Talk:Rainbow Family

POV problem on Gatherings section?

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)

67, stop with the edit warring, that's not how we roll around here. Bstone, TenPoundHammer, before you revert, could you take a moment to explain exactly what you find objectionable about the sentence as it currently reads?

In July, 2008, an incident occurred at a Rainbow Gathering in Wyoming in which Rainbow Family members assaulted US Forest Service law enforcement officers with sticks and rocks. The officers used rubber bullets and pepper pellets as crowd control measures. Some of the Rainbow Family members accused the officers of pointing their loaded weapons at children. One federal officer was injured and five Rainbow Family members were arrested.

Let's all work together to improve this rather than blindly reverting. HiDrNick! 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The version these people want makes it seem as if the Rainbow Family did nothing to precipitate the crowd control responses and that the incident was far less serious than it really was. Compare:

In July, 2008, an incident occurred at a Rainbow Gathering in Wyoming in which US Forest Service law enforcement officers pointed their loaded weapons at children. One federal officer was injured and five Rainbow Family members were arrested in a following scuffle.

And contrast:

In July, 2008, an incident occurred at a Rainbow Gathering in Wyoming in which Rainbow Family members assaulted US Forest Service law enforcement officers with sticks and rocks. The officers used rubber bullets and pepper pellets as crowd control measures. Some of the Rainbow Family members accused the officers of pointing their loaded weapons at children. One federal officer was injured and five Rainbow Family members were arrested.

The feds didn't just aim their weapons (non-lethal, though you wouldn't know that from the POV version) at kids or anyone else for no reason and the incident was hardly a meaningless little "scuffle." Hundreds of people throwing rocks and sticks at authorities is typically called a riot, though for the sake of neutrality I refrained from calling it that. My version shows that the Rainbow Family members were not faultless and that the feds weren't using lethal weapons. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

67, it seems you want to make strong point of view edits to the article, but which are not supported by the reliable sources. The source clearly says

U.S. Forest Service officers pointed weapons at children

Based on this, how can you claim The feds didn't just aim their weapons (non-lethal, though you wouldn't know that from the POV version) at kids..... If you are to continue editing this encyclopedia, you need to know how to use reliable sources in order to add content to articles. I suggest viewing WP:RS before you continue to edit. Plus, this is the incorrect article to be adding this information. The proper article is Rainbow Gathering. The Rainbow Family exists outside the Gathering. Bstone (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You should quote the source accurately. "U.S. Forest Service officers pointed weapons at children and fired rubber bullets and pepper spray balls at Rainbow Family members while making arrests Thursday evening, according to witnesses." All of the witnesses interviewed in the article are identified as members of the group. Further, the use of the word "weapons" does not distinguish that nonlethal weapons were being used, if nothing else that distinction should be made. Consider also this source: http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_9787562 , quoting from the US Forest Service. The original source (jacksonholetrib.com) seems to be biased in favor of the Rainbow Family (and this is about the group as well as the gathering), as it did not contact the Forest Service. 207.199.243.193 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

US police commonly carry lethal weapons so they probably had them on them although it is fairly clear they weren't used. The source for most the the articles appears to be an AP report.Geni 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My. Frickin'. Gosh. Well, let's see, Bstone. I originally provided a source (this one, which is an AP report) which provided the reason why the feds were forced to take riot-control measures against the RF members. But guess what. YOU CONVENIENTLY DELETED IT! Then you and your POV friends replaced it with an article from some backwoods news source: the oh-so well-known "Jackson Hole Wyoming Star-Tribune". Hey, let's use this article from that source, which backs up the non-POV version and even adds more information about an ACLU investigation. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sources do go beyond the wire report so are useful see the current version.Geni 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is the wrong article to be posting this information. You're looking for Rainbow Gathering. Bstone (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a specious argument. It's like arguing that the Ku Klux Klan is separate from their cross burning gatherings or Wiccans are separate from their solstice gatherings (or whatever). 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. It is an issue into how much detail of gatherings and individual events we should have in the article. Obviously gatherings are a separate article but at the moment they also appears to be the main reason the group is notable.Geni 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When we flesh out the other sections of the article a bit more maybe.Geni 22:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with Geni's recent version. 67.135.49.116 (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A mention of the ACLU investigation is warranted, but I believe that the quotes (both from the ACLU and the Rainbow Family member) are not helpful or encyclopedic. Both quotes are presumptive and don't tell the story of the event. 207.199.243.193 (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV. We don't particularly care what "the story" of the event is although it might be nice to know. We report what other people said about what happened and try and present all sides. The ACLU thing is significant enough that AP threw out a story on it so for the moment we keep it.Geni 22:10, 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)

