Talk:Deadhead: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:28, 26 June 2006

Redirect to Grateful Dead?

Redirect to Grateful Dead? --Robert Merkel 22:34, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Deadheads (or Dead Heads, in the band's own spelling) now exist even though the band itself as a touring entity does not. Therefore, I think the fan-base, as a group merits its own entry.

Further, the Grateful Dead article itself would be far too long if a comprehensive explanation of "Deadhead" were included.

I also disagree. Deadheads are a separate if linked phenonemon and is notable enough to deserve its own article. Also noted that WP has a separate article for Trekkie, rather than a redirect to Star Trek. Wasted Time R 20:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I also disagree. Deadheads are a separate if linked phenonemon and is notable enough to deserve its own article. Also noted that WP has a separate article for Trekkie, rather than a redirect to Star Trek."

Dead Heads exist regardless of whether the Grateful Dead exists. It's an extremely diverse culture that does not need the members of the band to survive. "The Boys" might have created this monster, but they can't control it.

Subcultures

BTW: perhaps there should be a separate article on all the subcultures that have sprung out of the Dead's odd experiment. There are queer Dead Heads who organized themselves, there are Orthodox Jewish Deadheads, The Merry Punsters (picky Dead Heads with a comical bent), Deafheads (Heads who enjoyed the music via a volunteer interpreter in their own special section that the band provided), the Net Heads, you name it.

Not all of these subcultures still exist, but it was still a fascinating cultural phenomenon.

Testimonial

This is completely not relevant, but hear me out; this is one generous group of people.

I met a man one time who simply could not stand Grateful Dead music, but he heard that the parking lot was a good place to score marijuana. ;-( (just the kind of Dead Head no one likes.).

He went to the lot with no money, no car, no ticket and no dignity. Well, he kept a tiny bit of dignity: he decided he would not beg. He borrowed a sheet of paper, a pen and cardboard six-pack holder from a woman, and then he rooted around in the dirt, making balls out of the turf. Then he walked through the crowd, yelling:

"Mud balls! Get your mud balls! Only one dollar!"

People were so charmed by his refusal to beg that by the end of the evening, he had a ticket, a full pack of assorted cigarettes, several beers, dinner, $15 and a place to sleep. He didn't get the drugs he wanted, but by that time, he was so overwhelmed by generosity that it didn't matter.

Sorry, this isn't related to the article, but I just wanted to let people know that America can be very wonderful place.

Unsourced information

Sorry to do it, but I have removed a mass of unsourced, POV claims that contain only original research. I will be fine re-adding these in if viable sources can be found. Cheers! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be clueless about Dead culture. See http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=rec.music.gdead+%22miracle+seeker%22&qt_s=Search for many references to "Miracle seekers", for example. Wasted Time R 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "clueless" of the culture. I know most of this is true. The problem is sourcing the information. Please see WP:OR and specifically Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know all about WP:OR. Its rationale in WP is to keep physics cranks out; beyond that, it gets applied in cases where it doesn't really make sense. Like this one. If you know, and I know, and a couple dozen writers in rec.music.gdead knew, and a whole bunch of other people know about miracle seekers, then what is the purpose of pretending that they didn't exist just because no newspaper (whose archives are easily available) wrote about them at the time? Since the miracle seekers bit was added to this article, no one has objected to it on factual grounds, only you on pedantic grounds. Wasted Time R 03:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be considered original research on your part. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. as found at Wikipedia:Verifiability. As long as you follow the policy, I have no problem with its inclusion. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why pray tell did you leave in the stuff about the Lot? Shakedown Street? The subcultures? Tapers of "on nights"? It's all just as unverified. Wasted Time R 03:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting to remove it while I work on a cited article, using Garcia: An American Life by Blair Jackson, Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip Jake Woodward, et al, and Phil Lesh: Searching for the Sound by Phil Lesh as my sources. --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in your precious WP:blah about "waiting to remove" unverified material until cite research is done, so I've removed it all for you. Wasted Time R 04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks relatively WP:NPOV now and the original research stuff has been removed. If there are any qualms about material still in the article, please feel free to remove. If anyone finds sources on stuff that was removed that are reliable, make sure to replace it. There is a bit more from the books I will likely add soon (I just have been a bit busy). Cheers! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone think we should mention something about the Live Music Archive problems from last year? I know there were one or two articles run in major publications about it that I can scrounge up. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 21:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>Sorry to do it, but I have removed a mass of unsourced, POV claims that contain only original research. I will be fine re-adding these in if viable sources can be found...

