This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rainbow Family article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
There is more to the story than federal officers pointing their guns at children. You wouldn't guess that given the extremely POV version some editors are trying to push. (And I admit my initial addition of material about the incident was a bit snarky, but at least it didn't cover up people's actions.) 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Forest Service officers pointed weapons at children
I'm good with Geni's recent version. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
this event should have it's own entry. there are alot of differing perspectives among the witnesses. I was at this gathering, and it began with forest service going through peoples tents looking for something. They demanded not to be followed or witnessed and that was just the beginning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.223.113 ( talk) 01:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The ACLU press release about the results of their investigation is available here: [2] Dlabtot ( talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
i was wondering since i read all the articles that were used to talk about this section's problem, that, one, the ACLU did nothing more than make a statement about tickets,and other minor things. two, that they had only statements from people who were attending the gathering and no forest service statements to go along with their report, and three, in finding nothing other than frivolus(spelling) tickets and other misdeameaner items to talk about there was no actual event to further a UCLU person stepping in and cause a suit against the forest service which i would think if there was they would have done for sure. so basically you really have nothing other than a few folks deciding which news report to follow or believe in to make this section of the wiki article valid. to be neutral i would think that both sides of the disagreement should be put into such a form to balance the article out with truth, instead of onesided bias to the forest service. this should also include the word "non-lethal' infront of weapons that someone used, as that is moree truthful and more neutral. i would also point out to those who use onsided bias to actually go look for information from actual witness's statements to which i actually found some that mentioned the rocks and sticks being thrown before any pepper balls or rubber bullets by actual live gathering members on youtube. along with this i also found statements by live witness's who completely stated the opposite as well. this section has a long way to go before it can stand and be a neutral article. it might take some time from someone's life but it might put this article in the light correctly. i make no changes at this time but ask for a neutral based article to show all positions fairly and truthfully before the article is set and locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.204.101 ( talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
References
It appears that a series of IPs have been inserting the following text to the end of the Incidents section: ([ sample edit)
There are a few problems with this, first it simply exists (unsourced) to inject POV to the paragraph. The preceding paragraph already adequately spells out information showing both sides on the incident (although it doesn't appear to mention ACLU's findings: see here). An additional sentence is not needed. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The statements about the ACLU failing to prove any wrongdoing were not POV. They were fact. Without this info, the entire paragraph was wholly POV. 155.84.57.253 ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Completely verifiable. The ACLU report was entirely opinion. It contained no proof of any kind. 155.84.57.253 ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The ACLU report did not prove anything. That's where you should have stopped. It is only your bias on this subject that keeps you from admitting that point. 99.20.118.219 ( talk) 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
admitting the aclu report did not proove or disproove anything and the report from them is basically an opinion at that since no finding was determined. shouldn't it just be left out to keep the article neutral? and as far as the weapon item, that is just a quote from a member of the gathering itself, not a fact in position but just one person, to which anyone could find a live youtube statement to the oposite easily if one wanted to it was just a matter on how the reporter wanted to put his veiw(opinion) of what happened out there. both are definitive and usable in the structure of the article to wit negate both statements out of veiw. and it also tends to follow onesidedness and makes the article lopsided and untruthful using the word weapon by itself when in fact no weapon was used. if pepperball rifles are weapons, then it should be noted the various walking sticks to which also could have caused bodily harm were in attendance, not to mention knives in belt holders which is exactly where the weapons the officers carried were as well in belt holders. this is very evident in pictures in the news articles and videos that are on your tube taken during the incident. to say actual weapons were being pointed at children tends to make the average reader of wiki articles assume guns with bullets that could kill were used. no neutrality there and it tends to make the officers look like killers doing so. when in reality it was reported they only used the pepperballs to protect themselves after being surrounded. to think they were not surrounded i would point someone to past experience in colorado were officers were totally surrounded and had no non-lethal weapons and choose to leave after someone made a way for them, instead of fight their way out of a corner. in that incident it was shown by video they did have rocks and sticks thrown at them. again this is in the news reports and video on youtube made by gathering members on the site of the gathering. some just pick and choose which one fits what they want to portray and it then becomes biased.
