Talk:Hippie/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

More emphasis in Britain and famous people

Britain was an important hippie scene. I think the UK scene deserves a special section. Probably i don't know but it seems in the US they didn't suffered those attacks as in UK. Somebody or the creator of the article referred to skinhead, teddyboys and mod revivals as the attackers, but i never learnt about it in the US case.

Another special mention is the group of hippies later to be famous. In the US I understand there were Cher or Janis Joplin (although she was famous at the time, i think), and in the UK, the counterculture or lifestyle featured many interesting cases: John Foxx (later a New Wave and synthpop pioneer), Derek Forbes (later to be bassist of the 1980's band Simple Minds), Gareth Jones (later synthpop bands Depeche Mode and Erasure producer), many of the members of Manchester post punk band The Durutti Column, and probably Joe Strummer of The Clash and Lemmy (later a heavy metal man in Motorhead). I think they should be mentioned in the article as famous hippies.Francodamned (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "famous hippies" would be a terribly hard section to manage. It would be filled with questionably categorized people, especially those who did NOT become famous during the sixties. And how famous is famous, and how much of a hippie qualifies? Iconic figures who DEFINED the hippie movement like Timothy Leary, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Ram Das, Wavy Gravy, and such might be able to be singled out, but adding all the "famous" musicians and celebrities would be a nightmare. How would you decide; by their dress? Public statements? Hair length? How would you separate Beat from Hippie when so many were both at one time or another, like Neal Cassidy? The list would be enormous, including members of the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Big Brother, Velvet Underground, The Beatles, The Byrds, The Animals, and dozens of other bands, and individuals like James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul & Mary, Joan Baez, Cat Stevens, Simon & Garfunkle, Arlo Guthrie, etc. Add actors like Jane Fonda, Goldie Hawn, and Dennis Hopper, models like Ultra Violet, artists like Andy Warhol, poets like Allen Ginsburg, etc etc. And how would you deal with folks that had a "hippie period"? Some were best known for that time, but would not call themselves hippies now; might even resent it.

"Later to be famous" is just as bad, IMO. And present hippies vs former hippies complicates it all. Rosencomet (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Counterculture of the 1960s is working on a sourced section about famous countercultural icons right now. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will to live

The main motive for becoming a hippie in the 1960s was to avoid being drafted and sent to Viet Nam, where there was a high probability of being killed.Lestrade (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, not exactly. Being a hippy did not by itself exempt anyone from the draft. And there was a lot more to it than that. For many people it was a principled way of branding oneself in order to show resistance to the war. For others it was simply a great party, and one wanted to dress, and act, appropriately. Obviously any attempt to simplify "motive" to just one issue is likely to be prone to error.Apostle12 (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Would that it were so easy to avoid the draft!Rosencomet (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Got a little overzealous thinking I was reverting vandalism, and somehow missed that the above material (Rosencomet's) was in a talk page. I reverted Rosencomet, than reverted myself. Taquito1 (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Being a hippie in no way exempted people from the draft. If hippies wanted to avoid the draft, they had to avoid it the same way everyone else did. It is a mistake to assume that draft evader = hippie. Dick Cheney, certainly no hippie, avoided the draft by getting deferments.--RLent (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

..and, of course, there were hippies in many places outside the US, and where the draft issue did not apply. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, Lestrade raises an interesting point which we are seeing a lot more these days with the help of evolutionary psychology, etc. I think it might be interesting to pursue this with good sources. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be useful to bear in mind that in the 60s anyone who called him/herself a "hippie" probably wasn't. Good old Donovan Bess helped to give the word currency among the naive. If you were "in the life" in Frisco or other west coast locations, or involved in London underground culture "hippie" was used in ways that ranged from derogatory to satirical and regarded as a straight media label more than anything else. It was adopted more earnestly by late comers to the party, late 60s and 70s and those that employed it in marketing to young people. And the draft tried to chase you down wherever you went, which is one reason I left behind the delights of the Haight Ashbury and moved to the UK and later on to Canada. Altcult101 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were a young adult in 1967, you would know that becoming a draft–dodging, war–protesting, drug–addled, border–hopping Hippie was a common way to avoid becoming a dead soldier. Of course, the world being what it is, the lifestyle was imitated throughout the world, thanks to the power of the mass media. It continues to be an influential way of life 43 years later. Every time that the U.S. engages in a war, the original reason for being can be seen in the reappearance of Hippie protests. Young people want to live, copulate, and feel pleasure. The Hippie lifestyle expresses their attachment to life and their horror of early death. Lestrade (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

(speaks into watch) We've got one that can see! :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron Butterfly

I notice that Iron Butterfly is listed as among the bands that played at the Red Dog Saloon during the summer of 1965. Do we have a source for that? I seem to remember that the band formed after the Red Dog era. Apostle12 (talk) 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Travel section

Still requires sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment in the View History" page, "Welcome back Mombas, and thanks for continuing to promote Nambassa. However, this material is unsourced and challenged as original research. It requires sources" Perhaps you would like to suggest what sources you might require given I only posted a relevant photo which is contained in the main Housetrucker article which incidentally did make it to the front page. However it good to see you still dragging the chain. Mombas (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Wal-Mart hippie"

Columnist David Brooks has written eloquently about a concept he calls the "Wal-Mart hippie" [1]:

Today, another social movement has arisen. The people we loosely call the Tea Partiers also want to destroy the establishment. They also want to take on The Man, return power to the people, upend the elites and lead a revolution.

...

But the Tea Partiers are closer to the New Left. They don’t seek to form a counter-establishment because they don’t believe in establishments or in authority structures. They believe in the spontaneous uprising of participatory democracy. They believe in mass action and the politics of barricades, not in structure and organization.

I'm at a loss as to where to incorporate this into the current article; I don't think old-style hippies and "Wal-Mart hippies" would get along so well.--NeantHumain (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say it has no relation to Hippies whatsoever and best added to its own category. I don't know how left you can pretend to be especially with Palin as guest speaker at the Tea Party Conv. After all, the KKK and Neo Nazis were anti-establishment too and I certainly wouldn't call them hippies!Mombas (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's clear the "Wal-Mart hippies" are hippies of the right, not of the left. Maybe the concept of the hippie needs to be revised to accommodate both the classic-style hippies of the New Left and the right-wing hippies of the Tea Party. Obviously classic-style concepts like free love, free expression, and drug use aren't shared between the two; so what we're left with is a core of rowdy, anti-establishment protesting as Mr. Brooks describes. Perhaps this article should be split into Hippies of the Left and Hippies of the Right.--NeantHumain (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Brooks is redefining the word out of any meaning, whether in order to attack the Tea Partiers or the hippies or both is unclear to me. He's deliberately stretching the term out of all meaning to make a point. It's certainly irrelevant to this article until and unless the phrase becomes genuinely notable (highly unlikely by now). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