Here's one for you from http://members.aol.com/tedalvy/ts.htm:

Excerpt from the book by Grateful Dead Bass Player Phil Lesh:

The unique organicity of our music reflects the fact that each of us consciously personalized his playing: to fit with what others were playing and to fit with who each man was as an individual, allowing us to meld our consciousnesses together in the unity of a group mind.

For us, the philosophical basis of this concept was articulated by the science-fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon in his novel More Than Human, wherein the protagonists each have a single paranormal talent – telepathy, psychokinesis, teleportation – and are joined by a quadruple paraplegic who acts as a central processing unit. The process by which they become one is called bleshing, from a combination of mesh and blend. (Today’s archetype would be the X-Men.)

Now I'm going to put the page back the way it was. And I'll add this reference to it.

Moeron, you might want to consider discussing this with us before you go ahead and try to change it again. No one that I know of appointed you Keeper Of The Deadhead Page.

Michael Trigoboff

That is fine for the reference (do you have a page number for it? If not I will just flip through the pages), but the following comment still is riff with WP:POV:

"The band and Deadheads also had "off" nights which wasn't surprising given the large number of shows and tremendous travel schedule the group and its fans maintained over the years. An "off" night might be characterized by low energy, mumbled words, Jerry Garcia singing the wrong lyrics or forgetting the lyrics, Donna Godchaux singing way out of key, short set lists, or even a rare missed encore."

So I am going to remove it until we have a source (even though I know that you mean, it still goes back to my above reference to "verifiability, not truth"). As far as your last comment Michael, remember to assume good faith and that we are asked to be bold here on Wikipedia when it comes to editing. I saw an article that needed some work, so I edited it. There were differences between editors and we have talked them out (and will continue to do so). I really appreciate yours and Wasted's time on the article in an effort to make this better. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the quote and then reading the reference exert in the article don't really seem to match up. I will look for other sources about the "X-Factor", but it may have to be removed. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold

As mentioned above, Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. Here goes...

Grateful Dead concerts were psychedelic phenomena. They were explorations into the nature of consciousness, performed by a dedicated band of researchers. They were also Major League Fun, which did not detract from the seriousness of the endeavor. I'm a Deadhead. I participated in the psychic events at Grateful Dead concerts. Did you, Moeron?

My hopes for this topic page are that Deadheads will come along and add their perspectives and produce better and more interesting descriptions of the phenomenon. What you are doing instead is to apply a rule without any regard to the appropriateness of that rule to the topic. Most of the important things that happened at Grateful Dead concerts are "recorded" in the minds of the Deadheads, not in books. Restricting this page to what got published on paper will eliminate the main point of why there were Deadheads at all.

The rigid application of an inappropriate rule is totally incompatible with the spirit that animated Grateful Dead concerts, which was to find out what human consciousness could do when it was freed of the usual constraints.

You say things like "may have to be removed," which makes it sound like you're speaking with the voice of some disembodied higher authority. But you're not. You have no more authority in this matter than I do (and possibly less, if you weren't there at the concerts).

I say it's not appropriate to limit this topic to what's printed on paper. This isn't an article about physics. It's an article about metaphysics. I haven't seen any controversy about what's written in this article. No Deadheads have weighed in to say, "No, that's not the way it was at the concerts." It's just you attempting to insist that a rigid and irrelevant rule be applied to this article.

I don't see any reason why I should let you do that. You don't outrank me or anyone else around here. You don't speak with any "voice of authority," just with your own voice - as do I.

Michael Trigoboff 22:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I agree whole-heartedly with the above; I made a similar argument in the earlier section above, but Michael Trigoboff makes it even better. Wasted Time R 22:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is wrong with the X-Factor stuff and the fans being a part of it, that is cited in the paragraph above the one you replace, making the information redundanct. The problem comes with the on-off nights senario: "The band and Deadheads also had "off" nights which wasn't surprising given the large number of shows and tremendous travel schedule the group and its fans maintained over the years. An "off" night might be characterized by low energy, mumbled words, Jerry Garcia singing the wrong lyrics or forgetting the lyrics, Donna Godchaux singing way out of key, short set lists, or even a rare missed encore." I understand totally what you mean because we Deadheads can pick up on these things. But Wikipedia has two policies that are explicit about this sort of thing.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas.

