Talk:Hippie/Archive 7

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! &mdash; 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)

Article lacks depth of feeling
This article is not all that bad but I find almost nothing in it which moves me. Aren't there any reliable sources for a bit of gripping text?

A real hippy, as I remember what was soulful about us, accepted that label as an acknowledgement of being hip to the lip. I commented on that once before like this:

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. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the memories ... but please find some WP:RS's for all that and have a go at adding content. Vsmith (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "but" ??? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As in: this page is for discussing improvements to the article and not for personal memory sharing. Get some solid references and edit or propose an edit here based on those references. Vsmith (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Amazing to see how what I wrote - precisely for discussing improvement to the article - could inspire anyone to want to start ordering me around like a policeman and being unfriendly. Amazing, alienating and saddening. I think I'll stay away from here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2014 (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) 114 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)
 * Please create a new article Haight hippies for your pro-drug viewpoints, and stop generalizing about what this one is for. I promise I won't read it, edit it, supply images for it or comment on it. The genuine hippies I knew and still know have never had a holier-than-thou attitude about themselves and such scientifically/psychologically expansive (what garbage!) use of mind-blowing drugs to which you refer as some sort of a model for all of us. I do recall 4-5 people who never came back from those scientifically/psychologically expansive trips which you seem to admire. They were then permanent basket cases who got locked up. So much for the freedom of hippiehood, for them. Nothing to admire there. And definitiely nothing hip. Haight hippies were a small minority, so if that's all you want to refer to, I'm out. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you bother to actually read them (I find it increasingly hard to believe that you have done so), you will find that this and several related articles are already choc-a-bloc with mentions of LSD and other psychedelics and coverage of the archetypal Haight-Ashbury scene. None of that is my doing, so kindly direct your wrath elsewhere. All I did prior to your first comment here was allude to the stereotype, but it seems that the mere appearance of that three-letter acronym in a new talk page post was enough to ring your alarm bell and start up your boiler.
 * FYI, the word "hippie" was unleashed into the general public by the mainstream US media in 1966-67 as a moderately derogatory label for the shaggy, scrounging, pot-smoking, acid-dropping weirdos thronging San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood, Ground Zero of the shocking (and therefore profitably media-exploitable) new social phenomenon. (Being aware of that baggage, it always startles me to hear someone self-describe as "a hippie" or apply the label to someone they approve of -- it is like hearing a right-winger call himself or a like-minded friend "a reactionary".) You said you were "right smack in the middle of the hippie movement", so I thought that was the time and place you were referring to. As the word "hippie" obviously means something very different to you (no Haight, no LSD), the creation of some new, more specialized article, or a new subsection of this one, would seem to be your task to accomplish; it is certainly not mine. You could title it Genuine hippies, to accord with your most recent rant, but NPOV and COI considerations might end up getting it moved to something more specific and descriptive, like Rabidly anti-drug angry and intolerant Swedish monarchist hippies -- assuming, perhaps very unfairly, that the folks you speak of are cut from the same abrasive cloth as the self-anointed guardian of the purity of their reputations. 66.81.220.171 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pulling this back to the left margin and, hopefully, back to the purpose of this page -- improving the article, not general discussion of the subject -- the redeeming feature to be brought forward from the exchange above is that it highlights a need for the lede to start off with a more clear and concise statement of what the article means by that word "hippie". What was/is a hippie? A stylish collegian who wore bell-bottoms back when they were fashionable and flashed the peace sign for a snapshot? A hairy denizen of the Haight-Ashbury in 1967 whose idea of bliss was taking a dose of LSD and dancing to the Grateful Dead in Golden Gate Park? A drug-eschewing vegan ascetic who prefers to meditate alone in the mountains and devotes all of his free time to a spiritual quest? A woman in a three-family back-to-the-land rural commune who spends most of the day attending to farm chores? A misfit teen in London who linked up with several others to squat a warehouse and who goes dumpster-diving for meals and other needs? Anyone and everyone who is considered significantly unconventional and "bohemian" by other people who are not? Clearly, the word has come to mean different things -- sometimes very different -- to different people. 