North Beach

I am puzzled about the reversion of North Beach as the central neighbourhood identfied with the Pre-hippie Beat Generation in the opening paragraph. There were a few Beat connected people who lived in the Haight in those early days but apart from NB more of them lived near Fillmore, around the lower Mission Street areas and in other low rent places. Outside North Beach you were more likely to find Beat "community" clusters in Sausalito, Big Sur or down in Venice West. Altcult101 (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because it was an unsourced change. All the research several of us did already, pointed to the Haight for the hippie origins on the west coast (note "hippie", not "beat"). If your version is correct, there must be WP:RS reliable sources supporting your change. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This controversy seems out of character for the peace loving communities of the beats and the hippies (hey wait? that was an illusion?). But, then those who were there have been shouted down here before. There are many examples of 'beats' transforming into the hippie genre (GEK III comes to mind). It was only a matter of the timeline. NB was there in the early 60s (say 63) for the early adopters of the mood. Was the HA thing more connected with the influx of those musically inclined than with the philosophical aspects? jmswtlk (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this isn't a beat community, you know. And no controversy, all we need here are published sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There’s a bit of a misunderstanding. But in spite of that it is incorrect that the term hippie was first applied to evolved Beats who had moved out to the Haight. The much younger, post-Beat people that created the lifestyle and look were mostly State College (and other college) students and their friends. Once the scene was underway and there was more going on in the district than another slow day at The Blue Unicorn a number of BG associated people came out to play. Some of the younger people who had previously been hanging out in North Beach did move to the Haight, but in the early 60s they were part of the speed and weed scene there and were around Beat hangouts like Mike’s Pool hall, The Hot Dog Palace, The Swiss American Hotel and a squatted closed-up shop, The Church of the Last Exit. And they weren’t Beatniks either. Also it’s curious that hippies were able to live in Greenwich Village in the mid-60s. I know there were a few music clubs they gathered in and also Washington Square, but it was a very high rent place by then – so thought the East Village was more likely? Altcult101 (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Eight Finger Eddie

Hi, I'm posting this here as this page has a lot of watchers, one or more of whom may be interested in creating an article on Eight Finger Eddie, founder of the hippie community in Goa who died recently. There is an obituary here and lots of stuff available online which I cannot access due to my location. Best, Philg88 (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Goa & european hippiescene

One of the biggest aftershocks of the hippie subculture is the international Goascene, wich is still living in many fastivals all around the globe,

like: http://www.rainbowserpent.net/ in australia http://www.boomfestival.org/boom2010/ in portugal http://www.antaris-project.de/ in germany http://www.transylvania-calling.com/ in rumania and many many more. trance& dance, love and freedom are the values of these festivals. boom is highly ecological as well. in germany the smaller spiritual healing festival combines goatrance with the roots in yoga and other spiritual hippie roots.

another point is the european hippiescene, for example there is in Germany the biggest hippiefestival of europe, wich is older then the woodstock festival, its name is burgherzberg-festival. look at http://burgherzberg-festival.de/ its growing year by year.

sry for my english &

boom shiva —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.27.13.192 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

I really do think there should be a criticism section, due to the prevalence of depictions of hippie culture throughout media both good and bad. Sorry Orangemike wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.245.208 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Criticism is welcomed, but it is best contained within subsections by topic. I myself have tried adding lots of criticism, but it has either been removed or moved to a subpage, so there is a legitimate need for it in the current article. As someone who has approached this topic from every conceivable angle, I think the most important criticism regarding hippies surrounds their relationship with soldiers from the Vietnam War. If they were truly all about "peace and love", they would have heaped this upon the returning soldiers, but according to most commentators, this didn't happen. The second most important criticism concerns the irresponsible use of drugs, which while a valid form of "yoga" and spiritual introspection for some (see Huxley's thoughts on the matter, etc.) was a dead end for most. The third most pressing criticism, concerns several different things, including the treatment of minorities, women, and homosexuals within their subgroup. However, this should all be couched in terms of the hippies as a youth movement, since their mistakes were really those of children rebelling against their parents and lacking direction, a neotenous stage for young adults growing up in the 1960s and early 1970s. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms have their place; it's just that that place is not in a separate "Criticism" section. That's as true of hippies as it is of, say, Richard Nixon. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would be mentioned under a criticism section, but I do think there should be some mention of the term "hippie" as a pejorative, particularly by right-wing political figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.78.187 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Style

lol, it seems like this article was mainly written BY hippies. Like this:

"Aftershocks (1970–present) By the 1970s, the 1960s zeitgeist that had spawned hippie culture seemed to be on the wane."

Doesn't that sound like it was written by a hippie? I'm not complaining, I just think this is interesting. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 18:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You realize you're on Wikipedia, don't you? Jersey John (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The authorship may be as Sithman describes, but what of it?

You cannot learn about Carthage from the Romans!   Ornithikos (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I think some of the photos in the article are not of hippies at all. What proof do we have that the Swedish guy or the girl from 1969, for example, were hippies? There were zillions of people who dressed and wore their hair like that in the late 1960 or early 1970 without them being hippies in any way.--Mycomp (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that this is representative. It's what people generally think a hippie looks like. If it's necessary to get technical one could get permission to use a photo from Time or Newsweek. I'm sure Gene Anthony (The Summer of Love, Haight-Ashbury at its Highest) would grant permission for one or more of his photos of Lenore Kandel, Carolyn Adams, Jerry Garcia, Ron Thelin or Michael Bowen, etc. to be used. --Bluejay Young (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Suspected" by whom and for what specific reasons? Self-promotion of what, astrology? IP who has made only 2 conrtibutions ever "suspects" something. The image relates specifically to the astrology mentioned in the article's text. I believe that's why it's there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What does astrology have to do with that image, useful or not? The pic seems ok as an illustration of a hippie. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed the poster on the wall? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the Swedish guy is definitely not a hippie. The blue shirt with badges, scarf and jeans looks like a typical 70's Swedish scout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.32.53 (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have done my best to research the photo, outside of what is given about it at Commons. Anyone knowledgeable would know that hippies in their mode of dress were known to show unconventionality and disrespect toward traditional clothing, especially uniforms etc. Here we have an American cub scout shirt and scarf (not Swedish) used in that hippie's childhood and reused intentionally later as hippiewear in Stockholm. There is also a holster with a squirt gun, in the outfit, which he apparently used in his work and social fraternizing as a disc jockey that summer for a typical hippie-era make-love-not-war message.

