Talk:Woodstock '99

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

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): Edenma1.

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

Woodstock '99? No thanks[edit]

Woodstock '69 was about peace and love, this whole "woodstock" '99 was horrid and doesnt do its predecessor any justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.186.189 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Written (like much of the article) by someone who clearly wasn't there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.111.111 (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even without being there, it's clear that the whole event was just about money and the name "Woodstock" for marketing purposes. Greed and money was the main factor, not music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was there and some of the details are not accurate. EnlightenedIllusions (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong facts about Red hot chili peppers show[edit]

About that Red hot chili pepper show, its NOT 45 minutes long, where did you get that information? please let me know, cause its wrong. they were on stage for about 75 minutes. please don't post anything in the article unless you know its true. By the way, the part about problems during red hot chili pepper show might need a grammar-check. i´m not good at that part myself.

Wow, this article is unbelievably negative and no doubt written by someone who wasn't there. No mention of the bands or anything facts, just a lot of terrible things. I'll have to fix this one up. --Patik 16:16, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

That's kinda the idea, isn't it :P --212.99.193.74 23:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Woohoo! Two years and counting, boy this is going to be a great article Patik. Looking forward to it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.219.227.6 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Chili Pepper performance was indeed and long one, though the firs actually interrupted it- they did not start after it. The Chili Peppers left the stage in protest against the starting of the fires, which I thought was a very appropriate reaction. The crowd got the hint and calmed down a bit, so the band returned for a few more songs, but it didn't last. The fires started again and then the audio tower fell. I was in the crowd and can say it was indeed a very dire situation.

And I very much agree with the assessment that this article is far too negative. While there were problems and things were over priced, it was not as bad as this article would have you believe. 205.157.136.2 18:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)August 17, 2007[reply]

500 policemen for 200.000 visitors above average?[edit]

"About 500 New York state policemen were hired for security. The promoters may have anticipated some degree of rioting and chaos, or may have simply taken precautionary measures necessary for any large gathering of people."

This sounds as if one policeman for 400 people at a concert would be a lot of security. I don't really have experience, but it rather seems a little few to me... --212.99.193.74 23:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the right range compared to large sporting events such as football or baseball games, which hire perhaps one security person per 500 attendees. On the other hand indoors nightclubs typically use one per 100-150 patrons. And if 500 police arrested only seven people, as the article states, that doesn't quite sound like the situation rises to the level of a riot, does it? --Blainster 11:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No water...WRONG[edit]

I don't know how to object against content, but there is one specific fact which I feel is incorrect:

The article states that water was not allowed to be carried in. This is incorrect. I attended Woodstock '99 and remember bringing in a case (24-pack) of 12oz bottled water. I remember this because I emptied-out a few bottles and re-filled them with clear liquor (vodka), and then resealed the case [in a successful attempt to "sneak in" my own alcohol]. There was no objection by any of the security to the case of "water".

I agree with the other posts in the discussion which state that this article is written in a negative light. I attended all 3 days of the event and couldn't believe the media's representation of the closing day. They (MTV and other media) made the venue sound like a war zone, with EVERYONE participating in the havoc. This is untrue. There were some isolated incidents of vandalism, and that's all. With hundreds of thousands of people, you're bound to have a few drunken/drugged jerks. .—The preceding comment was added by 69.44.242.244 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 28 April 2006.

Supplies allowed[edit]

Glass was not allowed. I recall bringing in water, food, even alcohol (not concealed but cheap vodka sold in a plastic bottle at the closet liquor store to the venue).

Refilled water bottles in fountains. The shower situation could have been better but we were camping.

I did witness things like the ATM being vandalized, I believe it ran out of money on day 2. I saw mud people around the water fountains but I kindly asked that she not touch me and she didn't. (Although she did try to persuade me).

The experience of the people there is different from the media protrayal (as with anything).

