Talk:Hippie

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)

The POV is there, but it is hard to imagine a worthwhile article on hippies being written by someone who didn't feel some sort of affinity for the subject. So I guess we are stuck with it. 67.173.10.34 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Larry Siegel

Alternate Spelling?

I have no idea why I'm thinking this but I used to think that hippy was an acceptable/alternate spelling. Is it?--71.131.179.39 (talk) 08:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster you are correct. I changed the lead sentence to reflect this. Thanks! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

M-W notes it as a variant only and otherwise avoids it. Wikipedia should, too. "Hippy" is also an adjective that means having large or prominent hips and it is therefore ambiguous, while "hippie" has only one meaning. In all but the most square and clueless contemporary literature, it was usually "hippie". The -ie suffix is also in keeping with other epithets such as "commie", "preppie" and "yuppie" -- and make no mistake, "hippie" was very much an epithet, a word initially applied only by disapproving outsiders. One would have been hard-pressed to find anyone strolling around the 1967 Be-In who would self-describe as "a hippie"; that only came later, after kids who read about "hippies" in the mainstream media appeared on the scene and in some cases willingly adopted the label. 66.81.241.33 (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Why does hipster redirect here?

Seems they're very different things, at least when comparing 60s hippies to modern hipsters -- totally different.

If you all really want to present them as the same thing, it would warrant a new section for modern hipsters in the hippie article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.74 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Hipster seems to redirect to a disambiguation page, and the first choice on there is Hipster (contemporary subculture).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Roadmap to GAN

I would like to bring this to WP:GAN, but the article is not yet ready. Previous efforts to do this were led by a misguided editor who didn't understand the process, hence the auto-fail. If anyone has any concerns or misgivings about the current article, please share them here so we can address the problems together. Note, this thread is for identifying problems and fixing them, not for endless discussions or reminiscences about hippies or the 1960s. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Far too little on the international developments of the hippie movement

There is far too little in this article on the developments of the hippie movement in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, Australasia and elsewhere after its emergence. The current shape of the article takes the undeniable fact that the hippie movement's genesis is heavily bound with the United States, to overload the article in favour of the early US years of the hippie movement, and away from the later years of the hippie movement. Hence I am putting a {globalise} tag on it.

217.44.247.75 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Bell bottoms and a peace sign do not a hippie make

Could we please have some other lead image than the present superficial fashion-centric one? For all we know, the young lady shown was attending law school, wouldn't touch LSD with a ten-foot pole and had not the slightest intention of abandoning the depicted distinctly unhip residence with its wall-to-wall carpeting and dropping out of mainstream society, even if only just for a summer adventure. Unless they were parent-funded wannabes, not too many "hippies" were buying expensive fancy pants from boutiques. Some of the hippest of the hip wore nothing more radical than a white or solid color t-shirt and peg-leg jeans, or second-hand shirts and slacks from the local thrift shop. The more colorful clothing was typically home-brewed, the product of piecing together found fabrics or ornamenting with embroidery. But the point is that the "hippie" subculture was primarily a matter of practical philosophy, not a fashion trend -- if anything, it was anti-fashion, of the passive "just let it grow" (hair) and creative DIY (clothing and decor) varieties. 66.81.241.33 (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the image may show a WP editor, and there aren't any reliable sources that suggest that she was either a superficial or unsuperficial hippie at the time. Changing the image every few years is a good idea - but what alternative image would you suggest? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The photo is by the uploading WP editor, but evidently not of her: per her user page, she was only eleven years old in 1969. Hard to say what might best be used as a replacement, but something showing a sartorially diverse group of people would be less likely to reinforce the confusion of hippie culture with cliché late-1960s fashions and poses -- a photo from the Be-In, perhaps, or of an urban or (non-nudist, if there was one) rural commune of the period? 66.81.241.33 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but the suggestion that one had to touch LSD to be genuine really offends me. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

One didn't have to touch it to be "genuine", but however offensive anyone may find it and however un-PC it may still be to mention, the reality is that LSD was the nuclear fuel and the nearly universal sacrament of the "hippie" culture in the Haight-Ashbury and other major centers of the phenomenon. It often had a pivotal impact on users' world-views and philosophies of life, usually one antithetical to materialism and the zero-sum game. An extreme ten-foot-pole aversion, except as the result of a bad experience, was very atypical. There were certainly some acid casualties (skiing and mountain-climbing can be hazardous, too) but contrary to contemporary propaganda nobody stared at the sun and went blind or is still languishing in a padded cell convinced that they are an orange. Most veterans survived with only an occasional psychedelic glint in the eye as a tell-tale mark and some have substantially enriched the arts (many musicians, actors and graphic artists who lived through the period), sciences, and even commerce (most famously, Steve Jobs). At a remove of nearly fifty years now, it would be absurd to be coy or dishonest about this aspect of the subject. 66.81.241.33 (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are old enough and speak from experience? I was around then too, right smack in the middle of the hippie movement, and you are over-emphasizing LSD. I hope you don't try to get your drug-happy memories into the article, a very gross exaggeration which is offensive to me. LSD users were a definite minority, and the more hard drugs you used, the less respect you got, the less hip you were considered, by the rest of us. Being regularly out of control has always been considered dum-dum in every human culture. Hippies were humans, not animals. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My "drug-happy memories", huh? Where do you see those recollected? I am well-aware of the very dark side of the Haight drug scene, which apparently brands all of it as evil in your perceptions, but it amazes me that anyone who was there could deny the major and fundamental influence of psychedelics, both indirectly through the founding Beats and their pioneering experiments in the 1950s and directly through the contemporary products of Sandoz and Owsley that were making the rounds. In writing the posting above, I had in mind the halcyon days of 1966-67, which I was in fact too young (or rather, too sensibly cautious, unlike some of my contemporaries) to experience first-hand. Perhaps you are speaking from experiences in the grim burnout years that immediately followed? Unless you count as "LSD users" only those who were "regularly out of control", i.e. thrill-seeking party animals rather than occasional serious inner-space explorers, your claim that they were a disrespected minority (along with your DEA-like apparent classification of LSD as a "hard drug", like heroin and speed) is a new one on me and thoroughly at odds with the published, broadcast and online recollections and commentaries of a number of "name" veterans of the Haight, which have been my primary means of fleshing out my understanding of its peak years. Unsurprisingly, different people, different experiences, different perspectives, different conclusions. 66.81.241.33 (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)