Anything else (aboveboard) on your mind, one-time IP contributor? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

merge Flower child to hippie

I can't see that the article (Flower child) offers anything that can't be easily included in this article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this page itself states that Flower child is a synonym for Hippie, so what could be so different in their meanings that would warrant a completely separate article? Dylan (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I kind of like it to be separate. The "Flower Child" article goes into greater detail and explains the relevance of the term to key 1960s events. Apostle12 (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Apostle12. It's not an exact synonym, though it may overlap with both "Hippie" and Flower power - note that 'Flower child' is treated as a more political manifestation or subset of certain 1960s movements or trends, while "Hippie" is more general and also more of an "exonym" (I can aver that many who would be labeled or lumped together as "hippie" certainly abhorred that term.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I third it. Keep them separate. Flower children were a specific type. There were many hippies -- the Thelins, Lenore Kandel, the Diggers -- who would not fit the description of flower children. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a (no-drugs!) hippie, but never a flower child. The differences are vague to me now, but there were differences. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are differences and they can be sourced they can be explained here. Support the merge. Very little unique content and none that couldn't be included here.--SabreBD (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest at this point that the merge idea be scrapped. If no significant objection arises, I will remove the tag suggesting same. Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Early use of the term "hippie"

In a 1959 article by Lewis Lapham in a San Francisco newspaper publication, the article title: The Poets Cry Out 'Zen Nuts, Hippies, Squares' was about the Mad Monsters Mammoth Poets' Reading for Auerhahn Press!!! that took place on 29 Aug. 1959 in North Beach, San Francisco, CA. So the term was already being used in the late 50's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.105.91 (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Good find, it should be added to the associated 'etymology' article. (qv) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done a little more research on this article that appeared in the San Francisco Examiner. The subtitle that includes the term 'hippie' is a portion of a quote from a poem read that evening in 1959 by Beat poet Philip Lamantia (one of the six poets on the bill at the Six Gallery in 1955, that is said to have brought about the birth of the Beat Movement) describing the people he hung around with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.105.91 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC) The poem is titled "The Immediate Life": "I go around with whoever. ...mads, squares, demi-poets, zen nuts, super-gigolos, hippies, flips, spade-trumpet players and a lot of others too numerous to mention. If you're hip, you'll know what I signify." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.105.91 (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

As the article makes clear the word "hippie" appeared sporadically during the late 1950's and early 1960's, however our contemporary use of the term gained traction during the mid-1960s. Apostle12 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The article says "Although the word hippie made isolated appearances during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the first clearly contemporary use of the term appeared in print on September 5, 1965, in the article, "A New Haven for Beatniks", by San Francisco journalist Michael Fallon."

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippie_(etymology) gives citations of various articles from the 1960s that precede the Sep. 5, 1965 article.

I really don't understand why the use of the term in that particular article is considered more important than the use of the term in November 27, 1964 in Time Magazine or its use in the December 6, 1964 New York Times.Kaltenmeyer (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your confusion. So far the consensus has been that previous references were to individuals who were trying to be "hip," i.e. "hip wannabees; the word "hippie" was used pejoratively to refer to them as individuals, rather than identifying them with the well-defined group that came to be known as "hippies." During the summer of 1965, the people who came to be known collectively as "hippies" established a well-defined group identity. When the article refers to "the first clearly contemporary use of the term," this is what is meant. A bit arbitrary, I know. Apostle12 (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

"The hippie subculture still exists across the United States and remains relevant today." Is this claim supported by any sources, citations, or anything other than personal belief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.165.164 (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A very good question and an important one for the credibility of the article. It might alternatively be said that the subculture for all intents and purposes is dead, buried and mourned in the USA of today. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That might indeed be said, except that the hippie subculture isn't dead or buried, and if it were, most people would not mourn it. Labels like transcendentalist, beatnik, hippie, freak, and many others, are transient names for the perennial countercultural movement sometimes called Bohemianism. Those who find Bohemianism threatening pass laws against it, delete it from the history books where possible, and pretend it is extinct where not.

Consequently, as Bohemianism goes in an out of fashion, new movements seem to appear and disappear, each with a new name. When Bohemianism is fashionable, transients join it in large numbers, creating the illusion of an explosive new trend. When the fashion changes the transients depart. This gives the impression that the trend has collapsed, and depresses Bohemians who do not understand their historical roots.

Bohemianism is alive and well around the world. It thrives in enclaves associated with educational and cultural centers, in experimental rural settings, and increasingly online. It provides a source of perspective on mainstream culture, and sometimes pioneers alternatives that the mainstream later adopts; consider the worldwide ecological movement. That is how "The hippie subculture still exists across the United States [actually the world] and remains relevant today." Ornithikos (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Beautifully written and also quite valid of course.

I take issue with a very few of your opinions: my impression (as an old hippie myself) is that the minimal, nay microscopic, real effect of Bohemianism on society is to be mourned by all humanity.

What has the Internet done for us in comparison with the great elevation of human life quality so many of us thought would be quickly accomplished with it, when we all were enabled to communicate and band together so freely? What happened and how could this be? (That's like a constant nagging daymare to me.)

And what is the real - not pretended and showy - effect on politicians and what they have (not really) done for us on such vital matters as "the worldwide ecological movement".

How many movements in history have stood in for real improvement about as effectively as subsitute teacher Mae West did by sheer happenstance before country schoolhouse lads in My Little Chickadee (one of the most hilariously implausible scenes in movie history)?

It seems we have created many more games and ways of playing them, but aren't we in more trouble today than ever before?

It's nothing like actually hugging a tree in a major European city park to prevent policitally sponsored workmen from getting to it with a chainsaw (which I did in 1971 - I hugged the same tree again a few weeks ago).

I wish I didn't have to say that I cannot see any real relevance left now, as compared to say 1969, for all of what we really wanted accomplished then, peace being foremost among those excruciatingly heartfelt things. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

" . . . remains relevant today" is editorializing WP:EDITORIAL, and was corrected. Also added [citation needed] in opening paragraph as wp:v Grimsooth (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Way overstating the scope of hippiedom

Hippie was always a very loosely used term, and I think the entire article is attempting to make something encompassing and whole out of something that was not. Most young people at the time did not identify themselves as hippies. Having the hair, clothing and musical tastes of the times did not make on a hippie, and neither did protesting the war or using drugs or exploring Eastern philosophies. People participated in some of these and rejected others; it was never a whole-cloth thing. Few serious students, intellectuals, committed political activists, or other goal-oriented people identified as hippies.

The term seems to have acquired significance decades later that it did not have when it was current. Many who are now associated with the so-called hippie movement considered the label a pejorative one and would never have used it for themselves.Djxb2001 (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. When I first started working on this article I made that point, and I cited the literature which said that young people identified as many different things, including "freaks". As I've stated before, we need to go from the sources and stick to them as closely as possible. What's going on here is that we have several editors attempting to mythologize the youth movement, and it appears that you've caught on to that. Can you point to a single source you've found to be reliable and somewhat accurate? Viriditas (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yablonsky's THE HIPPIE TRIP is probably the best contemporaneous overview of hippie life circa 1967-68. While the term "hippie" was used as a pejorative by those primarily identified with the Beats, and "straight" people definitely used it pejoratively, those at the center of the hippie phenomenon (Steve Gaskin, Stewart Brand and others whom Yablonsky refers to as the group's "spiritual leaders") adopted the term early on; for many it became a positive identifier. Even today, when Gaskin is asked his religion, his answer is most often "hippie." BTW, the term "freaks" was most often combined with drugs that tended to be disparaged in hippie settings, e.g. "speed freaks" or "meth freaks." Most libraries carry Yablonsky's book, and I would suggest you read it Kjxb2001; it's a pretty pure source, as it has not been edited since its initial publication.

