Talk:Woodstock

Template:Vital article

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)

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 I did not find any information that was out of date or that could be added.TDoncovio51 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)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)