Talk:Rainbow Gathering

No Alcohol?

They're hippies, right? So it's more a weed thing.

haha, it's not a party. and they(we)'re not all hippies. i mean, i've seen all kinds of kind people there. lots and lots of people being people in the best sense. the atmosphere kinda gets ya high even with out the green stuff. lots of children as well. you know what i'm saying? its a gathering for peace, not a gathering for smoking pot and being crazy hippies. its very spiritual, and alot of the world religions are represented there as well.

what it is supposed to be all over is about peace, not violence, or drugs or alcohol, these things are tolerated to a point, selling is also not allowed, but in the last five years this has not been the case, alcohol has moved into the gathering and is even sold in trading circle, along with powders and other things. to not know this is something i refrained myself from saying, but it happens now with more frequency, this year there was even a keg of molson beer brought to main circle. while there are alot of people who do go there for the spiritual thing, many do not, infact i would venture to say 58% go there for the party, not for the peace. plenty of good people inside the gathering , but also plenty of bad people too! miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net twofeathersTwofeathers 12:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths from bad water?...

I deleted what someone had added about 43 people dying from bad water in 1989. I've attended gatherings for a number of years, and I had never heard about that. No source was cited. I've heard of some people getting sick from bad water, but not any deaths, much less 43 kids! And the water sickness that I've heard about has always been from a lack of filtration, not from bad filters. If someone's gonna add that back in, they should find a source. 43 people dying at such a high profile event would be well publicized. Blackcats 08:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the twenty-year cycle of my experiences at The Gatherings, no deaths from "bad water" have ever occurred, but such false allegations are part of the price we pay for an egalitarian website. Sometimes a few people will have gastrointestinal problems, but that is due to their not following common-sense public health practises, like boiling or filtering water from unknown sources. Rainbow Dave 11:12 am, 25 December 2005

Of course if someone did die, it was due to "not following common-sense public health practises(sic)," but that doesn't mean that no one has died. Anyway, I take your word for it. Even though Rainbow Gatherings are good, that doesn't mean that bad things don't happen during them. Wikipedia is about facts, not about whether something is good or bad. So, if you have any relevant information, you should add it to the article, even if it might make Gatherings look bad (of course, adding context will help prevent misunderstandings like that). Robotbeat 02:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical prophecies

I added content tracking the legend of a Hopi prophecy to its known origins in published literature, and its acknowledged track as it spread through environmental circles. I don't mean to impugn Vincent Brown's scholarship in publishing the legend, but a tracable legend in published literature offers more substance than does popular folklore. This encyclopedia does well to approach with due caution second-hand attributions of statements to tribal elders when a published source is available for attribution. I don't mean to convey disbelief that elder Hopis or other Native Americans found great hope in popular environmentalism and expressed that hope to nomadic environmentalists, but this might not be the best way to establish these hopes as policy declarations by "The Hopi Elders" validating "Prophecies" documented in literature published at a time when poetic license among Anglo scholars often abriged the substance and sourcing of materials they attributed to native people. SeeMoreTruth 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separate article?

The section on the Hopi prophesy mentions Greenpeace and the Rainbow Warrior. The connection between greenpeace and the gathering (if there is one) needs clarification. As it is now, readers may assume there is an affiliation. Regardless of this issue, The Hopi prophesy is clearly not just about the rainbow gathering so maybe it needs its own article. How about moving this section to Hopi Prophesy? Dev1n

One problem is that we have no evidence that it is a Hopi prophesy. It is text from a book written by an Anglo publisher, who self-published his own account of things he might or might not have sourced from an individual Hopi, from an undefined group previously cited here as "the Hopi elders" or from his synthesis of conversations with people in the vicinity of Hopi. And as I explain below, another non-enrolled woman who claims Cherokee heritage says an unidentified Cree woman told her a story in almost exactly the same words.

Another problem is that the explanation of the origins of the myth among environmentalists was added to this article after a long period in which the article stated as fact that the Rainbow Gathering was fulfillment of a Hopi prophecy. [1] The legend of a Hopi prophecy has for decades been standard folklore among Rainbow people. That Greenpeace also applied the name to their battleship doesn't diminish the direct connection between the language included in this article of the supposed prophecy shared among Rainbow people and the known source in the Anglo text. Citations are offered from a published scholar studying Rainbow people connecting it to the Naturegraph book.[2][3] Explanation of how the legend spread is all supported with reliable sources. I would concur with moving it, but not to an article titled anything Hopi -- maybe to Legend of a Rainbow Warrior.