If there are editors who are attempting to mythologize the hippie movement, I am not aware of them. Apostle12 (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "The term seems to have acquired significance decades later that it did not have when it was current."

That is good as a potential premise, but it will remain only a premise until we find sources, sources, sources that discuss this aspect for a conclusion.

If you look at the etymology article, it is clear the word hippie was already "current" in some circles in the 1940s and by the early 1960s was gaining currency in Greenwich Village New York and many other places, well before a certain San Francisco editorialist pompously declared that he invented the word. But because the pompous San Franciscan's claim got picked up in other publications, we have a sterling example here of an editor here who stands on "Verifiability NOT Truth" and as a consequence we teach in the very first paragraph that the movement was unambiguously born in San Francisco, no mention of Greenwich Village at all.

My hypothesis is that the word did indeed under go some pejorative change in the 1980s, largely as a result of British usage and influence. Two factors would be the 1) Peace Convoy, whom everyone else in the UK somewhat derisively called "hippies" even though most HATED the word, and 2) The character of Neil Pye on the BBC's "Young Ones" show did much to popularize the conception of hippies at that time, on both sides of the Atlantic, as the show was then picked up by America's MTV. This is, of course, only a hypothesis, of what you might possibly find if you were to dig up some actual sources that really discuss any changes over the decades in the popular perceptions of the meaning and usage of the label "HIPPIE". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I was a hippie and proud of it. Must assume all of you were, who are giving us knowledgeable opinions here. We were hip to the lip. If you know what that means, you were one of us, the proud ones. If not (you can ask me), you probably weren't proud and you didn't like to be called a hippie. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experience, but that doesn't help us write a better article. I know you want to help, so if you could explain what it means to be a "hippie" and why you were proud, that might point us in the right direction. How would you define a "hippie"? What makes this article different than, let's say, bohemianism or teenage rebellion? And most of all, why is this topic important? When you (or anyone else) replies to these questions, please don't reply to me. Reply as if you were writing to the cyborg-kids in 2150, who will be accessing external memory devices that allow them to understand the entire history of civilization in the blink of an eye—as they walk on the surface of a terraformed Mars. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Being hip to the lip was being aware of the talk, i.e. knowing more instinctively than precisely where it was all coming from and understanding how to put up with it, live with it, love life anyway. We were very aware and involved.

The lip we felt we were quite definitely hip to was all the glaring hypocrisy in politics, warfare, organized religion, commercialism, high fashion, racism, in marketing of everything from groceries to health care and medicine, automobiles, toys, careers, in the monetary system, standard education, the peddling of holidays, the treatment of native peoples, the never-ending Pharisaic control and defilement of the name of the real historic Jesus - whom we felt we knew without needing any details - and of many other great humanitarians, and above all: the lack of real generous, kind, friendly, mutually considerate Love. LOVE was the word, or still is, and those of us who write it, always use capital letters.

We were also hip to our own lip in describing our feelings, sometimes just in looks at each other, against all that almost insurmountable hypocrisy; singing, running, dressing, undressing, dancing, howling, laughing, sexing against it all, and gazing at the wondrous truth and reality of the moon and the stars, the mountains, trees, oceans, rivers, and little flowers... Drugs were a possibility for some of us, but not at all wanted as a lifestyle by all.

Some faked all this to try to fit in, a few very well, but we were hip to that lip also. They talked a lot, we didn’t.

We were the hippies, not the lippies. We were proud. These were feelings, very strong among us, often unspoken, usually undefined, that made us all sincerely feel like a global family. We knew we were there, and we knew where we were, even if we were spread around the globe and never saw and touched each others faces, as we would have loved to do. We were connected in a way that felt physical. It was a stronger bond than the Internet ever will be able to accomplish. It was heart and soul, not words. It was fire, water, earth and wind all wound up together in a bright-white-innocent-silvery-jingling magic of our own.

I could go on forever here, banging on this keyboard through my tears, but as you say, maybe this is of no interest or help to anyone anymore. And I most certainly cannot source it. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, Gaskin's MONDAY NIGHT CLASS comes close to being a source for much of what you write. Apostle12 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

More accurately, the revised primary source transcripts reprinted in Gaskin's Monday Night Class (2005) are a good source for Gaskin's beliefs about hippies. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical Amnesia

Though well-written, the main article lacks analysis which goes beyond the recording of phenomena to assign responsibility for QUALITATIVE CHANGES which the hippies imposed on the stream of American history. Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist. They do, and they are in the majority within policy-making bodies (official and otherwise) in American government and within society in general. To steal a march from the hippies themselves by calling upon Pogo, "We have met the enemy and they is us!" HIPPIE is not, and probably never was, a length of hair, style of dress, idiom of speech or any other artifact of self-expression; it is, and probably always has been, the sum of motivated actions to undermine and overthrow all that had been standard POV, custom and social practice before the Decade of Dissolution (1960s). This intent is presently expressed and enforced as Political Correctness and countless other forms of mandatoty self-hatred within the United States. Hippies haven't passed into history -- they have simply become "The Man". From what better point to enforce one's Revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.197.15 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That may perhaps be a debatable point of view, but being an open-minded and neutral encyclopedia project, we have this thing called "neutral point of view" that we use for handling points of view that are debatable, or opposed to other points of view. Basically, any point of view can be mentioned as such, provided its significance can be verified in reliable sources. So, if you could find any published sources that match your point of view, we could take a look at their appropriateness for mention. And this complaint makes little sense to me: "Chief among these errors of omission is the assertion that, save for isolated groups and nostalgia-prone survivors of the original era, hippies no longer exist." Uh, the article doesn't actually assert or imply that the hippies no longer exist, and how could it actively assert something it doesn't "by omission"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well said Eulenspiegel. I would add that we contemporary hippies never insist on "political correctness;" the unnamed author above is confused on that point. Perhaps he is thinking of a group that has no official name or historical designation; in the United States they might currently be called "leftist liberals" (with or without the pejorative sneer), though this group knows little of traditional liberalism. He is correct that this group DOES seek to impose its will through intimidation; hippies never did that and still don't. Apostle12 (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are speaking of satyagraha, but this was a practice of the American civil rights movement, not hippies. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Good word. Though I believe you are mistaken about the absence of this practice among hippies.Apostle12 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Top image of girl in apartment

Pardon me, but is the top image, added rather recently, really a good representation for this article? To get people interested? Looks to me like somebody dressed up kind of hippie style (maybe recently?) in a setting which looks more lite a standard, comfortable apartment rather than any atmosphere one would expect to see. No typical posters on the walls, no shawls hanging from the ceiling, no chimes, no incense, no long shag carpet - bland. And what's that on top of her head? Undiscernable. Just a thought. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a period pic from 1969, which makes it 43 years old. Viriditas (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"And what's that on top of her head?" LOL No doubt, it is some wall-mounted ornament behind her head... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Undiscernable and distracting thing, whatever it is. Cute Italian girl. Nice pinstripes (never saw them on any hippie back then). Inappropriate top image, as I see it. Hope we can find something much more engaging to go there. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Read what you've said here. You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle. Is that really what Wikipedia should be doing? Viriditas (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Some would say the photo bears a remarkable resemblance to User:Jeanne boleyn - maybe someone should ask her....  ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

V:"You're basically arguing that we should strive to enforce stereotypes about hippies rather than portray actual people associated with the lifestyle." I strongly resent that unjustifiable accusation. Why be rude? There's a big difference bewteen stereotypes and genuine, engaging atmosphere. I should know. Am strongly anti-stereotypes.