Point of view and other problems[edit]

This article is a mess. I attended the show and the negative tone of the article does not reflect the reality of the first two days OR the fires/looting on the third day. At the very least the fires and looting should be its own section and not the primary focus of the entire article. Several statements are entirely inaccurate as well (two brief examples: Food and drink were allowed to be brought in; tap water was readily available and was not "guarded by mud people" any of the times I wanted access to it.) I'm putting a couple tags on the article and may stop back to fix it up later as time permits. -- Moondigger 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that Woodstock 99 is known to most people who weren't there as 'the one with the riots' because whenever it's mentioned in media these days, it's in reference to the trouble that happened. The Kinslayer 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The event is notable mainly as a disaster. If you had fun at the concert then that's swell, but your personal experiences aren't what makes it encyclopedic. Is it "unfair" that the article on the Hindenburg spends so more time talking about it burning that about it's uneventful and non-noteworthy flights before that? Bobbyi 18:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been telling people for years that the medias version of the festival was incredibly blown out of proportion, take a look at the posts from those of us who were actually there, 90% say that other than the ridiculos prices the vendors were charging the weekend was great. It was the most calm serene three days you could imagine, you would sneeze and hear "god bless you" from 3 tents over. On a side note the only thing that wasnt outragiously priced was alcohol, I believe it was around $5 for a beer or hard lemonade, about what you would expect at a concert or sporting event. As far as the "criminal behavior" the numbers people use to "prove" the "mayhem" are almost laughable. How many arrests are there on any given weekend in a city of 200,000 people? I dont have any numbers but my guess is ALOT more than 7, and Im geussing there are more than 4 rapes in a city that size. It really is a shame that people who werent there think they know ANYTHING about it. Kurt Loder was scared oh no, 199,000 of us had a great time we will never forget. I will say that during the afternoon on sunday as they were passing out the candles I did turn to my brother and say "wow, thats not a very good idea" but even the fires were calm, people who werent there dont understand this was an AIRFIELD it was like 90% ashphalt, there was nowhere for a fire to spread, it was just a bunch of people standing around bonfires dancing, they were big ass bonfires but people make it sound like it was a war zone but it was nothing really. At no point did I or anyone in my group EVER feel afraid or anything of the sort, there were some mosh pits but if you didnt want in you backed up 10 feet and no one bothered you, as far as the mud people the only thing I saw was funny. They tried to pull down the fences at the beer tents at one point and when the people in the tent were told they would have to stop selling beer if the fence came down they ran over to try to keep them up, it was pretty comical watching the drunks and the mud people in a tug of war over the fences. As I said eferything was so blown out of proportion that I had no idea what was being reported and first heard of the "rioting" being reported on my way home, I heard a DJ on the radio say to call home if you were at Woodstock to let your parents know you were ok? I called from the next service area when we stopped for gas and my mother was frantic wanting to know if we were all ok, it was ridiculos, the media created the issue and its sads to see it has carried over to hear, if you werent there stop acting like you know anything, you dont unless someone who was there told you and if thats the case I expect 99% of it to be positive.(Willy1273 (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This article has some problems[edit]

Like everyone else has commented I really think this article was written by someone who might have only watched it on Pay Per View and bought the CD.

One thing I would like to repeat just like everyone else said......you WERE allowed to bring into Woodstock basically anything you wanted..just NO GLASS or like weapons and stuff like that. I remember the NO GLASS being a big thing. Me and my friends brought several 30 packs of beer, several of those cheap crappy plastic bottles of vodka along with big jugs of juice to mix it with and several gallons of water...and also a lot of non-perishable snacks and food. And this was all ok...they seemed to be much more concerned with glass jars of salsa that the people in front of us had then all our alcohol. Also there seemed to be ways to get illegal stuff in there anyway...there were people walking around with freezer bags of schrooms, E-pills and weed selling it out in the open like they were selling popcorn at a baseball game. Also, on the way out after the show ended we saw several full size 6 ft nitrous tanks all over the festival site...one of the biggest mysteries of my life to this day...HOW DID THEY SNEAK THOSE IN THERE!! And I'm not mistaken...they weren't something else...they were nitrous tanks.

Second, I think the overall impression that the whole weekend was some sort of crime-ridden free for all is way off...this coming from someone that was ACTUALLY THERE. More or less the whole weekend was fairly orderly and the stuff that happened at the end of the show was the only shenanigans that went on. I roamed all over the festival all weekend and I don't even think I saw a single fight or negative incident while I was there. I even saw some dudes yell at someone for trying to grope a naked girl in the crowd. The fires at the end were definitely started by the peace candles that were handed out. I don't even remember them being handed out by like a booth or anything...there seemed to be people from whatever organization that was handing them out in the crowd as well. Also the fuel for the bonfires mostly came from the wood used to construct the food vendor booths. See, when they got to the end of the show all the food vendors packed up and left all the booths deserted. People then ripped them apart and used the wood for bonfires...possibly in frustration for the outrageous vendor prices for everything from food to shirts.