There is nothing I would like more than to include this information, but we need a source in order to do it. I will keep looking through the six books on the Dead I have and see what I turn up. My best suggestion, though, is to check for newspaper articles that state something about the band having an "off-night". I will be checking the LA Times archive and see if Rolling Stone has anything. Again, thanks for all of your hard work on this article. Cheers! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the process of seeking outside assitance on this issue (hopefully from an admin) through either WP:RFC, WP:3O, or WP:WQA. Cheers! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, I will continue to restore what you continue to insist on deleting. Michael Trigoboff 01:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I am baffled why you are including the relatively same information in a paragraph as the preceeding one. Thanks! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you want to discuss it, or do you just want to fight an edit war with me? I'll do it either way, but I'd prefer the discussion. What I won't do is cede to you the authority over this page, or the authority to be the arbiter of how to appropriately apply Wikipedia's rules to this page. In my view, the way you're applying those rules is absolutely inappropriate. Michael Trigoboff 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great to me. We need an open dialogue. Ok, so first the duplicate X-Factor paragraphs. What do you suggest? -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs could be combined, I suppose, if that were to be done without losing any of the concepts. Michael Trigoboff 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Applying The Rules
Moeron, here's a quote from one of the rules you cited, reliable, published sources:
This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct that many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.
So this rule is a guideline, not an absolute rule. It's not "policy." And you're supposed to discuss it if there's some disagreement about applying the rule.
You, Wasted Time R, and I seem to be the interested parties. I say you're applying the rules in a way that's too rigid for this topic.
Michael Trigoboff 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what sources are in contention? -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand exactly what you're asking me here. Can you provide a bit more detail/context/information? Thanks... Michael Trigoboff 02:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess we are both confused. Why did you start this section and point out WP:RS? What "point" are you trying to make? -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says right there in that rule that it's not mandatory. It's a guideline. I do not think that your application of these rules is appropriate to this topic. I think that is what we need to discuss. You are claiming that every single thing in this article must have some source in published material. To repeat myself, I do not think that's appropriate in this case. -- Michael Trigoboff 02:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that applies to pointing out which sources are reliable, but Wikipedia still doesn't allow original thought or original research (ie, statements about on-off nights without sources). -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I finally understand what you were trying to point out. You thought that the rule I stated was a guideline, but it is in fact an official policy. I shall provide the correct Wikilink now:
From WP:V:Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Further from WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