G: very good idea, if so. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Adam Curtis

I'm thinking about adding the critique of the hippie movement from All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011), a BBC TV series by Adam Curtis. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts about it. Going from memory, Curtis's criticism starts with several simple observations: the hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society, and their experiments with alternative communities failed because the models they used didn't take into account the human tendency to use politics and power to change society. According to Curtis, the hippies attempt to weaken politics and power struggles within their subculture ironically led to more of it, with bullying by stronger members of the group leading to less individuality and more oppression contrary to its stated aims. Of course, this type of problem has less to do with hippies and more to do with the nature of humanity. Nevertheless, this is one of the best criticisms of the hippie movement I've run across, so I would be interested in hearing what others have to say. If you respond, please refer to other sources of criticism if you can. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

As you put it, "The hippies were influenced by system theories popularized by flawed/incomplete computer models of the environment and society"....Can this really be true? I spent a lot of time with a lot of hippies, and I can say categorically that even the most cerebral among us never went there. Mostly we were simply naive; we did not understand that political and governmental structures exist to moderate power struggles that are an unavoidable concomitant of the human condition.

Probably the most aware hippie "guru" (though he would certainly reject the term) was Stephen Gaskin. I am not sure bullying and oppression occured at The Farm, an intentional community he founded, though certainly the community went through dysfunctional periods. The Farm still exists, and its forty-year history has been carefully documented. It would be revealing to compare Curtis'criticisms with the realities of life at The Farm.

Do you know where I might review Curtis' work? Apostle12 (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The entire series is available for free online.[2] One does not have to be personally aware of something for it to be influential. Disease is a good example. Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The disease analogy might apply if one could demonstrate that the relevant system theories had been sufficiently popularized by the time hippies began their experiments AND that hippies had been exposed to such theories, either by studying them, or because said theories had become major forces shaping 1960s culture. Will watch the series to see if Curtis adequately supports his hypothesis. Apostle12 (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What criticism of the hippies does the article currently contain? Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course criticism of the hippies should be noted, rather than promulgated, by the article. I see that quite a bit of criticism is noted in the section titled "Summer of Love 1967," especially the last paragraph. Reading through the article, counterpoints are also noted. Haven't yet reviewed Curtis' critique, however there may be an appropriate place for it in the article--perhaps in the sections that discuss hippie ideals,especially "Spirituality and Religion."Apostle12 (talk) 08:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it. Could you briefly rephrase it in your own words? Based on my review of the literature, there are several critical themes that come up more often than others. These include: sex, drugs, intentional communities, and the legacy of the hippies. From my own reading on the subject, I'm more familiar with the criticism surrounding drugs and the intentional communities, and less familiar with the criticism of sex and legacy. Viriditas (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather quote the article:

"With this increased attention, hippies found support for their ideals of love and peace but were also criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos...By the end of the summer, the Haight-Ashbury scene had deteriorated...Haight-Ashbury could not accommodate the influx of crowds (mostly naive youngsters) with no place to live. Many took to living on the street, panhandling and drug-dealing. There were problems with malnourishment, disease, and drug addiction. Crime and violence skyrocketed. None of these trends reflected what the hippies had envisioned. By the end of 1967, many of the hippies and musicians who initiated the Summer of Love had moved on. Beatle George Harrison had once visited Haight-Ashbury and found it to be just a haven for dropouts, inspiring him to give up LSD.[citation needed] Misgivings about the hippie culture, particularly with regard to drug abuse and lenient morality, fueled the moral panics of the late 1960s."

"The events at Altamont Free Concert shocked many Americans,including those who had strongly identified with hippie culture. Another shock came in the form of the Sharon Tate and Leno and Rosemary LaBianca murders committed in August 1969 by Charles Manson and his "family" of followers."

"Starting in the late 1960s, hippies began to come under attack by working-class skinheads. Hippies were also vilified and sometimes attacked by punks, revivalist mods, greasers, football casuals, Teddy boys, rednecks and members of other youth subcultures of the 1970s and 1980s. The countercultural movement was also under covert assault by J. Edgar Hoover's infamous 'Counter Intelligence Program' (COINTELPRO)..."

"While many hippies made a long-term commitment to the lifestyle, some people argue that hippies 'sold out' during the 1980s and became part of the materialist, consumer culture."

"At the same time, many thoughtful hippies distanced themselves from the very idea that the way a person dresses could be a reliable signal of who he was, especially after outright criminals, like Charles Manson, began to adopt superficial hippie characteristics, and also after plainclothes policemen started to 'dress like hippies' in order to divide and conquer legitimate members of the counter-culture. Frank Zappa admonished his audience that 'we all wear a uniform': the San Francisco clown/hippie Wavy Gravy said in 1987 that he could still see fellow-feeling in the eyes of Market Street businessmen who had dressed conventionally to survive."

Clearly the "Legacy" section could use more counterpoints, since the American right always considered hippies degenerates and to this day most conservatives are critical of the hippie legacy. The culture wars that divide contemporary American can be viewed as an afterburn of the straight/hippie dichotomy that began during the 1960s.Apostle12 (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Curtis' analysis could provide an effective counterpoint to this:

"Nevertheless such activism was carried through anti-authoritarian and non-violent means and so 'The way of the hippie is antithetical to all repressive hierarchical power structures since they are adverse to the hippie goals of peace, love and freedom...Hippies don't impose their beliefs on others. Instead, hippies seek to change the world through reason and by living what they believe.'"