Thirdly, The author may be correct but I've always wondered how Woodstock 99 could NOT have been profitable!!! These are more or less some of the ballpark prices I remember.... Tickets for the 3 days $150.00 Burrito $10.00 Rotisserie Chicken $20.00 Pizza $10.00 Drinks $8.00 Bag of Ice (while it lasted) $20.00 or more Shirts $30.00+ The food prices were the worst...they made you want to smash someones face.

Finally, someone also mentioned the water and toliet situation which I thought was not terrible but fairly inadequate. They seemed to have a reasonable amount of porta-johns however it didn't seem like anyone was servicing them over the 3 days...therefore by like the end of day 2 almost all of them were out of toliet paper and/or overflowing with feces. The drinking water set-up was great however since it didn't rain that weekend and some people wanted to do the whole mud fight thing again alot of the the hoses supplying the potable water stations were cut to flood the fields for mudfights....which made potable water much harder to find by the end of the show. — The preceding comment was added by Metall2462 (talk • contribs) 2:30, 28 September 2006.


  • A couple of the prices you quote are a bit off. All drinks were $4, and all came in 20 oz plastic bottles - Coke, water, lemonade, didn't matter. $4. That I remember clearly. On a hot day out in the sun that got pretty damned expensive, but there was always the tap water, which was free. Buy one bottle of whatever then keep refilling it from the tap. Pizza was $12, which may not seem like much but it was sized for one person. I'm not sure about the other foods you mentioned.—The preceding comment was added by Moondigger (talk • contribs) 22:06, 28 September 2006.
  • I disagree. I'm remember that while 20-oz. bottles of water were $4, 20-oz bottles of soda were $8 (and I don't think there were Coke products, just Pepsi ones--I wouldn't have chosen a Sierra Mist if I could have had a Sprite.)--Skywarp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.125.36 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can disagree but your recollection is incorrect about the prices. All 20 oz drinks were $4. I attended the show and one of my coworkers worked as a vendor there. Prices were set by the promotors and all vendors had to comply with their pricing structure. -- Moondigger (talk)
  • I too attended and ALL bottled drinks WERE $4. I bought both soda and water and the price was the same for both! I also bought a pizza for $12 and i felt it was big enough for me and my two friends, although I probably could've eaten the whole thing alone. At a festival of this magnitude, attendees should have expected high prices for these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwright13 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a major cleanup. It's taking minor details and making them out to be huge.

'Police later reported that at least four rapes had occurred during the concert. Seven arrests were made on the final night of the concert and, afterward, police reviewed video footage, hoping to identify and hold accountable looters who, amid the chaos, had not been arrested. Some one-dozen trailers, a small bus and a number of booths and portable toilets were burned in the fray. Five people were injured.'

This is not unusual. Unfortunate, yes. But not unusual. The last night of most alternative music festivals nearly always devolve into riots and looting, with running battles with security guards. At the Download festival in Donnington this year, 30 people were arrested in connection with one incident alone.

My honest opinion is that the article should be blanked and started from scratch. The Kinslayer 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like everyone else has commented I really think this article was written by someone who might have only watched it on Pay Per View and bought the CD. I was there and I find the article completely accurate and, yes, fair. I was only 16 at the time and didn't engage in any rioting, but for every person there who acted out violently, there were dozens more who were just as upset. 71.206.196.20 07:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was a photojournalist on the site for all four horrific days. Please do a search for my article: "Woodstock 99: What the Hell Happened?" for an in depth look at the event day by day. Also from an insider's point of view as I was working it. I have covered festivals around the world, and this was by far, the most disorganized, chaotic, disgusting event I have ever been at. If anyone else that attended tells you otherwise, they must have been in a drug induced E haze, as that was the prevalent drug of the weekend, so of course it all seemed fine to them! Never before have I seen concertgoers throwing feces at people. Enough said. J Bloomrosen"

