "saved Woodstock".

Yasgur's "conservative Republican" status and his support for the Vietnam War and free speech/assembly are notable in the context of Woodstock's landmark status in an anti-war and anti-Republican movement amidst a violently polarized USA of the time. But calling him an operative, and calling his renting the venue "conservative influence" are not supported by cited evidence. I will revise the article to what is supported. DocRuby (talk)

Yes, they are reliable. In fact, one source was the Woodstock promoter Michael Lang. Lang described Yasgur as the "antithesis of everything we stood for." In other words, the festival was a sham which, as South Park described, "said one thing and did another."2601:447:4101:5780:717C:C4F3:7C12:EE9F (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The whole thing is just silly. Yazgur wasn't an organizer -- he was a farmer who rented his land. That he was a Republican is supposed to be a surprise? Any assumptions beyond that is conjecture and original research and definitely WP:UNDUE. There's nothing salvageable in the text I removed. freshacconci (✉) 14:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
One thing I really don't like is biased trolling.24.118.246.181 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
General note Both IPs above are the same editor. freshacconci (✉) 14:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
General note IPs automatically change for security reasons at different times in the day. Yes, Yasgur (Not Yazgur) was an organizer. Please note the Canadian Free Press spoke with his son too.2601:447:4101:5780:717C:C4F3:7C12:EE9F (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Temper tantrums also aren't going to save Woodstock 50 either. If this is part of the reason for this disruptive cover-up, please stop. Lang even referred to him as his "hero."2601:447:4101:5780:717C:C4F3:7C12:EE9F (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No, they are not reliable. Specifically I already mentioned that producer Lang's word is not reliable, as his only claims to fame from 1969-2019 (disastrous Woodstock mismanagement) amply prove. As I also already mentioned, Lang called Yasgur "our hero" because Yasgur saved Woodstock by renting his field (and perhaps by providing free water), not in any reference to Yasgur's politics (except perhaps to his commitment to free speech that was mutual with the festival's). The Goldstein article describing his attempts to get evidence of Yasgur's poltical views make clear that his son refused to comment on his father's politics because he's a local elected official claiming he's a book (with no evidence that it will be published), yet you somehow cite that interview attempt as evidence of something. And no, Yasgur was not an organizer, he just rented his field and, when bigger crowds showed up he sold some food and gave free water. That's not organizing. And, as I also already mentioned, the cited content does not support the loaded language inserted into the article section. The hippies who saw 1969's Woodstock festival as a watershed had primary roots in the 1964-5 Free Speech Movement, whose activists' ideology was the thesis, not antithesis, of the only undisputed ideology of Max Yasgur mentioned in the Woodstock article.
Further, your escalations here (including "sham", citing South Park, calling polite disagreement with you "temper tantrums", framing those who disagree with you as "aren't going to save Woodstock 50 either") reveal why you are ignoring prudent editing commentary: You have a political ax to grind against Woodstock and the movement it featured so prominently in. There is no "disruptive coverup", but your edits and comments amount to a disruptive fake history. "Trolling" is posting without interest in discussion, but rather to provoke flames or other hostile responses, which your inflammatory posts replying to polite disagreement citing facts in this thread are. What's ironic (or rather simply hypocritical, made ironic by your baselessly calling Woodstock a sham) is that despite being shown the facts you insist on exaggerating the contributions and status of Yasgur, who is credibly reported (by his son, in a source cited in the article) to have valued *listening* to people one disagrees with as the responsibility that comes with the right of free speech. Then you troll the discussion with ironic accusations of trolling.
Wikipedia relies on accurate representation of reliable sources. Not cherrypicked quotes from unreliable sources repurposed to a barely hidden political agenda. Unless you can make a legitimate defense of the content we're discussing I am going to revise it to stick to Wikipedia's quality requirements. DocRuby (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are reliable. I'm afraid that your amusing misrepresentation of the sources and my statements only hints fan page bias. This isn't going to save Woodstock 50. Yasgur was indeed an organizer. Otherwise, he wouldn't have organized it with Lang and others. It's pathetic that you refer to me as a "hypocrite" when you yourself are one. Don't think that I'm stupid either, because I see too much trolling here.2601:447:4101:5780:717C:C4F3:7C12:EE9F (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Merely asserting they are reliable doesn't support their being reliable. I have posted facts that shows that they are unreliable, despite your ignoring them. I have shown no hypocrisy, and you don't even bother to support that baseless, inflammatory charge. You give no evidence for the "trolling" you claim to see, because there is none except yours that I have factually identified. "I'm rubber, you're glue" is not a credible defense. Portraying my accurate representations of the sources and your statements as "amusing misrepresentation" is also baseless, false and inflammatory - consistent with the rest of your unwarranted attacks. And your implying that my posts are somehow "to save Woodstock 50" is just more proof that you are driven by an agenda that is not only totally irrelevant to this article, it is entirely your own and neither shared or opposed by me, nor is there any evidence anyone else discussing it cares about your defensive crusade. Whether or not I think you're stupid, you're the one who put that on the table - not me or anyone else in this discussion.
Renting a field and selling some food at it does not make one an "organizer" - it was Yasgur who was organized by the organizers including Lang, not Yasgur organizing anything. A false assertion does not qualify as a fact.
You've had ample chance to support the article content that I identified, but you have used this discussion only to insult, make false assertions, and attempt to inflame the discourse. You do not provide either factual or logical support for the content that I and others here have identified and supported as unfit for Wikipedia. You have made this discussion nothing but counterproductive, except to demonstrate your resistance to facts, logic, courtesy and anything but your unsupported assertions and obnoxious attacks. Without some meaningful engagement from you, or someone else, supporting the unwarranted content I will revise the article to the content that is actually supported by credible citations. DocRuby (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect Start Times