Still not convinced Curtis' argument has merit, however it can certainly be noted as relevant criticism. Apostle12 (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lot of problems with that text. Let's start with sourcing and attribution. First of all, you are quoting a self-published book by someone named "Skip Stone". It's not appropriate to cite such a source as if were an historical fact. If we can even use such a source, you will need to be mindful of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. This is one reason this article cannot progress towards Good or Featured status. This kind of poor writing and even worse sourcing needs to be fixed immediately. Also, we don't generally write encyclopedia articles based on point/counterpoint. Most reliable sources on the hippie movement criticize the prevalence of sexism, the failure of intentional community building, the disastrous drug experimentation, and the failure of the hippies to even begin to attempt to change the system they rebelled against. What Curtis (and others) criticize is what they see as the flawed model that the hippies were working with in the first place, a model that Curtis claims is more machine oriented than human. Just to be clear, most critics aren't blaming the hippies for any of these things, but merely noting that these values were inherited from the previous generation. In other words, according to this criticism, no matter how hard the hippies tried to rebel, they fell into the same traps as the people they were trying to rebel against. The problem wasn't authoritarian, violent, and repressive hierarchical power structures, but rather the tendency of all societies, whether straight or hippie, to move towards that direction without proper checks and balances to prevent it. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't chide me as though I wrote the section I quoted from the article. I neither wrote it, nor did I source it. You seem perpetually to want to start an argument. Weary of that. Apostle12 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

To address the quotes you raised above, it is mentioned that hippies were "criticized for their anti-work, pro-drug, and permissive ethos". I would like to see that discussed in depth in their respective sections. It's also a bit misleading. Hippies weren't criticized so much for being "pro-drug" as for being on drugs, all the time. Some of the best criticism about hippie drug use comes from hippies, most of whom decry irresponsible and repetitive drug use. Nevertheless, history shows that government drug policies were also to blame, as private individuals were raided on their own property again and again. The dynamic interplay of individual freedom and social responsibility, love for fellow hippies and hatred for the establishment is where the real interesting criticism can be found. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of differing sorts of criticism to go around, much of it worthwhile. It's a small point, however I think hippies WERE criticized for being "pro-drug," especially with respect to LSD, which most hippies took only occasionally. One of the major losses of the era was the cessation of virtually all controlled scientific experimentation with LSD and other psychoactive substances, experimentation that had become quite promising during the 1950s and early 1960s. Hippies embarked on an enormous, uncontrolled experiment, where millions of young people took these substances, mostly just to see what might happen. Scary stuff for the society at large. Apostle12 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, American society is very pro-drug, so that's not a very specific criticism. What you are trying to say is that the hippies were pro-psychedelic. Also, taking a substance just to see what might happen isn't very wise. Granted, humans are inquisitive, but taking LSD over and over again isn't very helpful, and most hippies will agree with that statement. I think it was Jerry Garcia who famously said that he would take mushrooms once a year just to "clean the pipes out", and there is something to be said for that kind of limited recreational use. Putting aside Garcia's serious drug addiction, one could conceivably use psychedelic drugs safely, but I don't think anyone will agree that the hippies used drugs safely or reasonably. That's not to say it is government's role to regulate personal behavior, and I'm certainly not arguing that side. What I am saying, is that there are different views on the subject from members of the hippie movement. Richard Alpert and others wrote and spoke about moving beyond drugs. I can't remember who said it, but one hippie figure said that once you have had your eyes opened (to become "hip") there's no need to keep using the drugs again and again. The point is to understand the experience and incorporate it into your daily life. Of course, if you compare this with the alcohol and prescription-fueled culture of the establishment, then one can argue that drug use by hippies was of little consequence. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that drug use by the hippies was of little consequence, even by the standards of the 1960s where nicotine, caffeine, alcohol and valium were the drugs of choice among establishment folk. Today the scale of hippie drug use seems almost quaint, especially in comparison with the casual prescribing of SSRIs to more than 30,000,000 Americans (including children) for reasons ranging from minor depression, to anxiety, to weight control, to pain management, to Gulf War Syndrome, to post traumatic stress disorder, to major depression, to psychosis.....the list becomes quite long. In fact, most contemporary SSRI ingestion is also "just to see what might happen," since medical trials are grossly inadequate to predict the ultimate consequences when these drugs are taken by humans of varying ages, with varying genetic inheritances, and with varying physical maladies. I know from the experiences of close family members that monitoring of SSRI patients by medical professionals is amost non-existent.

Among those I knew, Jerry Garcia and Owsley (Bear) Stanley were among those who made a practice of occasionally tuning up their psyches through the ingestion of psychedelics. There are probably multiple hippie figures who observed "that once you have had your eyes opened there's no need to keep using the drugs (psychedelics) again and again;" Stephen Gaskin was certainly one of those, though he has acknowledged that psychedelic drugs are capable doing permanent harm to some individuals. Now that medical trials have begun anew, earlier work that showed a single "trip" could be permanently cathartic is being substantiated. I look forward to the legal availability of these drugs in psychiatric settings (controlled dosages and purity being the big issues) especially for the perspective such drugs can offer terminal patients. Apostle12 (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to Adam Curtis. Just watched the first hour of the three-part series. Curtis presents an intriguing, original analysis that I will have to ponder for awhile. So far I see only a faint, oblique relationship between Curtis' observations and the hippie ethos. During the remaining two hours does Curtis become more direct and tie things back to the hippie ethos? Apostle12 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Have now watched all three hours of the Curtis series. This is certainly intriguing work, knitting together as it does so many seemingly disparate threads of the self-deceptions that have prevailed during our era. I suppose every era creates its own self-deceptions, yet one doesn't often get the opportunity to recognize them in real time, even belatedly. As Curtis says, though some of us may have become aware of our errors, none of us knows how we might rectify them.

As to using Curtis' work, and the work of those he chronicles, to improve the "Hippie" article, I think it is quite legitimate to mention that the nearly universal demise of the hippie communes ("The Farm" being one exception, though I am sure others exist) may have been related to the issues Curtis explores. I can also see some legitimacy to the point of view that the hippie ethos sprang, at least in part, from the flawed idealism of "Balance of Nature" thinking--and from all the other related idealisms of our era. I don't think I could adequately summarize the massive amount of data, not the mention the storytelling, that Curtis manages to tease us with during three hours of video and commentary. I will leave that to braver souls, though I might contribute to editing whatever emerges.

One final point: I have not arrived at Curtis' position of...what is it, anyway...pessimism, cynicism, or hopefulness? Perhaps this is only because of my recent exposure to his disease, which I suspect may contain germs of a self-deception that are at least as dangerous as those he chronicles.Apostle12 (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no "failure", and saw no "failure" at the time, in refusing to conform to all the commercial, adult, fanatic, militaristic, divide-and-conquer hypocrisy that we shunned and did our best to isolate ourselves from. That was our conscious choice. It's a bigoted and ignorant failure, big one, to call that a failure. Why quote garbage like that? And how many arrogant rednecks or radical-sheek authorities are we going to quote, in that case? Never saw the slightest trace of bullying either. The only foolishness that could be called a failure was overdoing the drugs, and that was only an idiocy of ours, where some of us didn't see the strong commercial interests and elitist social pollutants behind that part of it too. That was sad. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Watch the Curtis film. He argues that the hippies were essentially tricked into giving up their power (dropping out of society, apolitical ethos). If the hippies hadn't been stoned 24/7 and instead, ran for political office and changed the system from within, how different would the world be today? Curtis argues that the rebellion the hippies engaged in, was pre-programmed by machine-based thinking. According to Curtis, this systems approach threatens the Enlightenment ideal of individuals controlling their own lives. Curtis says, "we have been colonised by the machines we have built. Although we don’t realise it, the way we see everything in the world today is through the eyes of computers. My underlying argument is that we have given up a dynamic political model of the world – the dream of changing things for the better – for a static machine ideology that says we are all components in systems."[3] I don't know if Curtis is aware of it or not, but famous hippie philosopher Alan Watts made a similar criticism, except he spoke of it in terms of "prickles" and "goo". Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that overt "bullying" was never a dominant theme at any of the communes I visited. The closest thing I saw to bullying was at Morningstar, located just north of San Francisco, where criminal black thugs from S.F.'s Fillmore District briefly terrorized other commune members, raping the women and violently assaulting anyone who came to their defense. Strong personalities did tend to dominate most discussions, which is nearly a universal human truth.