The article is very NPOV, it's true, but isn't it amusing how all the people who say they were there have different stories about what happened? The alleged attendees can't even agree on the drink prices. Seeing as how there is no consensus on the nature of the kerfuffle, maybe the media hype wasn't so overblown after all? In any event, there should be a seperate section for what happened on the last day. The article itself should focus on the details of the concert...and maybe the irony of having $10 burritos at an event created in homage to THE counterculture music event of the '60s. 62.49.23.145 09:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is quite a special article - I'm going down the same path as Kinslayer on this one. A year or two ago, on the sunday night at Download Festival, I witnessed someone throwing a heap of burning wood onto a tent, then putting a camping stove gas canister into the fire that was on the tent. That wasn't so bad, but when three people got out the tent and ran for their lives I thought it was a bit much. When I woke up on the morning, everything had been reduced to ground level and the horizon was covered in black smoke - you get the picture. Here's the entire section on those riots from the Download wiki: "On the final night, fires were started by some festival goers and police were called, arresting twelve people.[10]. At around 4am, the fire brigade arrived to put out a large fire at the gold campsite. A number of people had taken the railings that had been used to separate the campsite area from the path and used them to barricade the road to prevent the fire engines from reaching the main fire. At this point a number of police assembled in riot gear, and proceeded to stop the troublemakers. The festival director, Stuart Galbraith, posted a message on the official website stating that "About 150 people spoiled the end of what had been a great weekend for over 75,000 of us." [11]" This article on Woodstock chronicles what is ultimately a very small precedent to a trend in festivals for a few years that may yet continue. Either way, it doesn't make sense to categorise Woodstock '99 as a disaster, on the contrary, it set the fashion for future festival carnage like I used to see at Leeds and Download every year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.218.214 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The security situation at Download is now much improved, and the 2006 riot was a one-off. In 2008 the security guards all had big numbers on them to make them accountable, and the only real "trouble" was a large amount of thefts (due to an organised gang that also hit several other festivals). There was the usual fires and objects being thrown about the camp site on the last night, but it wasn't violent or malicious 99% of the time. Near where i was sevral tents were smashed and one was set on fire, but only with the permission of the people that owned them (also the fire was the bloke's own tent, and he even made sure he dragged it into an open area before lighting it)82.153.230.147 (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poor planning[edit]

I agree that the nice parts about the concert should be described. Sources? I've seen a couple. Some background info would be nice to have, too.

One of the keys to Woodstock '99 is poor planning. The organizers didn't know the first thing about planning and contingencies for that kind of event and they were very badly advised. The other key is greed. These men had no idea that a show like this always loses money. It is unrealistic to expect to make a profit, and anyone who told the organizers differently was lying. People talk about the irony of putting on a show that is supposed to salute the spirit of the 1960s and the whole movement of altruism and brotherhood, and then charge $12 for a hamburger. The organizers forgot that they themselves would have had to get into and live that spirit for the time being, and that meant not seeking a profit, let alone getting in bed with Pepsi, for God's sake.

It might also have meant a little discretion in terms of scheduling. A "testosterone-driven metalfest" (NYT) without a few quieter acts in between to cool things down is asking for trouble. It's common sense and has been since the 1950s when every theater owner knew the risks of putting on a rock and roll show or film. From what I've read, scheduling was so haywire at Woodstock 99 that the performers came in not knowing when they were supposed to play. Half of them hadn't even been issued credentials and weren't allowed in until that could be straightened out..

I worked at a community radio station at the time. Two of my co-workers attended and returned to report that indeed they were told they were not allowed to bring in their bottled water and sandwiches (for a three-day camping event in 100-degree heat). Now, we know they didn't have enough security people, so hired more on the spot. Here's my guess: In the confusion these men might have misunderstood the guidelines as to what attendees were and were not allowed to bring in. There was so little in the way of structure that the people in charge might not have been sure of the rules themselves and gave different instructions to the security guys. This could be why some people were told no water even in plastic bottles while others were told it was alright. --Bluejay Young 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodhound Gang[edit]

I removed the segment in reference to the chants made towards the stage stating that " The chant/chorus was later sampled by Bloodhound Gang for their song "Fire, Water, Burn", as the song "Fire, Water, Burn" was released in 1996. --George The Man 00:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Stage...[edit]