Many of the start times for the acts especially on the first night, are not accurate, including that Richie Havens played for 2 hours. There is a Real-time broadcast of the event based on the work of archivist Andy Zax called Woodstock — As It Happened — 50 Years On is possible thanks to Rhino Entertainment’s Back to the Garden, a new Woodstock 50th anniversary collection. The start times are recorded in this link. https://thekey.xpn.org/2019/08/14/xpnstock-schedule/ 108.36.85.179 (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I consider this a reliable source and am going to make the edits.--108.36.85.179 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly my edits of correct start times makes the ending times unworkable. Sorry. I have no source of those. Someone who buys the 36 disc set can do it.�108.36.85.179 (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding Romney and Hog Farm role

I am curious why, when the WP article on Wavy Gravy includes a section on Woodstock, and while various documentaries on the festival make clear mention of the role of this individual and group, that there is no mention of Romney/WG in this article. Note, that individual's article is not a reliable source for content to transfer over, as it generally lacks sources. But it seems there is ample justification for his mention here. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.8.141 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Deaths

Shouldn't it be mentioned that two (or three?) attendees died during the festical? --Felix Tritschler (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

No that doesn't apparently matter. Water destroying the beds at the Fyre Festivel is a horrifying experience. Hippies dying from drug overdoses is enlightenment thinking. Brilliant culture enrichment and truly a contender against Western values. So lets ignore the deaths please, not important. That ruins the image which is promoted en masse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.42.162 (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

archaeology

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/woodstock-archaeology/ Archaeology used to better understand certain aspects of the affair, such as lcoations. Kdammers (talk) 09:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Youngest performer at Woodstock

--Unklscrufy (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Many people believed that Michael Shrieve of Santana was the youngest performer at Woodstock because he looked young. In fact, Henry Gross of Sha Na Na was two years younger than Shrieve. This really isn't controversial. My source is an interview with Gross from last August. It's only one of any number of sources that say the same thing. Or you could...oh, I don't know...look at their Wikipedia pages and compare their birthdates. I don't know what the fuss is about. Please stop reverting my edit.

Your source only reports what Gross claims. We need independent WP:SECONDARY sources. That's what is provided for Shrieve. In any event, please get consensus for this change instead of edit warring. Pinging FlightTime. Sundayclose (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

References

I've added a different source this time. The source for Shrieve that you mentioned is a Rolling Stone article that says he was the youngest performer at Woodstock. My source is an interview with Shrieve that says he was the second-youngest performer. I don't know how either source is more reliable than the other, but they can't both be right. According to their own Wikipedia articles (unless you're disputing those, too), Shrieve was born July 6, 1949 and Henry Gross was born April 1, 1951. Woodstock was in mid-August 1969, at which time Shrieve was 20 years old and Gross was 18 years old. This isn't edit warring; I'm attempting to make a very simple correction. Unklscrufy
I don't consider either source superior to the other. As such, I'm removing the "youngest" statement for both Shrieve and Gross, effectively reverting the part of my own edit that adds Shrieve. Please don't restore either one of them without consensus. And a reminder: the place to discuss this issue is here, not in edit summaries for the article. Edit warring isn't determined by whether you're right or wrong; it results from multiple reverts without consensus. See WP:EW. Thanks for your input. Pinging FlightTime. Sundayclose (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The only source needed is a calendar. 1949 came before 1951. And if you're done, I'm done. Unklscrufy (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but when two reliable sources conflict, you need more than a calendar. Your assumption is that a source is infallible about every detail, and determining where the error is in the source could very well have nothing to do with years of birth. There is only one way to overcome this impasse. Get consensus, ideally based on the weight of opinion of well sourced experts. Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Creedence Clearwater Revival start time?

Woodstock#Planning and preparation says, "Given their 3 a.m. start time and omission from the Woodstock film (at Creedence frontman John Fogerty's insistence), Creedence members have expressed bitterness over their experiences regarding the festival."

Woodstock#Festival quotes John Fogerty "recalling Creedence Clearwater Revival's 3:30 a.m. start time at Woodstock".

Woodstock#Performing artists and List of performances and events at Woodstock Festival#Creedence Clearwater Revival both say that Creedence Clearwater Revival's performance started at 12:30 a.m.

This is a big discrepancy. Did they go on at 12:30 a.m., 3 a.m., or 3:30 a.m.? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar performance Start Time & Finish Time

hi, I have no idea what time Ravi Shankar started or ended his performance, but there is approx 42 minutes of recorded music available, so there must be a typo error with the times (10:20 pm – 10:35 pm) given on the page 77.97.66.191 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylemakl1994. Peer reviewers: Kylemakl1994.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodstock/Archive_2&oldid=1236199520"