I would also challenge any notion that most hippies were "stoned 24/7." That was true of street culture in the Haight, however it didn't last long since the harmfulness of massive drug ingestion quickly became apparent. Also, as the article points out, the use of methamphetamine, cocaine, and opiates was disparaged in hippie settings. Most hippies I knew were recreational drug users for whom drug use caused little difficulty.

Most people left the communes because, in the final analysis, these places were just experiments--they didn't so much fail as they outlived their usefulness for those who participated. Most of us took the lessons we learned from "living in community" and applied those lessons in larger settings; in particular many of us learned invaluable communication skills based on empathy and the desire to create win-win solutions to difficult problems. "Love is all you need" was not just an illusion. My 1960s-70s living-in-community experiences still inform my daily life, to my own benefit and to the benefit of family members, friends, clients, and business associates. Apostle12 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well written, Apostle12! I effectively and beneficially use what I've kept from those times constantly in my social life and my teachings. Why try to blame the maximally hypocritical politics and mighty financial manipulations of today on any "failure" on the part of the hippie. Just another lame but catchy excuse for us to waste time on. Yawn! I always get quite offended by disgusting slurs such as "stoned 24/7" by nasty hippie-haters, and nobody should note and discuss such hogwash seriously. I don't need to watch any movies, especially not with hateful exaggerations that sound about like they come straight out of the 2012 Republican primary campaign. Screw that movie! I was there, what would I need to watch it for? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the first things you learn about exploring reality, is that it helps to have as many POV's to refer to other than your own. That doesn't make them correct, but it allows you to triangulate your position in the universe. The one thing you don't want, is a closed mind that sincerely believes in the validity of their own narrow POV. Questioning the cherished beliefs of others is easy. Questioning your own beliefs is quite another matter. You choose to live in your own reality tunnel. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbage is garbage. If you're very impressed by it, by whomever it is that's serving it up, by whatever career or special interest or POV it seems to serve, or by your own imagined cleverness in interpreting it as something more beautiful/useful than that, it's still garbage. Looks like garbage, reads like garbage, smells like garbage, offends like garbage. Teaches us (you, me anyone else) absolutely nothing in the learning we all need to continue to acquire. Just belongs where garbage goes. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You're spouting blind ignorance. The habitual use of drugs by the hippie community is well studied and established and not in question by anyone.[4][5] Sounds like you are experiencing a bit of transference. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

These two sources confirm what was happening in the Haight, especially among those who found their way to the Free Clinic. The hippie phenomenon, however, was much larger and the concentration of habitual users/abusers was much lower than in the Haight. Even for most Haight residents,"stoned 24/7" is an exaggeration with limited usefulness; outside the Haight this exaggeration becomes gross. Would encourage SergeWoodzing to watch Curtis' work for the insight it contains, though for me its relevance to the hippie ethos seems forced. Apostle12 (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I was there. That's all you need to know and respect, and that's all I need to tell you, if you really want to turn this into a personal attack. Sounds you like to ignore people (2 of us at least here) who know what they're talking about. Sad, for you and for the article if you prevail. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Exactly what is it I'm ignoring? And what is "sad" for the article? Seriously, try to communicate better, because I have not idea what you are trying to say. With all due respect, you do know about the current research regarding personal memories of events?[6] They are entirely unreliable. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

PS I'd be a bit careful, if I were you, with being too obstinate and showing too much longterm ownership here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that something is garbage without bothering to read or view it is promoting blind ignorance. That's not something I respect. Further, Wikipedia doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony, nor could your strange claims of "I was there" have any relevance in this discussion. If you don't have anything worthwhile to add to this discussion about adding criticism of the hippie movement, then don't respond, but please keep your bizarre rants to yourself. The criticism will be expanded per this discussion. Since you can't tell the difference between writing encyclopedia articles and "nasty hippie-haters" (whatever that is supposed to be) then you might want to leave the heavy lifting to others. Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit too much "pompous assism," don't you think V?Apostle12 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And typically disimissive article ownership. Virtually If you don't agree with me, shut up and get out of here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I think its time to dial back the attitude on both sides. I've worked with Viriditas on articles before in this field, and he is FAR from a "hippie-hater" - quite the contrary. On the other hand, whether the phrase "stoned 24/7" was his or Curtis', it was over the top, and contradicted by the very references Viriditas quoted on hippie drug use; and that was, as well pointed out, taken by studying clinic patients at Haight-Ashbury, an EXTREME group rather than a fair cross-section of the movement.

As far as the communes and intentional communities both urban and rural, I agree with Apostle12 and SergeWoodzing, based on my own experiences studying The Farm, New Buffalo, the Lama Foundation, and other examples, and decades of personal discussions with such original members of the movement as Timothy Leary, Paul Krassner, Ralph Metzner, Stephen & Ina May Gaskin, Nicki Scully, Harvey Wasserman and others, and more contemporary members such as Terence McKenna, R.U. Sirius, Jonathan Ott and Ivan Stang, that Curtis' work seems to be skewed towards a negative judgement of the movement and pays a bit too much attention to a handful of famous negative incidents rather than an analysis of the entire movement worldwide. There is something to say for having "been there", and I doubt Curtis was. I wouldn't throw terms like "live in your own reality tunnel" or "transference" around too easily about people you haven't met based on a handful of paragraphs, or "nasty Hippie-Haters" and "pompous assism" either. I think you guys are all on the same side, really (though I don't know about Curtis).

Personally, I think one of two main reasons there were some "failures" in the movement were 1. the naive belief that all you needed was good intentions and a lot of heart; The Farm's biggest challenges were because the members were young city kids with virtually no experience in ANY of the skills and resources to run a farm or a community, and it's greatest strength was that its leader was not only a wise philosopher and natural leader, but an ex-marine with a can-do personality, 2. both the hippie and psychedelic movements (sorry - there is no bright separating line) had many historical precedents, but never in human history had a consciousness-expanding utopian-society movement been a major pop movement with tens of millions of members and significant representation in mainstream society. This was like a magnifying glass on the movement, making it's good and bad features spectacularly evident, and pumped enormous numbers of people into it that were simply not the sort to be a pioneering member of what would normally be a fringe, experimental-lifestyle community thing. Haight-Ashbury is a perfect example; a significant amount of the problems there came from the sheer numbers of runaway and drop-out young people who poured in with no money, preparation, resources, or dedication and little understanding yet of what it all meant, just that "this is where it was at", with some vague belief that they weren't going to need anything but being a joyous seeker (and in many cases, they just couldn't stand to endure their home scene a minute more). The drug use with no information of use vs abuse, the predators stalking so many naive, let's face it, children, the lack of any plan to feed, clothe, shelter, treat when needed, and provide employment (and many would have been happy to have a job; they weren't all lazy, but there weren't anything LIKE enough jobs or anything else to go around) came substantially from the same place the problems at Woodstock came: no one had a CLUE about the numbers answering the call.Rosencomet (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points all. Thank you for weighing in. Though I frequently find Viriditas' attitude disturbing (hence my comment), for many years now we have successfully collaborated in the writing of this article. It is inaccurate to call him a "hippie-hater," and I respect his contributions. Apostle12 (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