From WP:NOR: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.
Further from WP:NOR: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.
Also, WP:V and WP:NOR combine to provide the first standing point of Wikipedia:Five pillars. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Trigoboff has pointed out, you are obsessing over rules that are designed to keep crank scientific theories and libelous biographical articles out of WP. Neither is at play here. There are jillions of articles in WP that don't reference every fact according to the above rules. Many of these articles are full of non-truths, distortions, and the like, and deserve to be gone over. You've never claimed that one thing in this article was untrue, just that it was unverified. I'd suggest you find a more serious article, where your attentions would make a much more positive contribution. Wasted Time R 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No way! I want to help make another article a good article and as close to fact as possible. Again, Wikipedia articles are about verifiablity, not truth. This is a particular high interest of mine, so I will continue to make this article better with yours and Trigoboffs help and I appreciate it a lot. Thanks! -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, it won't be a "good article." It will be a useless and boring article that captures nothing important about the Deadhead phenomenon. See my comments in the next topic down. Michael Trigoboff 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A picture
I was thinking, one thing this page needs (other then working out the unsourced, POV statements, haha) is a picture of some sort. I am going to look around for a picture of the "Dead Freaks unite" statement. If not, I was thinking a "steal your face" skull. Thoughts? -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 05:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures would be great, assuming you get them past the (legitimate) copyright/fair use rules. Wasted Time R 05:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rec.music.gdead postings as a source
I'm going to use Usenet rec.music.gdead postings as a source for some of what needs sourcing. Now yes, I know that Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet says no to this. And for any one posting, they are right; there's no way to know its authenticity. However, taken en masse, Usenet posts are a valuable primary source. If there are, say, several hundred posts from several dozen different posters over the course of several years, and all say that some Deadhead subculture or practice exists, then you'd have to be a full-on conspiracy theorist to think all those posts were fabricated. Deadheads were one of the first groups to form virtual communities, and it would be silly to ignore such a valuable historic record.
And I am sure there are academic papers that mine Usenet archives to draw sociological conclusions about all sorts of topics. Indeed, academic researchers have always drawn on personal diaries, newspaper letters to the editor, and other forms of public statement by ordinary people; any one instance can be suspect, but if examined in large enough numbers, they form the basis for reasonable conclusions. So Moeron, does this avenue for sourcing seem legitimate to you? Wasted Time R 05:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I should point out that such a resource is verifiable; everyone has access to the same Google groups archive. Wasted Time R 05:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An example of such a cite would be http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=rec.music.gdead+%22miracle+seekers%22&qt_s=Search, which gives 193 posts for "miracle seekers". There are also two additional advantages of using Usenet archives: they tend to be more contemporaneous, and they don't throw up false positives from cloned versions of earlier Wikipedia articles (a constant problem with regular Google searches). Wasted Time R 06:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reliable source. If there are no reliable secondary sources, then the statement may be original research and should not be included. Wikipedia is not a fansite; documenting what is said on Usenet is the job of a fansite. Just zis Guy you know? 11:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I don't think you're understanding the point here. This is an article that describes a particlar set of notably famous and unusual fans. As such, the volume of writings by these fans is a useful source. Any one particular writing is, of course, inherently unreliable. If I find a 1992 post that says someone ran into Bob Weir in the supermarket, and Weir said that he was embarrassed by the band and that they hadn't put out a really good album in 20 years, then of course that's unreliable and unusable. But if I find hundreds of postings across multiple posters and multiple time periods that say that a certain behavior among this fan group existed, then on what grounds are you doubting this? I don't think WP:RS was formulated with this usage of Usenet in mind, which is why I don't think it's appropriate to apply WP:RS here. Wasted Time R 12:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think you're understanding the point here. Anything whihc can only be substantiated from Usenet, is functionally unverifiable. From what I can see Dead Heads was originally an official or semi-official fanclub (a point not made in the article) and much of the rest is trivia. We do not exist to document the tremendously exciting things which go on in a Usenet group. Just zis Guy you know? 13:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Deadheads were just a fan club, then obviously this article has not done its job well :-( Wasted Time R 14:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia page describing "reliable sources":
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Therefore, the most reliable material available is expected, but sources for these topics should not be held to as strict a standard.
Applying strict rules of scholarship to a topic like this is going to result in losing all of the actually interesting and useful material about this topic.
Replying to JzG: No, the Deadheads are not and never were a "fan club." The Deadheads were the audience part of the group phenomenon that was led by the band. At a certain point in time, the band got curious about who the Deadheads were, so they put notices on their albums and put together a mailing list. But the Deadheads existed before the notices and the mailing lists.
If you insist on the rigid application of these rules to this topic, then you might as well just delete the whole topic -- because all you're going to have here is a useless compendium of irrelevant (but highly documented) "facts" that won't provide an accurate description of the phenomenon.
Michael Trigoboff 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 129: / Line 129: @@
 :As Trigoboff has pointed out, you are obsessing over rules that are designed to keep crank scientific theories and libelous biographical articles out of WP. Neither is at play here. There are jillions of articles in WP that don't reference every fact according to the above rules. Many of these articles are full of non-truths, distortions, and the like, and deserve to be gone over. You've never claimed that ''one thing'' in this article was untrue, just that it was unverified. I'd suggest you find a more serious article, where your attentions would make a much more positive contribution.   [[User:Wasted Time R|Wasted Time R]] 05:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 ::No way! I want to help make another article a [[WP:Good article|good article]] and as close to fact as possible. Again, Wikipedia articles are about verifiablity, not truth. This is a particular high interest of mine, so I will continue to make this article better with yours and Trigoboffs help and I appreciate it a lot. Thanks! -- [[User:Moeron|<font color="darkblue" size="-9" face="Constantia">'''MOE'''</font><font color="darkblue" size="" face="Constantia">'''.RON'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Moeron|'''<font color="red">''talk''</font>''']] | [[User:Moeron/Completed Goals|'''<font color="green">''done''</font>]] | [[User:Moeron/Sandbox01|<font color="black">'''''doing'''''</font>]]</sup> 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
+::Problem is, it won't be a "good article."  It will be a useless and boring article that captures nothing important about the Deadhead phenomenon.  See my comments in the next topic down. [[User:Michael Trigoboff|Michael Trigoboff]] 21:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 ==A picture==