If you have an original program from the show, Most of the popular heavier stuff was at the east stage area. At the middle of day 2 it was hot, real hot, the tops of my ears had burned and blistered. At that point people were trying to refill water bottles, at a slow pace, spilling more on the ground. People started ripping off the water fountain heads. The people were tearing apart these wooden water fountain islands opening a 1 1/2" pipe, and thats when things got muddy/shitty. It was getting muddy, some people started knocking over the port-a-pots into the mud. they were then breaking the water pipes open to bigger and bigger pipes, 1 1/2" to 3 inch, to 4 inch, to 8 inch, finally to a 10 or 12 main. At that point the east stage was cut off from water. the right side of the east stage was that funky mud, the left side was somewhat normal, some of the mud people were throwing this crap mud at the left side people. It definitly was not mud anymore from the smell of things.

None of what was reported as being as bad as it was over at the west stage. The fires, the mud, all on the east side.

I had my tent over by the west side, and it seemed pretty tame each night I walked back.

I may have some pictures of the mud throwing, and water problems.

It was $170 for my ticket.

I think if they had mixed up the acts a little more between stages, it may have not been as bad.

It was a high time of our nations prosperity under Clinton, We were brats, we didn't have a cause or a fight. There was No war, No one was pushing the whole green thing like they are now.

September 11th got everyones attention... Now there a ton of causes thats can be fought for, and no one is organising one of these shows now, when it may be beneficial to Our new youth.. 69.248.234.107 (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap, how did they get a 12" main open without any tools?! -Rolypolyman (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I just started a major cleanup and overhaul of the article, mostly deleting a bunch of synthesis comparing the '99 festival to the original while trying to retain the few cited facts that were included. Next I'm going to go over the "problems" section and delete stuff that has been there without citations for a long time (so if you've got any cites, add 'em now).

For balance, I'd like to see something that indicates that some of the performances were, at least, well-recieved or that some people had a good time despite the problems; if anyone has any references to that effect, please add them. Jgm (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, my attempt at a full-scale cleanup is complete. I've added some references, and deleted some claims I was not able to find references for. I've added one bit about the positive reviews for the music early on, but really any such material is hugely overshadowed by negative reports on the conditions and violence. Given that and the generally well-referenced nature of what's left, I'd like to remove the POV/Neutrality tag from this article. If anyone has any objections, note them here(along with, I'd hope, your suggestions to fix). Jgm (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:RATM - Burningamp.jpg[edit]

The image Image:RATM - Burningamp.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loder quote[edit]

In a good-faith edit the Kurt Loder quote from USA Today was shortened, with the justification that the link provided does not contain the full quote. This is true; however the original USA Today print publication (which I have a copy of and which should be available on microfilm at any major library) does contain the full quote. So this presents an interesting dilemma -- one option would be to remove the link to the online version and simply reference the publication, this would make the full quotation accurately referenced but would make the article less useful to the reader, who is unlikely to want to dig up the print version. For now I've returned the full quote pending discussion here and will try to make an update to the reference that covers the situation. I'm glad to discuss this here and don't mind where it winds up. Thanks Jgm (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact tags[edit]

Several requests for citations were added to the article; I've deleted some of them. In one case (the presence of a rave site) the issue is non-controversial and covered in the references given. In other cases the statements are, I believe, validated by the overall references provided. Given the dozen or so articles quoted about the fires, rapes, and violence, it is fair to state that this is what the show is best remembered for. In a lead paragraph it is appropriate to summarize the overall gist of the documented history and press coverage, we don't need an outside quotable source to summarize it for us. Glad to discuss alternatives here. Jgm (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"boobstock" claim[edit]

An editor has been adding to the lead the sentence "The festival was later facetiously nicknamed "Boobstock", due to widespread nudity among attendees."

Although someone has thoughtfully added a fact tag, I'm going to delete the statement altogether until a citation can be made at which point we can try to integrate it into the article. I cannot find any source for this, and disagree that such a claim should be made in the passive voice -- nicknamed by whom? Given the documented sexual violence that occurred this is not something that should be accepted lightly. Jgm (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary sentence in lead[edit]

Some editor(s) appear to have a problem with this sentence in the lead:

Woodstock '99 is remembered for reports of violence, rape, fires, and an abrupt ending of the show.