on the 2009 incident on youtube there is a few videos where someone actually admits to rocks being thrown by some. facts can not be denied by statements from all people attending the gathering. not just a few select videos or statements reported by news sources, or a few reports chosen with bias towards an enity. live reporting by actual members on site trump any such report ACLU as false, or biased. and since this aclu report used actual people at the gathering, but choose not to use those that contradicted other accounts, or failed to recieve those other accounts that would have shown a different light on the subject. it then becomes a onesided report and becomes an opinion and should not be used in the article. again i say take the time to look through youtube, it only took me 2 hours of my time to do this. and to anyone who would not take the time to make sure the article is truth and not biased or make others do that work is biased themselves and should be removed from the forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.204.101 ( talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The revision previous made to the Pinedale incident by Slowart strips the incident from the incident. The point of the incident section is to eloborate where, when, why, and who was involved and give perspective on the incident. Eliminating facts, like the Forest Service being forced to remove the Boy Scouts, or the subsequent feelings of the state officials, is to strip out the meaning of the event. There was much more to the event than was evidenced by Slowarts revision, thus it was reverted. It may not be a perfect revision, though I kept your source. This is not a biased perspective, it is relating the facts of the event. Boy Scouts Had Permit, Were Going to Rehab Area > Rainbow Family Decided to Camp Where Boy Scouts Were Going to Camp (conflict) > State is Forced to Kick Out Boy Scouts (remedial action)> Boy Scouts and State are Left With Hurt Feelings (Resolution). There is nothing biased in that recitation of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kage a ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 October 2011
This statement is false. In this link [1] it mentions the incident team's Budget is $750,000. It makes no mention of what final operating costs are. Thanks Goldendelicious1 ( talk) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In connection with
this question at the Teahouse,
this discussion resulted in
User:Vchimpanzee obtaining a copy of the text. In connection with previous POV concerns raised by others, the text is presented here to aid article development. It is believed to be the copyright of Judy Fahys/The Salt Lake Tribune.
(The above needs reformatting in order to increase readability.) --
Trevj (
talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, I've had a bit of a look around and have only found the following:
Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.
Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright ...
With hindsight, it's entirely logical that the free content ethos of the encyclopedia also extends to talk pages: therefore, it's obviously unacceptable to reproduce such extensive content on talk pages because it would in no way meet the non-free content criteria. However, I trust that on this occasion my behaviour can be pardoned as a good faith mistake. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Rainbow Family Of Living Light, been a doing since 1978, and The Gatherings part the {Main article: Rainbow Gathering} is wrong needs to have the wrong {Family} so it reads Rainbow Family Gather, not just shortened the word FAMILY is the most important part as it is to reflect that it is a family gathering, noting on family. Not doing so is bring in all the party kids and festy kids and and that not what rainbow is about, why I am here to try and help as the kids reading what rainbow is here are not coming to pray for peace but to party due to how this is wrote and need to add the reason everyone gathers which is the invitation that brought everyone to one place to gather cause this is what rainbow family of living light is about; 2601:205:8001:4C26:5181:1494:AA2E:4E1F ( talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)MartinPaulCheney 2601:205:8001:4C26:5181:1494:AA2E:4E1F ( talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rainbow Family. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I wikilinked both, North Table Mountain and South Table Mountain (Colorado). Which one was it? Tomdo08 ( talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Daask:, Your edit removed content, wikilinks, and sourcing. It was not just a re-ordering of sections. If you want to re-organize sections, discuss that here. But be accurate with your edit summaries. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Jerks
I'm 66yrs old. I was a Rainbow in the 70's. Here's a cite for your article. 1st. Amendment right to gather .The Supreme Court. Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) upheld the requirement of a permit for public gatherings on public streets and parks. However, the Court also recognized that this requirement cannot be used to suppress free expression and assembly. The Court has since clarified that permits for public gatherings are permissible to regulate time, place, and manner, but cannot be used to discriminate against particular viewpoints or make it unduly difficult to exercise First Amendment rights. So while permits are often required, the government cannot charge fees that would inhibit the exercise of free speech and assembly on public lands.