66.81.220.171 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What's the least hippie-like about you is not your drug pushing (into this discussion) but your sarcasm and bullying, though I will say your analysis of types and different perspectives is much fairer in this last paragraph than in your belligerent and vicious cruelty toward me just above it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really not see that a statement like "Please create a new article Haight hippies for your pro-drug viewpoints" is provocative? It was very uncool and un-Wikipedian of me to rise to the bait and indulge in a sarcastic parting shot in my reply, but I stand by the substance within the ill-chosen form: you come across as not merely anti-drug, but rabidly so and intolerant of any less zealous stance, and anger unbecoming a hippie is palpable in some of your words. I am not pro-drug, I am pro-fact, this being an encyclopedia and not a Sunday school. The fact is that a river of acid ran through hippiedom in its early years, and while your circle and many others may be drug-free, some people still regard various substances as sacraments and occasionally "check in", albeit much more moderately, responsibly and discreetly than in the reckless past. I do not myself indulge in anything other than cannabis and I do not advocate the use of any drug. Drugs (including alcohol) can make people trip and fall and break their necks. However, neither do I believe in distorting history or suppressing facts because they might lead someone to opt for a risky course of action. Now if you can restrain yourself from replying with yet another zinger about my "drug pushing", we can draw a double line under this and move on to more pleasant pastures. You have set yourself quite a task below, boiling down the poetry of your own experience into some kind of cited encyclopedic prose, and I most sincerely wish you well with it. The addition of a lucid insider perspective on the latter-day hippie world would be a hugely valuable contribution to the article. 66.81.243.70 (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Back to the matter of that lede photo. I poked around in one of the archives a bit and find that others have been making similar complaints about it for years, but nothing ever happens. The uploader's description at Wikimedia Commons is "Young girl dressed in hippie fashions of 1969", which is far more accurate (although I would modify that adjective to "hippie-inspired") than the "Hippie woman ..." label someone put on it here. It simply shows some store-bought 1969 clothes and a "hey, look, I'm a hippie!" pose that can be found in countless old snapshots. So I am Being Bold and retiring it and moving 2005 Rainbow Gathering Dude up to take its place. Although not the vintage Be-In or 1967 Haight Street group shot I would have liked to see (no such photo seems to be available at the Commons), it depicts a specimen I believe everyone here could agree is the genuine article, based on both the habitat in which it was found and the visible plumage. No bell bottoms or tie-dye, but a number of far more traditional hippie dude accoutrements are present: long hair, leather headband, medicine bag, beads, bells, a bit of fringe, portable musical instrument of choice. The gawking tourists from Straightsville ought to be satisfied that they've seen a real live hippie and gotten their money's worth. 66.249.174.214 (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing the old photo from the lede and replacing it as 66.249.174.214 suggests. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A man playing on his guitar does not a hippie make. A 1960's girl in bell bottoms is very hippie. Regardless, need consensus before changing. Slight  Smile  17:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Ghmyrtle. The image with the girl looks posed for the purpose. The guy brings back memories. And, please, this is not a sexist vote! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Historical pictures are often posed. Maybe less so WWII and later than in the Civil War but posed doesn't necessarily make it fake. Also it's funny how people percieve things differently. For me the recent photo of the guy gives no sense of the hippie movement at all. And who said anything about sexism. Slight  Smile  18:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A man playing on his guitar at a Rainbow gathering and bedecked with traditional hippie accessories which have never crossed over into the commercial fashion world does a hippie make. A 1960s girl in bell bottoms is a 1960s girl in bell bottoms, fine for an article about 1960s fashions but not for a lede image here. By 1969 pants like those were available at Macy's and were thoroughly mainstream for middle-class teens and young adults. This article is about an outsider lifestyle and philosophy, not a type of pants leg. (same IP editor as the last IP above, do not count as a separate vote.) 66.249.175.60 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well put. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A compromise of sorts occurs to me that might satisfy anyone who simply does not want to see Bell Bottom Girl go away: move credentialed Rainbow Gathering hippie dude up to the lede position, but preserve Bell Bottom Girl as an illustration in the "Art and fashion" subsection, re-captioned as what the uploading editor who took her picture says she is -- "Young girl dressed in hippie fashions of 1969". Because hippies neither worked for the fashion industry nor thumbed through the pages of Vogue deciding what they were going to wear that season, per my earlier comments I would change the phrase "hippie fashions" to "hippie-inspired fashions". Tagging on "and making the peace sign" would preserve the worthwhile link provided by the current caption, but the LA locale is unremarkable and that datum is only a click away. The vote is currently three in favor of a change, one against. Unless the balance shifts in the next few days, or there are objections to this modification of the plan, I will go ahead and make the changes described. (same IP editor) 66.81.241.172 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Move bell bottoms girl down, I could live with that. But I never did like the guitar player picture long before this discussion came up. How about Flower Power demonstrator until we find something better? I know it's not too great either and it's already used in the Politics section but as the IP said, there just isn't much in Commons. Slight  Smile  23:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the flower power pic for now. Have access to a lot of hippie photos from back then, but European such. Shall I look for something there or do we need an American photo? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think ideally an American photo. How about if you find something good that's European use it temporarily in the lede. A work in progress. Slight  Smile  01:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Poor blackballed Rainbow Gathering guy. To me, he seems usefully generic and of no specific time or place, while interestingly being an Israeli at a gathering in Russia and of relatively recent vintage. The only fault I find in him is that his beard is a bit too disciplined and fastidiously tended for a proper hippie. Flower Power Girl is certainly a historic image, but it veers off into political activism and typical hippies were/are notoriously apolitical. The hard reality is that no single image, especially one of a single individual, can possibly provide an at-a-glance visual summary of the spectrum of hippie flavors and lifestyles this article encompasses in its text. As dispensing with a lede image entirely is not a realistic option, it would be nice to see something that conveys a sense of the joyousness of peak hippie experiences, regardless of whether it shows first-generation pioneers at a seminal 1960s event or young neo-hippie "Touchheads" ecstatically boogieing at a late 1980s Grateful Dead show or a qualifying tribe, if there was one, at this year's Burning Man.
 * Meanwhile, in the hope of seeing some quantum of improvement and forward progress before I die, I am about to be so bold as to change Bell Bottom Girl's caption per the rationale laid out in my last. She should then be better equipped to inform instead of propagating a misunderstanding of what hippie culture was about, although she still needs to eventually move to the fashion department. Because this far more modest edit rectifies a reportorial inaccuracy, it seems just possible that it may dodge this article's guardian editors' "undo" bullets despite not being endlessly debated here in advance.
 * Q: How many hippies does it take to change a lede image? A: (Insert your own punch line here) 66.81.222.96 (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A: Enough who still have interesting American (?) free images from that era, and a scanner. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever I try to scan pictures from back then my scanner gets all stoned man. Slight  Smile  18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, here is a photo of a San Francisco urban commune that provides, among other things, an example of what I meant by "sartorially diverse", and it is available by Creative Commons license. On the downside, it is in black-and-white, which I know is a problem for some people, and it was taken in 1972, when (in the US, at least) the folks this article calls "hippies" were far more likely to self-describe as "freaks". It would be a valuable addition to the meager hippie-related material on Wikimedia Commons in any case, so perhaps someone familiar with the appropriate licensing template there, which I am not, would take on the task of uploading it? A number of other interesting images are available from the same source. Just for the sake of balance, here is one showing a rural commune. I wonder how many of those "tie-dye diaper babies" rebelled against their parents by moving to the gritty city, spiking their hair, and doing a stretch of years as hippie-hating "punks"?
 * According to the edit history, Bell Bottom Girl, already transformed from "Young girl wearing ..." into "Hippie ...", was "rotated" into the lede spot at 01:08, 12 September 2011, over three years ago now. Where were the itchy "undo" trigger fingers and demands for prior consensus when that happened? For evidence that "hippie" does indeed mean a style of clothing to some people, one need look no farther than the top of this talk page, where "WikiProject Fashion" appears as one of the project categories, but that is not what 99 percent of the article's text is about and it is not what the lede image should be conveying. The sad truth is that more than a few people turning to WP to figure out what a hippie was/is will be forming their impressions based more on the most prominent image than on the text, so that IMO even with a revised caption the young lady is continuing to do actual harm where she is and needs to be moved out of that spot SOON. 66.81.223.169 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