"Yet another problem is that the Anglo publisher is not the only source who claims to know the origin of the allegedly native prophecy. An Oklahoma woman, Lelanie Fuller Stone, who represents herself as a non-enrolled Cherokee descendant claims an oddly similar sounding legend originates from Cree prophecies. She says a Cree woman, (her grandmother according to other sites that repeat the folklore) told her the legend:

There will come a time when the Earth grows sick and

when it does a tribe will gather from all the cultures

of the World who believe in deed and not words.

They will work to heal it...they will be known as the "Warriors of the Rainbow."

She is cited as a source of the legend on other Rainbow sites. [4]. Beyond this reference to a legend that is definately Greenpeace folklore and is definately Rainbow Tribe folklore and is definately Naturegraph folklore and might be Hopi or Cree folklore, any other discussion of ostensible Hopi prophecies would best be placed under a title naming the authors who published the supposed prophecies. The book on the topic most widely cited among mystics like the Rainbows, albeit written under standards typical of 1963, is the Book of the Hopi by Frank Waters. But Waters does not refer to a Hopi Rainbow Warrior prophecy. Though his works are widely enjoyed, history has not always reflected well on Waters' scholarly aspirations. His books have been used in college classes but he is not a peer reviewed expert on Hopi lore. Of course, I'd like to offer more scholarly critiques of Waters - here is what I found in a quick search of the Web consistent with reading I have not kept records of over the years.[5][6][7]. An article titled "Hopi prophecies", if ever Wikipedia deigned to know anything about that subject, would best be sourced on named Hopis from recent published literature, or on peer reviewed texts by reputable anthropologists. A start might be the Northern Arizona University Special Collections and Archives which has the papers of Oraibi Hopi White Bear Fredericks on which Waters based his book. But we will need to wait for somebody to do the research, because this isn't the place for original research, and an article sourced solely on Waters' research would best be titled as an article about Waters' research, not as about Hopi lore. SeeMoreTruth 10:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created an article on the Legend of a Rainbow Warrior. Now that part of this article needs to be reduced to only as much as is relevent and this context, with a link to the new article. SeeMoreTruth 11:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Nationals/Alternative gatherings

Gathering of the Tribes. Are these rainbow gatherings? They've been inserted into the US calendars for 2004-2006 and See Also but the dates coincide with the US National ... According to this site [[8]] they're a troll - deleting entries. Clappingsimon 09:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lookingheart here. The "A Gathering of the Tribes" is/are bonifide Annual Rainbow Gatherings and have nothing to do with the bogus claims on Chaz' hateful boycott site you referenced.

Counsels for the A Gathering of the Tribes are held openly on the land with the invitation going out well in advance, in short these gatherings are focalized by Rainbow Family individuals who have counseled and decided to follow their own path and heartsongs. These gatherings came about in 2003 after certain individuals of responsibility within the Rainbow Family (claimed Elders / Founders) started signing permits and changing the nature of the gatherings here in the United States. These alternative to the permit gatherings are intended as an expansion of Rainbow Ideologies while trying to maintain some measure of unity and respect with the various same type gatherings. For more information on the A Gathering of the Tribes I would suggest that you review content listed on the website located at [[9]]

I think it worthy to note that in 2005, Annual Rainbow Family council gave a blessing to expanded gatherings. Many focalizers across the United States and elsewhere are well informed that this particular gathering is evolving and in its infancy. I am adding the text back to the Wiki and suggest that those dates stay in place as it is a simple truth that these gatherings are happening and are part of the Rainbow Family heritage. As cultural changes happen so does the history. Lookingheart 09:06 pm, 19 April 2006 (CST)

A bit confusing for me and other readers though. Clappingsimon 22:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say that would make it more understandable? Lookingheart 09:09 pm, 19 April 2006 (CST)

A gathering of the tribes is a small local rainbow gathering that has only taken place for 3 years. No other local or regional rainbow gatherings are included in this article even though most have been in existance longer than a gathering of the tribes and many have quite a bit larger attendance. If local or regional gatherings are to be included there are many others that have several times more people in attendance and that have been in existance for many more years. If someone decides to include in this article a section on local gatherings, a gathering of the tribes could be listed there, along with the larger more established regionals, as one of the smaller, newer local gatherings. I am removing the misleading reference to a gathering of the tribes until the more well known, larger attended, more estabished regionals are included.