2603:8081:8A00:4A4C:59C6:242C:482D:38DB ( talk) 02:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rainbow Family article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
There is more to the story than federal officers pointing their guns at children. You wouldn't guess that given the extremely POV version some editors are trying to push. (And I admit my initial addition of material about the incident was a bit snarky, but at least it didn't cover up people's actions.) 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
U.S. Forest Service officers pointed weapons at children
I'm good with Geni's recent version. 67.135.49.116 ( talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
this event should have it's own entry. there are alot of differing perspectives among the witnesses. I was at this gathering, and it began with forest service going through peoples tents looking for something. They demanded not to be followed or witnessed and that was just the beginning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.208.223.113 ( talk) 01:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The ACLU press release about the results of their investigation is available here: [2] Dlabtot ( talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
i was wondering since i read all the articles that were used to talk about this section's problem, that, one, the ACLU did nothing more than make a statement about tickets,and other minor things. two, that they had only statements from people who were attending the gathering and no forest service statements to go along with their report, and three, in finding nothing other than frivolus(spelling) tickets and other misdeameaner items to talk about there was no actual event to further a UCLU person stepping in and cause a suit against the forest service which i would think if there was they would have done for sure. so basically you really have nothing other than a few folks deciding which news report to follow or believe in to make this section of the wiki article valid. to be neutral i would think that both sides of the disagreement should be put into such a form to balance the article out with truth, instead of onesided bias to the forest service. this should also include the word "non-lethal' infront of weapons that someone used, as that is moree truthful and more neutral. i would also point out to those who use onsided bias to actually go look for information from actual witness's statements to which i actually found some that mentioned the rocks and sticks being thrown before any pepper balls or rubber bullets by actual live gathering members on youtube. along with this i also found statements by live witness's who completely stated the opposite as well. this section has a long way to go before it can stand and be a neutral article. it might take some time from someone's life but it might put this article in the light correctly. i make no changes at this time but ask for a neutral based article to show all positions fairly and truthfully before the article is set and locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.204.101 ( talk) 21:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
References
It appears that a series of IPs have been inserting the following text to the end of the Incidents section: ([ sample edit)
There are a few problems with this, first it simply exists (unsourced) to inject POV to the paragraph. The preceding paragraph already adequately spells out information showing both sides on the incident (although it doesn't appear to mention ACLU's findings: see here). An additional sentence is not needed. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 00:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The statements about the ACLU failing to prove any wrongdoing were not POV. They were fact. Without this info, the entire paragraph was wholly POV. 155.84.57.253 ( talk) 13:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Completely verifiable. The ACLU report was entirely opinion. It contained no proof of any kind. 155.84.57.253 ( talk) 14:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The ACLU report did not prove anything. That's where you should have stopped. It is only your bias on this subject that keeps you from admitting that point. 99.20.118.219 ( talk) 23:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
admitting the aclu report did not proove or disproove anything and the report from them is basically an opinion at that since no finding was determined. shouldn't it just be left out to keep the article neutral? and as far as the weapon item, that is just a quote from a member of the gathering itself, not a fact in position but just one person, to which anyone could find a live youtube statement to the oposite easily if one wanted to it was just a matter on how the reporter wanted to put his veiw(opinion) of what happened out there. both are definitive and usable in the structure of the article to wit negate both statements out of veiw. and it also tends to follow onesidedness and makes the article lopsided and untruthful using the word weapon by itself when in fact no weapon was used. if pepperball rifles are weapons, then it should be noted the various walking sticks to which also could have caused bodily harm were in attendance, not to mention knives in belt holders which is exactly where the weapons the officers carried were as well in belt holders. this is very evident in pictures in the news articles and videos that are on your tube taken during the incident. to say actual weapons were being pointed at children tends to make the average reader of wiki articles assume guns with bullets that could kill were used. no neutrality there and it tends to make the officers look like killers doing so. when in reality it was reported they only used the pepperballs to protect themselves after being surrounded. to think they were not surrounded i would point someone to past experience in colorado were officers were totally surrounded and had no non-lethal weapons and choose to leave after someone made a way for them, instead of fight their way out of a corner. in that incident it was shown by video they did have rocks and sticks thrown at them. again this is in the news reports and video on youtube made by gathering members on the site of the gathering. some just pick and choose which one fits what they want to portray and it then becomes biased.