No Mention of Mock funeral for 'Hippy' & perpetuating defining 'Hippy' is to perpetuate stereotyping
I was with someone who grew aggitated and a little angry when I used the word 'Hippy'. He asked me, 'what is a hippy?' and pointed out that it is undefineable and to attempt to define it or call people 'hippies' is to stereotype. He said he was at The Funeral for the word 'Hippy', where "we had a coffin that we put joints in and other stuff that people were calling 'hippy' and marched it down the road.... We were trying to stop the mass media stereotyping around the word 'Hippy'". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Death_of_hippie.jpg  Thus defining 'Hippy' here is to succomb to the very mass media stereotyping that they were against. Really unfortunate article because having it on wikipedia some how legitimises it and makes it harder for it to be challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.115.55 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is unfortunate the word "hippie" (BTW, note the typical spelling in the "Hippie funeral" invitation linked above) is being perpetuated here, but Wikipedia policy is that in most circumstances editors have to follow common usage rather than trying to enforce their own preferences. When it was popularized by the media, "hippie" was at best a mildly derogatory epithet, like "commie" and "yuppie", and as the posting above demonstrates, many people who resembled the stereotype in some way objected to being labeled with it, and still do. Perhaps the article could make that fact clear. Also check out the Etymology of hippie article, which strikes me as making some very debatable connections with early appearances of the word but at least notes its long history of use as an insult. 66.249.172.179 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080128161935/http://www.villagevoice.com:80/specials/0543,50thmcneill,69181,31.html to http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/0543,50thmcneill,69181,31.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080705015337/http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/system/Chapter9.html to http://www.berkeleypubliclibrary.org/system/Chapter9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080315025043/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3077305241438405731 to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3077305241438405731
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626200756/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/26/ALTAMONT.TMP to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/05/26/ALTAMONT.TMP
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110520190814/http://techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2006-01-21-1538-0.txt to http://www.techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2006-01-21-1538-0.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121102043642/http://www.mrsharkey.com/busbarn/rollown/rollown.htm to http://www.mrsharkey.com/busbarn/rollown/rollown.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070815092511/http://www.mfa.org:80/exhibitions/sub.asp?key=15&subkey=2147 to http://www.mfa.org/exhibitions/sub.asp?key=15&subkey=2147
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011133826/http://pranksterweb.org:80/trips.htm to http://www.pranksterweb.org/trips.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071113204525/http://www.mrsharkey.com:80/busbarn/misctruk/gypsytrk.htm to http://www.mrsharkey.com/busbarn/misctruk/gypsytrk.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090126015333/http://www.greenleft.org.au:80/1997/278/16698 to http://www.greenleft.org.au/1997/278/16698
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012103550/http://www.fwomp.com/int-johnmccleary.htm to http://www.fwomp.com/int-johnmccleary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090413150607/http://red-coral.net:80/DropCityIndex.html to http://www.red-coral.net/DropCityIndex.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080111043853/http://www.lib.virginia.edu:80/small/exhibits/sixties/index.html to http://www.lib.virginia.edu/small/exhibits/sixties/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