Adding the information for the A Gathering of the Tribes back to the Wiki and making a backup copy. Reason for inclusion is relevent as it pertains to actual history that over the years will become more important as Rainbow evolves and/or devolves whatever the case may be. As a side note: The A Gathering of the Tribes is not parse a regional or local event but rather an expansion of Rainbow energy that has been borne out of the Rainbow Gatherings. I would be more then happy to invest some time listing some of the better know local regional gatherings which will take some effort, any help you would like to provide would be appreciated. Clappingsimon, my contact information is avalible just by clicking through and I would appreciate you not deleting content based soley on your ideologies regarding what may or may not be valid. Beyond that I do appreciate your help in making sure the Wiki is content neutral and provides a full scope review of Rainbow Family values and history, thanks. Lookingheart 05:17, 27 May 2006

Lookingheart, the unsigned comment on the Rainbow Gathering talk page was not made by me. I didn't remove the A Gathering of the Tribes entries on the 27th May 2006 (though I did once before, on the 18th Apr 2006, you reverted them) as an examination of the page's history shows. I'll copy this info to your talk page. Cheers. Clappingsimon 10:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a gathering of the tribes from the list of national rainbow gatherings. A gathering of the tribes is a small local gathering. Two gatherings of at most a couple of hundred people does not belong included in a list of national gatherings of 8,000 to 25,000. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to promote your small local gathering. There are at least a half dozen regionals that have been in existance far longer than a gathering of the tribes and have several times the attendance. A gathering that is only having its 3 event this year is not yet a part of the history, especially when regional gatherings that have been in existance 10, 15, or 20 years are not included. Neither you nor I can prophesy whether or not a gathering of the tribes will become relevant in the future, whether it will become more important or fade away as some regionals do. Two gatherings going into a third is certainly not enough to make any prediction.

Re-uploaded current information for gathering listings from backup documents. Unsigned hacker keeps deleting information posted to help inform and document the expansion of Rainbow Gatherings. Lookingheart 12:44 CST, June 03, 2006

Lookingheart, this has nothing to do with a gathering of the tribes. On March 30, 2006 someone added the Ocala regional to the list of National gatherings. I removed it as well. If someone from Ocala, Shawnee, Khatua, Arizona, Alabama, or any other area attempted to publicize their local event via this article I would remove it just as I have a gathering of the tribes. The ocala gathering has been in existance for about 20 years and has had attendance of 800 to 4,500. Shawnee has been in existance for at least 15 years with numbers that exceed a gathering of the tribes. Khatua has been in existance for at least 10 years with about the same number in attendance as a gathering of the tribes. These are just a few of the regional gatherings that have had annual events longer than a gathering of the tribes. A gathering of the tribes has had *two* gatherings with estimates that range from less than 75 to possibly 200. A gathering of the tribes is one of the newest and among the smaller of the local or regional gatherings. The simple and objective fact is none of these gatherings are national and none of them should be included in the national gatherings list. I would not object to a gathering of the tribes being included in a list of local and regional gatherings.

Lookingheart, I have no desire to play some back and forth game with you but I will if it is necessary. Of about a dozen gatherings held each year you are the only person who has decided to use this article to promote their small local gathering. I think the facts are clear and any rational, objective, unbiased person would agree with me. Calling me a hacker doesn't make any rational point. Most of the changes to this article are unsigned. I fail to see how it makes me any more anonymous than "Lookingheart" "Clappingsimon" "Robotbeat" "Blackcats" or any of the other people who have signed their changes. But if it will facilitate discussion I will be happy to join wikepedia so I have an identity to sign with as clear and verifiable as "Lookingheart" "Clappingsimon" and "Robotbeat" June 3, 2006

Fine, if you want to play delete games then so be it, no one can stop you. If you want to help the Wiki grow and become then write an article on the regional gatherings and be sure to inform people about the alternative Rainbow gatherings as well. The Rainbow Gatherings are starting to change to the point where several of the past years they have become permitted events. This means that they are hosted by private individuals and groups and are not in form with the true nature and Spirit of Rainbow Gatherings, (Read FREE and OPEN to EVERYONE) If you want to engage in open discussion PRIOR to deleting other peoples contributions here then that would be appreciated otherwise lets scrap the whole article and start fresh and be sure to include the historical truth, facts man, not some philisophical bullcorn that reads less then true.

first off, I would refer you to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes I have in every way endevoured to resolve this dispute in rational discourse. I have carefully addressed each of your points as clearly as I can. I have offered a compromise solution. I see no effort from you to address any of the points I have raised.