There is some interesting criticism in the Emmett Grogan article that can be added here, and more can obviously be found in Ringolevio and other secondary sources. To get back into this discussion, looking through my notes I see that many hippie figures have accused the movement of failing, so it appears that observations made by Adam Curtis are supported in the literature. Peter Coyote makes a distinction between the political failures of the hippies and its cultural successes: "If you look at all the political agendas of the 1960s, they basically failed. We didn't end capitalism. We didn't end imperialism. We didn't end racism. Yeah, the war ended. But if you look at the cultural agendas, they all worked."[7] Further, Curtis's criticism of communes is drawn from leading scholars of hippie intentional communities, such as Timothy Miller, so I must object to Rosencomet's dismissal of Curtis as somehow unrepresentative of the field. For example, when you compare Curtis with Miller's The Hippies and American Values (2011), his criticism appears to be supported. Regarding my "disturbing attitude" that Apostle12 perceives, nobody can accurately judge or perceive "attitude" on Wikipedia. It seems like you are bringing your own perceptions to this discussion. As always, it is best to avoid painting others with your own perceptual bias and to focus solely on addressing content, not contributors. With that said, I think this "disturbing attitude" that you are perceiving has some basis in reality, and I believe it is rooted in my long-running objection to what I perceive as uncritical hippie apologetics from yourself and SergeWoodzing. Viriditas (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Rosencomet, for your sound input! I wish it would have been perfectly clear (my fault?) that my comment about "nasty hippie-haters" referred to whomever it was that used the term "stoned 24/7", not at any WP user that I knew of. My second wish is that the powers that be running this article would listen to and respect some of the information that some of us who "were there" have tried to provide in the best possible faith, particularly that there would be no more attempts to include in the article that all hippies did drugs and that most of them were habitual druggies. That's where I was confronted with a "disturbing attitude" first, quite some time ago. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement about hippies being stoned 24/7 is an example of hyperbole, and it is my own. In the same way that comedy is false but often illustrates true stereotypes, I intended this exaggeration to reflect common criticisms of hippies. Their withdrawal from the world rather than attempting to live in it, their escapism through irresponsible use of altered states and substances, and their penchant for pleasure rather than the hard work required to change the system—these are all common criticisms of the hippie lifestyle. This actually relates directly to Curtis's criticism of the communes, as it is often observed that communities that seek to remove themselves from society rather than participate in it have little staying power. One critic resolved to change this by building intentional communities not in rural areas but in the middle of suburban neighborhoods. The idea was that the integration of the commune into the community as a whole would provide stability and serve as a reflexive public model. As for drug use, it is a matter of record that the hippie lifestyle encouraged excess, with many hippies finding inspiration from William Blake's The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Compare, for example, Blake's "the road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom", with lyrics from a popular Grateful Dead song: "Too much of anything is just enough." And while it is true that we can attribute this to the nexus of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, there's also a bit of left-hand path tantra at work. Whatever the case, this kind of behavior has always contributed to the critical discourse and is fairly open and well known. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for clarifying where that came from! I had no idea when I commented on it and meant no offense to you of any kind. The term you chose to use is offensive and is insulting (as most exaggerations intended as slurs of groups or individuals usually are). Did I see an apology in there? SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology?...you dream Serge. What I got from V's postings is that he has been cleverly right all along, and his "disturbing attitude," even his much celebrated "pompous assism," is rooted in our lack of sophistication as hippie apologists.Apostle12 (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What is it exactly I'm supposed to be right about? It would help if you could support your statement. As an added bonus, it will force me to refine any outstanding burden of proof. Thanks for your help. Viriditas (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

George W. Romney incident

Grogan's so-called "kidnapping" of Romney and his wife and their subsequent interrogation by hippies in GGP deserves to be mentioned here. Viriditas (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's hippy not hippie

If you're talking about real hippies (mid-late 60's), it's singular: hippy (with a "Y"), and plural: hippies. Check any counterculture materials from the times (not necessarily mainstream sources). Slordax (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You might want to read our article Hippie (etymology) first. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

hippie communes

what are they — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.122.66 (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

See intentional community. More should be said in this article, of course. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

At this point, with no support, anyone can remove the tags at any time. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Hippies use side door"

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

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)

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

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:

• 1) http://www.britannica.com/bps/dictionary?query=hep
• 2) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hep?show=0&t=1361648094
• 3) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hep

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is certainly stated in most sources that by the 1940s it was primarily black jazz and jive slang, and that's exactly what the article correctly states. Before that is less cetain, and that's also what the article correctly states. What is the problem? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Randomocity999, your insistence on eliminating this seems like edit-warrring to me. Sheidlower is a noted authority, and if he says the word gained currency in African American culture, I trust his take. No one is arguing for African linguistic origins, which was your original basis for eliminating the reference. Apostle12 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that the first clause references "ultimate derivation", while the second clause references "clearly inherited": this is misleading because it can be seen as implying ultimate derivation from African American culture, which is not what the sources state, at least not anywhere near the level of "clearly"; that's my beef. Randomocity999 (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

For the word "hip" (or "hep") to be "clearly inherited" from African American culture (based on reliable sources) is not the same thing as saying that the "ultimate derivation" of this word is unknown. Somehow African Americans started to use the word, and it crept into the language of the Beats and the Hippies, that's all we're saying. What we are not saying is that the word itself is derived from a Wolof word or that we can otherwise trace its origins to ancient African culture. I presume you know that Jesse Sheidlower edits the Oxford English Dictionary. Apostle12 (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Many people edit the Oxford English Dictionary, though I was not aware that Sheidlower was among them. That's beyond my point, however; the manner of phrasing, with clause one referencing "ultimate derivation" and clause two referencing "clearly inherited", is misleading, pure and simple. It can be better phrased to lessen the implication that the ultimate derivation of the terms (and their meanings) flowed originally from African American culture. Randomocity999 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you write a new version that you believe more clearly conveys the reality (which we all agree on) and submit it here for review, comment, and editing so we can arrive at consensus? That's the hippie way, after all. :-) Apostle12 (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In classic hippie fashion, I've lost interest and am thus unmotivated to further pursue this. Perhaps the "but" can be replaced with "though"? Randomocity999 (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Change has been made; thanks for the suggestion. Actually most of us original hippies were quite motivated people. Apostle12 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Random has just been blocked for edit-warring (interestingly, at a different page, at the same time as the multiple reverts to this page), and so won't be able to (if he chooses to) respond to queries until his block is released.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2013 (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)

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