Talk:Rainbow Gathering

External links

Peaceray, in response to your recent reverts to my edits:

• Please unrevert yourself here. These were my reasons for those edits:
  1. Per MOS:WORKS, I had changed the subsection from "Bibliography" to "Full citations" because for whatever reason, the heading "Bibliography" is supposed to be used for lists of notable works by the subject of the article (e.g., On Mark Twain's BLP, the subsection "Bibliography" is a list of Twain's works, not the sources used to create his article). MOS aside, IMO, "Bibliography" is confusing here because if that short list is the bibliography, what's the "Notes" section? I looked at WP:FNNR for other ideas for what to call that subsection and that's where I got "Full citations". "Citation footnotes" would work too. I don't care that much what that section is titled and we don't have to use their suggestions, but I couldn't think of anything better on my own.
  2. I removed the Butterfly Bill citation because, except for that one, the other sources in that list are cited in the article with shortened footnotes and needed to be expanded to their full citation. Butterfly Bill's self-published memoir isn't currently cited, as it shouldn't be since it isn't RS, and it's also not an appropriate suggestion for further reading for the same reason per WP:FURTHER. It's arguably WP:BOOKSPAM and I don't see any good argument to keep it in that list.
  3. Other minor edits that consolidated a duplicated citation and standardized the citation format.
• Here you replaced an external link to an unreliable source[1] and said, "A list of the gatherings is entirely germane to the article & does not violate the Wikipedia:External links guideline, IMHO." It is germane to this article and I wouldn't oppose having/linking to a list like that if it were reliably sourced, but a self-published website that's a mirror of a former WP article that was deleted by consensus for being unsourced is the opposite of RS. And external links need to be RS (at a minimum).

As an aside, these events get a lot of media coverage, so I can't imagine it would be that hard to do a little googling to find solidly reliable sources (i.e., reputable, mainstream media sources) to support a list of Gatherings. Since people seem to feel so strongly about having that information in the article, I can't figure out why no one has bothered. —PermStrump(talk) 00:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump, two things:

• Please do not use acronym overkill. I have 270% more edits than you do, & I have know idea what you mean by RS, nor can I find anything by that acronym in the link that you provided at links normally to be avoided. If an experienced editor like me cannot understand what acronyms you are using, imagine a newbie trying to understand you. Really, please take the time to spell things out in a way that is easily understandable to the vast majority of editors. That's the purpose of a piped link, after all.
• Do you have a problem with the inclusion of a list of Rainbow Gatherings if properly cited?

Peaceray (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Peaceray, Sorry about that... RS means "reliable source". As far as the link to the list of Rainbow Gatherings at htfiddler.net[2], the specific sections of the external link (EL) policy I was referring to were:

Links normally to be avoided: 2. unverifiable research, 11. personal web pages, 12. Mirrors of Wikipedia: "Copies of Wikipedia are not reliable sources and not acceptable external links in articles per the verifiability policy." (source's emphasis)

It's clearly a personal web page and we know #11 and #12 apply because the first sentence is: "I am hosting this list temporarily since it was removed from Wikipedia in April, 2016 due to lack of citations." We can tell from the page source that it's mirroring/transcluding a section from a former version of the article, which, aside from being inherently unreliable, is a potential copyright violation (see link to "Mirrors of Wikipedia"), so htfiddler probably wouldn't want it in the external link section if he realized that. As far as the Bill Butterfly memoir, it's not a reliable source because it's a self-published book.

To answer your question, "Do you have a problem with the inclusion of a list of Rainbow Gatherings if properly cited?" Hypothetically, no, not if it were properly cited with reliable published sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (i.e., no self-published websites). I don't doubt that most of it is accurate, but there are probably some mistakes, maybe not, but we need sources to verify that. —PermStrump(talk) 09:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Generally, any copy that I add is well sourced. I am all about citations. Peaceray (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rainbow Gathering. 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/20120510210207/http://www.welcomehome.org:80/rainbow/index.html to http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

2018 World Rainbow Gathering is going to happen in Taiwan? No references.

We read "2018 World Rainbow Gathering is going to happen in Taiwan.[88]" But 88 is a 2013 article, Jidanni (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Where can I upload sound recordings

I have roughly 17 years of field recordings from rainbow gatherings mostly from US gatherings, but a few world gatherings, too. My web site with featured recordings: https://soundsfromtherainbow.org/ I feel the oral tradition is still the primary medium of rainbow subculture, and it would be a nice addition to feature a link to said recordings for curious ears. Thoughts? I've never wiki edited before so forgive if this is the wrong place to ask. Tenalihrenak (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Tenalihrenak: Hi, I have attended about 15 of the US gatherings & have been editing Wikipedia since 2010. I use the same nickname at the gatherings & as my Wikipedia user name.

The media repository for all Wikipedias & other WMF projects is Wikimedia Commons (usually just called Commons). To upload files, you can use the Upload Wizard. The advantage of loading it to Commons is that other language Wikipedias & other Wikimedia projects can also link to the files.

You will need to chose one of three licenses: CC0 (essentially releasing it into the public domain), Attribution/CC-BY or Attribution-ShareAlike/CC-BY-SA. This page will explain licensing better than I can.

I hope this helps! Peaceray (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not NPOV

This article currently reads to me as very biased with a clearly negative point of view. Most of the negative comments reference the same source. Somebody with an agenda seems to be responsible for much of its current state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:E6CD:2801:8D16:FC1F:66B6:F70A (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

agree. "Spiritually, there is a strong tradition of Cultural appropriation, with the largely white attendees performing their ideas of Indigenous ceremonies, African drumming, Rastafari, Eastern religions, Neopaganism, and freethought. " seems particularly troubling. Leaving the race bashing aside... Africans don't have a lock in on drums, all cultures have drums. And there are certainly genuine Rastafarians, Buddhists, etc... there. Neopaganism isn't white? as for "freethought", wikipedia's own page says <<Critical thought has flourished in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, in the repositories of knowledge and wisdom in Ireland and in the Iranian civilizations, and in other civilizations, such as the Chinese, and on through heretical thinkers on esoteric alchemy or astrology, to the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation.>> this hardly seems like "Cultural appropriation". 173.93.205.188 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The examples ("...their ideas of Indigenous ceremonies, African drumming, Rastafari, Eastern religions, Neopaganism, and freethought...") appear to be original research, but the claims of cultural appropriation that are sourced should remain in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the blanked content that was sourced. While there is an appropriation section, it is well within policy guidelines to briefly mention these things whenever spirituality or reputation of the group comes up, as it is a core component of the Rainbows' identity and activities. This has been stable, sourced content for years and you will need broader consensus from editors in good standing to remove it. Additionally, there is significant criticism of the group in this article as there is a great deal of criticism in WP:RS sources. There has been increasing ecological destruction and violence at these events over the decades. It's no longer a small, hippie gathering. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 20:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Shortened footnotes

I plan to revise the two shortened footnotes "Niman 1997" & ""Sentelle 2002" in accordance with Help:Shortened footnotes & {{sfn}} so that the full citations will appear in a separate reference list (commonly called Sources) instead of being tossed in willy-nilly with the other footnotes. Please see WP:SRF#References list & Template:Sfn#Usage for examples. Peaceray (talk) 05:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)