Yes but how many are recorded in reliable sources?Geni 17:34, 14 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

Incidents - POV addition

It appears that a series of IPs have been inserting the following text to the end of the Incidents section: ([sample edit)

To date, the ACLU has not proven any wrongdoing by the Forest Service.

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)

Agreed. The attempt to push a POV is pretty blatant here. And quite tiresome. I'm glad I'm not the only one watching. Dlabtot (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Although the wording in the prior paragraphs could use some work. Specifically, the quotes are one-sided and should be removed. All we need are the documented facts presenting both sides; quotes from one side without off-setting quotes from the other isn't a neutral tone. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The facts of a situation sometimes are 'one-sided'. In such cases, artificial attempts to create 'balance' often results in a false equivalence. But by all means, see what you can do to improve the text. Dlabtot (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to address the concerns I had with the quotes, then worked in additional material from the ACLU's report on the incident. Take a look and let me know your take on the rewording. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. A bit staccato. Dlabtot (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the two sentences "Pepper balls were then fired to control the crowd. Witnesses reported that officers pointed weapons at children and fired rubber bullets at gathering participants." came across that way to me, but I just left them in as part of the initial wording of the paragraph - could probably use some more adjustments there, but I'll leave that to someone else to copyedit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:31, 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)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Your opinions and conclusions about what is 'fact' are irrelevant. Dlabtot (talk) 14:36, 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 - true. But irrelevant, there are an infinite number of things the report 'did not prove' - and there is no reason for this article to list any of them. Also it is a conclusion that constitutes original research unless cited to a reliable source. So if you were, for example, to find an newspaper editorial that expressed that viewpoint, it might be worth putting in the article. If you wish to improve the article, I suggest you begin by familiarizing yourself with the Wikipedia policies to which you have been directed. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 17 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)

It's like you aren't even reading the comments to which you are allegedly responding. Please re-read the comment above the one you just made and respond appropriately. Don't just repeat yourself - actually try to engage in a dialogue. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 19 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)

Look, it's clear you have a strong viewpoint, but Wikipedia is not the place to push your viewpoint. We are writing an encyclopedia based on reliable sources according to our WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidents

This one incident is covered in the Rainbow_Gathering Rainbow Gathering page. Lots for things have happened at gatherings, this page is about the family, so I'll remove/move it there, unless or course there are some good reason for it to stay here. Slowart (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rainbow Family Incident: Pinedale

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

Please sign you posts. 4 tildes. Please notice the this incident is covered at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Gathering#Relations_with_law_enforcement this page is about "Rainbow Family" that incident that you replaced also cites World Daily Net as source that is notoriously bias and will not pass if we take it to a source check notice-board. Also note the 2nd cite contradicts the text and says the boy scouts decided (Not booted by forest service).Slowart (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"The Forest Service Incident Management team cost federal taxpayers $750,000 in 2006"

This statement is false. In this link 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)

References

Paywalled "Rainbows earn praise for cleanup" article in The Salt Lake Tribune, dated August 1, 2003

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.

(edit) Copyrighted material removed pending clarification of permission to post it on this talk page

(The above needs reformatting in order to increase readability.) -- Trevj (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't get email forwarding to work, and I couldn't save the article in such a way that it would work as an attachment. As for why this took so long, I discovered the Teahouse after an unwise merge of one of the Help Desk pages, and I decided to start working my way through the archives.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am replying to your follow up question at the Teahouse about copyrighted material on talk pages. Can I just clarify the comment at the end of the text; "Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc". Does that mean it is reproduced on this talk page with the permission of that company, or have you just included someone else's permission with the quote?