It is (almost) always a mistake to state that a particular individual is a hippie
The article's captions for several photographs describe the individuals in the photos as "hippies". This is almost surely wrong. Completely wrong.

Despite the fact that there was a hippie movement, characterized by various aspects of alternative lifestyle. . . virtually no individuals (at least in the United States) ever during the 1960s and 1970s called themselves "hippies". I can say that with some authority, because I was in San Francisco during much of the Summer of Love (1967) and lived in Berkeley 1968-1972, as well as during the summers of 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1980. During that time, various people I met adopted certain aspects of the alternative lifestyle that the surrounding culture associated with the concept of "hippies". Yet not even one of them called themselves a "hippie". Not one.

So while no one can deny there was a hippie era, and various things associated with it, these captions should be reworded so as to avoid stating with certainty that any individual was a hippie (whatever the word may mean).Daqu (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I too was there, but I do not agree. Let's leave it up to the people in the photos to decide themselves! Whatever we may or may not have called ourselves then, what we were in the eyes, ears, etc of the general public, looking back on us today, does not change that. If I call myself an "old hippie" in 2016 (especially in 2016!) neither you nor anyone elsse can tell me I'm wrong to do so. My tribe and I were glad to be hip, not ashamed of it in any way. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not really good enough. Firstly, we have no way of knowing whether the people photographed would describe themselves as "hippies" or not.  There is also the question of whether some of the photos add anything of encyclopedic value to the article.  Some may do, if they appear to be genuinely representative of the subculture - but others do not.   Peace.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To me, it (my opinion) is good enough. Never in my life using a dismissive phrase like "That's not really good enough." is one of the things that make me a (genuine) old hippie. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Let's leave it up to the people in the photos to decide themselves!" How would we know?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course Wikipedia shouldn't label people as 'hippies' in the captions. Some of them may self-identify as such, but look at the amount of people in the first image, if not all of them are 'hippies' then we've got it wrong. There's one caption I've changed to 'anti-war protesters' instead of 'hippies', because it was an anti-war demonstration and not a hippie gathering. Randy Kryn 16:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was there also and still see myself as an old hippie, even though I am now straighter than most of the straights who hate hippies. I wasn't on the bus though, more of a train here in Australia with the Whitlam government 1972 - 1975 being close to a hippie government with characters like Jim Cairns (treasurer) actively supporting hippie festivals. It might be relevant for this article some time. Jim_Cairns The photos here seem to be of hippies to me. Jed Stuart (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hej there Jed Stuart - we're being dismissed as irrelevant (again, and this time commenting on an article about us). Remember how we used to deal with that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * People's personal reminiscences and opinions may be interesting but aren't really relevant. Do we know that the people illustrated described themselves as "hippies"?  No, we don't.  Do some of the pictures add significant information to the article?  No, they don't.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The pictures seem fine, and are of people who could be described as hippies elsewhere. They do add information (clothes, hair styles, political and social intent), we just don't have to label them hippies in the captions. An editor has changed many of the captions, which now fit well, and the pictures still tell the story related to the page. Randy Kryn 15:14, 14 December 2016 (TUTC)
 * Thought of something. Removing the word 'hippie' from images containing non-notable individuals allows for the term "Hippie" to actually obtain, on this page, an accurate diversity. Descriptors like 'couple', 'young people', 'tourists', 'anti-war protesters' and other diverse labels now provide some of this accuracy. Randy Kryn 19:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus, there's nothing wrong with stating that the photos were taken during the hippie era, or that the hairstyle and clothing of the people in the photos is characteristic of people who were deemed hippies. (Or with different words that mean the same things.)


 * Just that (regardless of what any of us calls or called themselves — which is completely irrelevant since we are not dealing in probabilities here!!!) — we cannot label anyone a hippie if we don't know that they call or called themselves that.Daqu (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scrammagazine.com/franzoni
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180544/https://www.furious.com/perfect/reddogsaloon.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/reddogsaloon.html
 * Added tag to http://www.sagepub.co.uk/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book225374
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fchronicle%2Farchive%2F2005%2F05%2F26%2FALTAMONT.TMP
 * Added tag to http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/miller.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110155253/http://www.welovecult.com/2011/featured/dudely-lama-dudeism-interview/ to http://www.welovecult.com/2011/featured/dudely-lama-dudeism-interview/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124174715/https://www.welcomehere.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page to http://www.welcomehere.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Current end of article
The article ends now with what many can take as a bit of ridicule, not to mention pretty brazen promotion of something (a game of sorts? a parody?) called "Dudeism", which would be quite alien to anyone who was around genuine hippies 45-50 years ago. Sad to see that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this thing called "dudeism" is a little out of place here. The Big Lebowski seems to me more like something out of 90s slacker culture than something related to hippies.--Eduen (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Related discussion
There is a related discussion about including the Long hot summer of 1967 on the "Hippie" template at its talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hippie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830033310/http://www.hippy.com/php/article-243.html to http://www.hippy.com/php/article-243.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080719124620/http://www.welcomehere.org/ to http://welcomehere.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hippie
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hippie's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "LATimes 2007-08-05": From Sunset Strip curfew riots:

 From Pandora's Box (nightclub):

 From Sunset Boulevard:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)