on the 2009 incident on youtube there is a few videos where someone actually admits to rocks being thrown by some. facts can not be denied by statements from all people attending the gathering. not just a few select videos or statements reported by news sources, or a few reports chosen with bias towards an enity. live reporting by actual members on site trump any such report ACLU as false, or biased. and since this aclu report used actual people at the gathering, but choose not to use those that contradicted other accounts, or failed to recieve those other accounts that would have shown a different light on the subject. it then becomes a onesided report and becomes an opinion and should not be used in the article. again i say take the time to look through youtube, it only took me 2 hours of my time to do this. and to anyone who would not take the time to make sure the article is truth and not biased or make others do that work is biased themselves and should be removed from the forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.204.101 ( talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The revision previous made to the Pinedale incident by Slowart strips the incident from the incident. The point of the incident section is to eloborate where, when, why, and who was involved and give perspective on the incident. Eliminating facts, like the Forest Service being forced to remove the Boy Scouts, or the subsequent feelings of the state officials, is to strip out the meaning of the event. There was much more to the event than was evidenced by Slowarts revision, thus it was reverted. It may not be a perfect revision, though I kept your source. This is not a biased perspective, it is relating the facts of the event. Boy Scouts Had Permit, Were Going to Rehab Area > Rainbow Family Decided to Camp Where Boy Scouts Were Going to Camp (conflict) > State is Forced to Kick Out Boy Scouts (remedial action)> Boy Scouts and State are Left With Hurt Feelings (Resolution). There is nothing biased in that recitation of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kage a ( talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 October 2011
This statement is false. In this link [1] it mentions the incident team's Budget is $750,000. It makes no mention of what final operating costs are. Thanks Goldendelicious1 ( talk) 04:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
In connection with
this question at the Teahouse,
this discussion resulted in
User:Vchimpanzee obtaining a copy of the text. In connection with previous POV concerns raised by others, the text is presented here to aid article development. It is believed to be the copyright of Judy Fahys/The Salt Lake Tribune.
(The above needs reformatting in order to increase readability.) --
Trevj (
talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Right, I've had a bit of a look around and have only found the following:
Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.
Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright ...
With hindsight, it's entirely logical that the free content ethos of the encyclopedia also extends to talk pages: therefore, it's obviously unacceptable to reproduce such extensive content on talk pages because it would in no way meet the non-free content criteria. However, I trust that on this occasion my behaviour can be pardoned as a good faith mistake. Thanks. -- Trevj ( talk) 11:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Rainbow Family Of Living Light, been a doing since 1978, and The Gatherings part the {Main article: Rainbow Gathering} is wrong needs to have the wrong {Family} so it reads Rainbow Family Gather, not just shortened the word FAMILY is the most important part as it is to reflect that it is a family gathering, noting on family. Not doing so is bring in all the party kids and festy kids and and that not what rainbow is about, why I am here to try and help as the kids reading what rainbow is here are not coming to pray for peace but to party due to how this is wrote and need to add the reason everyone gathers which is the invitation that brought everyone to one place to gather cause this is what rainbow family of living light is about; 2601:205:8001:4C26:5181:1494:AA2E:4E1F ( talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)MartinPaulCheney 2601:205:8001:4C26:5181:1494:AA2E:4E1F ( talk) 16:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rainbow Family. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I wikilinked both, North Table Mountain and South Table Mountain (Colorado). Which one was it? Tomdo08 ( talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Daask:, Your edit removed content, wikilinks, and sourcing. It was not just a re-ordering of sections. If you want to re-organize sections, discuss that here. But be accurate with your edit summaries. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Jerks
I'm 66yrs old. I was a Rainbow in the 70's. Here's a cite for your article. 1st. Amendment right to gather .The Supreme Court. Cox v. New Hampshire (1941) upheld the requirement of a permit for public gatherings on public streets and parks. However, the Court also recognized that this requirement cannot be used to suppress free expression and assembly. The Court has since clarified that permits for public gatherings are permissible to regulate time, place, and manner, but cannot be used to discriminate against particular viewpoints or make it unduly difficult to exercise First Amendment rights. So while permits are often required, the government cannot charge fees that would inhibit the exercise of free speech and assembly on public lands.
2603:8081:8A00:4A4C:59C6:242C:482D:38DB ( talk) 02:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)