This statement is a summary the content in the rest of the article, and is appropriate for the article lead. Since the information stated is well-cited in the body of the article it is not necessary to include duplicate citations in the lead (see WP:LEADCITE). It's the job of the lead to include information like this. If you think there is a better way to summarize the topic and the article contents, go for it; the lead could use a beefing up. Jgm (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moby and Fatboy Slim shows not correctly located[edit]

Moby and Fatboy Slim did not perform on the West Stage or any of the other stages listed in the article and they did not perform on the same night. They performed on consecutive nights in the B-52 hanger in what was billed as a "rave." I would edit the article and fix it, but I can't remember which one performed on which night and I don't want to get it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrsjr57 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's too vague[edit]

The headline says it all. Personally, I think that, if possible, the songs these artists performed should be listed. As in all of them. Granted, this will probably be a rather difficult task, to say the least, and my solution is that we find a professional or expert on this topic. 98.246.84.7 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way, feel free to leave comments on this section if you are passing by. 98.246.84.7 (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many many years ago, this article did have setlists for a good number of the acts present. I presume they were removed for being poorly formatted and trivial. Retrieving them would be simple enough, but it would still require sourcing, and I doubt a bootleg would meet Wikipedia credibility standards. --Crimson Bleeding Souls (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Doesn't Make Sense[edit]

This line in the first paragraph doesn't make sense; "Like the previous Woodstock festivals it was performed in upstate New York, this time in Rome, New York, around 200 miles from the site of the original event." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.195.96 (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Woodstock 1999. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Woodstock 1999. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 09:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Woodstock 1999. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 01:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 July 2016[edit]

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: page moved. (non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock 1999 → Woodstock '99 – per WP:COMMONNAME referred to as "Woodstock '99" far more than "Woodstock 1999". Searching on main Google gets 82,500 results for "Woodstock 1999" but 389,000 for "Woodstock '99". Google Books gives 2,560 results for "'99" while "1999" gets only 776. Even when Googling "Woodstock 1999" the first results that appear are articles that use '99 [1] [2] [3] [4]. This move also allows for consistency with Woodstock '94. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Just looking at the reference section of the article shows lots of the sources saying "99" rather than "1999". Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, we'll have to do another RM in 2099 (I'll put it up, adding it to my 'to do' list), but until then this should be fine. Another shadow/wannabee of the 1969 festival though. Randy Kryn 14:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Woodstock '99. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Portrayed by the media"[edit]

Woodstock 1999 was portrayed by the media as being marred by difficult environmental conditions, violence, sexual assault, looting, vandalism, and fires.

Why the weasel words? There don't seem to be any reliable sources disputing that the event WAS marred by multiple rapes, vandalism etc. --82.39.240.18 (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

something on profit/losses, costs would be good[edit]

I've love to know more about the financial side of this. Surely the lawyers must have been busy for years afterwards. 49.131.49.240 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting in a few numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Woodstock_%2799&type=revision&diff=1103197326&oldid=1103177325
Not sure about the laywers bit. :) Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attendees: paid vs. unpaid[edit]

The reported facts don't seem to add up: "the festival didn't sell out - the amount of tickets sold were capped at 250,000" (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/19-worst-things-about-woodstock-99-176052/) would seem to contradict the claim that they had 400,000 *paid* attendees (based on the often-estimated $60 million in ticket sales). This veers on original reporting, though, so I'm going to make a note of it here before I do any editing on it.

The highest you can get is $45 million for 250,000 gate tickets at $180 apiece (known to be untrue; lots of advance sales). You can't get to $60 million. It's also possible that those "400,000 attendees" were lots of single-day passes (again, not gonna make it to $60 million at that rate).

It is possible that, say, 150,000 advance tickets (at $150 apiece of $22,500,000) and 100,000 gate tickets (at $180 apiece or $18,000,000) got them to $40,500,000 in sales. And then they had another 150,000 gate-crashers. To be clear, I am making these numbers up.

It is of course also possible that the number of tickets sold is actually 400,000. But that is hard to source.

Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Musiceasel removing an entire segment without any description of the edit is vandalism. I'd advise you against doing it again otherwise the matter will escalate into a warning PontiacAurora (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodstock_%2799&oldid=1212528542"