Jump to content

Talk:Hippie

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Randomocity999 (talk | contribs) at 20:23, 23 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeHippie was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 31, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
May 15, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Breathtaking POV

I can't think of a stronger example of POV than the attribution of the long list of social advances to whatever it is this article refers to but I removed the tag from the Legacy § for the usual reason given in the log. It's also amusing to see the typical etymology job on a word you saw come into existence. I doubt any etymology is valid, it was just there at the right time when the subculture emerged that would receive it as a label. Geo. Carlins hippie-dippy weatherman was apparently first performed in '67 and I'm sure Steve Allen and Louis Nye used the term before that. 72.228.177.92 (talk)

Lead-in photo

How do we know the woman in the lead-in photo is actually a hippie? She could be an actor, a poseur or a woman in a period costume. Is this really a good representative photograph?

A better representative photo would portray a widely known figurehead or member of this movement.

I don't know anything about an anonymous woman's would views, politics, etc., but a photo of Dylan, Lenny Bruce, or any of the influential figures of the 60s would hit the point home.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Axatax (talk • contribs) 06:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We know because she said so, and she's an editor here. Do you really think Dylan is going to admit to being a hippie? Very doubtful. And Lenny Bruce? Come on. You won't find a source where Lenny Bruce says "I'm a hippie" because he never said he was. Yes, we can improve the use of images; no, replacing it with another image that can't be verified isn't the best option. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We know because she said so, and she's an editor here."? Isn't that the very definition of original research? How is that verifiable? I've often thought this photo was questionable.
Lenny Bruce may never have called himself a hippie, and he might not have been one, but Stephen Gaskin did so repeatedly; even declared that he puts "hippie" on forms asking his religion to this day. Wavy Gravy has always calls himself a hippie, too. Rosencomet (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading a photo taken by a Wikipedian to illustrate a topic has nothing to do with "original research", so no, it is not the "very definition". Please read WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Image use policy, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images to find out more. What is "questionable" about the current photo, and which photo are you proposing to replace it with here? A photo of Stephen Gaskin or Wavy Gravy? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan and Lenny Bruce may not have been the best examples, but as a person from a much later generation, I have to make assessments based on the resources available to me. The woman in the photograph may portray the quintessential hippie image, but that still doesn't prove she's a hippie. I can dress like a corporate CEO, a Goth or a Metalhead, but this doesn't make me part of any of these sub-cultures. Lacking credibility, I would deserve the label of poseur. I have no doubt about the editor/woman's crediblity, but there is better photography available in the public domain for an encyclopedia article about this subject. --Axatax (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to "prove" anything, nor is anyone questioning her claim. I'm not sure where you got that strange idea. The image, like most images on Wikipedia, is used for the purposes of illustration. You are welcome to contact the user at User talk:Jeanne boleyn. But for the last time, we are not here to debate or discuss the authenticity of Jeanne's membership application in the hippie subculture. Feel free to propose an image below. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her membership in any sub-culture is not in debate, but this is not an appropriate photograph for this article.--Axatax (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why is it not appropriate? What is inappropriate about it? As an image used to illustrate this topic, it is entirely appropriate. Your implicit argument, is that you want some guarantee of authenticity to her membership in the subculture. That's just silly. The alternative that is being presented here, is that we should only use "official" photographs of hippies. And that's even sillier. Next thing you'll want to know is, how many joints did they smoke and whether they burned their draft cards. Next stop? No true Scotsman. Viriditas (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because a photograph of an individual unknown to the general public lacks any bona-fides to the claim of hippie for the purpose of an encyclopedia article. The first person that comes to your mind when you hear the word "hippie" is probably not the woman in the photograph, but rather a widely photographed icon of this era. Chances are, there are accessible copy-left photos of a person that would satisfy these requirements.--Axatax (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. We have any number of articles that feature user created and user submitted photographs that illustrate the subject, perfectly inline with our policies and guidelines. There is no requirement that the user must register with the Official Hippie Registry or any other such nonsense. If you have a specific image to propose for inclusion in the collage/mosaic I've discussed below, then upload or name it, but I must ask you to stop any further appeals to no true Scotsman fallacies and non-existent policies. Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the collage/mosaic/tile image solution that has worked well on articles about men, women, and various ethnic groups. Please use this space to propose multiple images for use in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose that Hippie (etymology) be merged into Hippie. I believe that this information would be more appropriate within the context of its own section within the Hippie article, and do not think that it is necessary to have a page dedicated entirely to its etymology. Please discuss below. Benjitheijneb (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merge. There is too much information here, Hippie doesn't need to have this many kb on etymology, that article's already long. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. Dedicated etymology pages are quite common on Wikipedia and this subarticle is not in any way shape or form a candidate for a merge. It is, however, a candidate for a revert, as it looks like it has been significantly degraded compared to previous versions. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw support for merge. My original concern had been based on notability of the information in having its own article, but seeing the other examples of notability criteria for etymology pages, I now consider my concern to be unfounded. As a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, should I simply remove the merge proposal tags on the relevent pages based on the consensus? Benjitheijneb (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, with no support, anyone can remove the tags at any time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Hippies use side door"

What's the story benind those signs? Thanks 219.78.115.187 (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it was designed to treat hippies like black people were treated—as second-class citizens. In the pre-Civil Rights era, blacks were only allowed to use side-entrances in many parts of the U.S. I don't know if the signs were intended to be serious or not, or a way to annoy hippies since they supported Civil Rights for blacks. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looking for picture

dangitall * what happened to the picture that was at the top before it was replaced by the present woman * i wanted it as an example of the lame stereotypes a hippie isn*t * is it in a history of the site somewhere * 75.147.48.65 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)grumpy[reply]

Origins of the words 'hip' and 'hep'

I've identified three sources that cite 'hip' originating from 'hep', which itself originated in the very early 1900s (1903-1908), though how or where is uncertain. Therefore, I've removed the part of the introduction that stated that the origins were "certainly" of African American roots. Here are the three sources, in case I am reverted again and they are not showing on the main article:

Randomocity999 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of the term before 1903-1908 may be uncertain, but the modern sense of the word coming from the African-American jive era slang of c. 1940 is verifiably cited to Sheidlower and should not be removed again. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up your last source and very interestingly, it says "hip" is attested in 1904 as "apparently black slang", and "hep" not until four years later, in 1908, as "underworld slang". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The origins of the word and its meaning are cited by three independent sources as being uncertain, with no mention of African-American origin. Therefore, I find your conclusions inaccurate. Perhaps there is some indication of African-American influence on the term, but more likely, given the available references, its meaning is simply of unknown origin, therefore to state "with certainty" that it is of such origin is simply unsupported.Randomocity999 (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just go to the third source you gave, etymonline, and then click the link from there to the entry for "hip". There it says "hip" is found in 1904 as "apparently black slang". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that part of my previous comment because I found it. The point is that no source claims certainty; the one source of mine that does intimate African American influence claims it loosely (apparently). Therefore, the intro language should be softened to more accurately reflect the available evidence. The intro doesn't even have the year correct: it states 1940s, while the sources provided indicate a much earlier origin, and not necessarily African American. Randomocity999 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hippie&oldid=539943704"