If permission has not been granted to post the copyrighted text here then that is a breach of copyright and it should be removed from this page immediately. The law does not make a distinction between publishing copyrighted material on an wiki article or a wiki talk page, it just refers to publishing of material. You can reproduce a short quote of copyrighted material but it has to be reasonable in length; unfortunately, reproducing an entire article in a quote would not be considered reasonable. Road Wizard (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

and remember that the permission someone gives to make personal use of something dis not enough for WP. Material posted here must be free in the sense of CC-BY-SA -- free for all the world to use and modify for any purpose whatsoever, even commercial, provided attribution is given and the resulting material remains free on the same terms. That is not what most publishers intend when they make something publicly available, even for free. It has to be shown in each case either by a compatible license on the original item itself, or by formal licensing sent to WP:OTRS according to WP:DCM. (I and many of us have great dislike for the current system of conventional copyright, but for us to be accepted in the present world, we must follow is scrupulously.) Trying to stretch the limits here can only bring us into bad repute. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and sorry for the huge cock-up. I'm aware of the copyright restrictions as they relate to articles themselves, but was under the impression that talk pages may be different. However, I wasn't certain - hence the Teahouse question. I guess I should've related the CC-BY-SA nature of editors' contributions to talk pages, but understand that some editors have stated other licences for such contributions.

I'll check more closely through the copyright guidance and see where it's explicitly stated, in which case yes I should certainly have known better. I wasn't attempting to stretch the limits, and this was a genuine error because I didn't inform myself properly.

Anyway, I have a personal copy of the text, so can use it to add any other notable info of worth (which warrants due weight) in the future.

Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reproduced with the permission of Media NewsGroup, Inc". was part of the text of what I copied, pasted and emailed from the site where I found the text. So I guess it applies only to that site.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've had a bit of a look around and have only found the following:

• wmf:Terms of Use

  Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws.

• WP:TALKO

  Removing prohibited material such as ... violations of copyright ...

• Copyright violations

  doesn't seem to explicitly extend the guidance to talk pages.

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)

of course. We only get really concerned when someone persists, either due to stubbornness or inability to understand. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance. -- Trevj (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121015055723/http://americanfestivalsproject.net/2009/07/29/lost-in-a-world-of-rainbows/ to http://americanfestivalsproject.net/2009/07/29/lost-in-a-world-of-rainbows/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904104738/http://inciweb.org/incident/2950/ to http://inciweb.org/incident/2950/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming-officials-not-happy-with-rainbow-family-cleanup-after-woodsy/article_21b2a239-4aea-5413-86f7-08ed41a26cdc.html

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: 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) 04:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Table Mountain(s)

I wikilinked both, North Table Mountain and South Table Mountain (Colorado). Which one was it? Tomdo08 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Reorganizing Sections"

@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)

@CorbieVreccan: Please review the edit more carefully, I only reordered content and did no editing with that revision. There was one duplicated section that I removed. Daask (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Look. At. The. Diff. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You removed section headers. You renamed sections. You removed wikilinks. You added content. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I removed a hatnote. I moved content around. I added and removed section headings. I did not add or remove body text, references, or wikilinks. Daask (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I think the confusion is derived from the fact that there was a duplicate paragraph that I removed, and the named citation was in that paragraph, which was inadvertently removed. I kept the version of the paragraph with two citations instead of one, without realizing that it used the named citation. Daask (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

All of that is editing, so your edit summary is not accurate. You cut the link to {{Main|Rainbow Gathering#Difficulties and criticisms}}, And you changed the focus of sections by renaming them, such as cutting Misrepresentation of Hopi legend and changing it to Cultural Appropriation. Other edits you made, such as adding new sub-headers for sections like Violence are OK, in my estimation. The problem is that you are misrepresenting your edits, and then doubling down on the misrepresentation when it is pointed out. Don't do that. If you want to add in sub-headers for things like violence, that's OK, but don't cut the stuff about misrepresenting the Hopi, or the wikilinks. And don't misrepresent what you're doing here. It's confusing to other editors and a violation of Wikipedia policy. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Jerks