First, for what objective reason do you claim a gathering of the tribes is a national gathering that should be included in the national gatherings list? A gathering of the tribes has existed for meerly two years and has at the very most 200 people in attendance. The National Gathering has been in existance 33 years with approximatly 100 times as many people in attendance. Can you even claim that there was a single person from each state at what you suggest is a national gathering?

Second, as there are numerous local and regional gatherings, what objective measure do you use for the inclusion of a gathering of the tribes in a list of national gatherings as opposed to the other local or regional gatherings? Do you believe all local or regional gatherings should also be included in the national listing? What objective rational do you use to suggest that two gatherings of at most 200 people should be considered national when the gathering in Ocala of 800 to 4,500 that has had annual events for about 20 years is not considered national? As well as several other regional gatherings that have had annual events many more years with greater attendance than a gathering of the tribes.

I have no problem taking this to mediation. If you continue to refuse to discuss this issue I will have no choice.

Cool, I have updated the page and as you see there are several locations Nationally as the energy starts to unfold. The Rainbow Gatherings are starting to evolve and expand, yea Spirit! Lookingheart

Since you refuse to discuss this issue I have begun to take the necessary steps to get wikipedia to mediate this issue. june 11, 2006

Thanks, that would be much better then you just deleting whatever you dont like.

Dear Lookingheart - when you restored your "US National - A Gathering of the Tribes" entries you wiped out multiple edits by other editors, including spelling corrections, factual corrections and other changes. Please don't overwrite the page blindly, you are not the sole contributor to this article. It is now your responsibility to restore all the other edits that happened between the last time you took a copy of the page and when you restored your entries Clappingsimon 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, It was not my intent to replace any valid edits and I apologize if I have caused any undue extra work. I will pay closer attention in the future as I know several folks are working hard to insure the document is correct and punctual.

Double checked, the edit was uploaded from a current copy, no changes made and the text looks good.

Made a recent backup of the Rainbow Wiki and have edited the National listings, someone keeps striking content for the A Gathering of the Tribes. Shine!!!!!

This issue is not going away and neither am I. I see you have added a gathering in VA and GA to the national gathering list. I ask you again what criterion do you use to determine whether a gathering is local or national? Is it simply your word that makes it so? There are in excess of 8000 people at the national gathering in Colorado with 20,000 expected. How many have arrived at the private land in GA? 20, 50? How many are at the undisclosed location in VA? You claim the gathering in VA is national when there are no directions to the gathering posted anywhere? These are local gatherings that do not belong on the list of national rainbow gatherings. This article is not the place for you to advertise your small local gatherings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-01_national_rainbow_gatherings oceankat

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:41, 2 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 02:21, 2 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 22:17, 3 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 05:07, 4 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 22:19, 5 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:02, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:39, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 05:02, 7 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 23:12, 13 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 20:50, 14 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 03:50, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 07:51, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 16:15, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 18:08, 16 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 15:23, 17 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 01:55, 18 July 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 06:54, July 18, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 10:38, July 19, 2006 Lookingheart

Relisted historical gathering information: 17:32, July 19, 2006 Lookingheart

Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Notability.

This was the text moved from POV-section in the article-space: 'Due to persistent hacking, this section of the Wikipedia is constantly monitored and updated by team members. If you have content you would like to added please feel free to edit though there is no guarantee that the content will remain available as there are too many irregularities at this time.' It has no place in the article space - the POV category directs readers to here, which should be sufficient until a consensus is reached Clappingsimon 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the gatherings have reached their official end point I have a few questions about the gatherings you suggest are important enough to be included on a list with the national rainbow gathering. There were an estimated 15,000 people at the national gathering. There were dozens of newspaper articles written about this gathering as well as numerous reports from attendies on traditional rainbow websites. Can you list any newspaper citations for the gatherings you listed? I assume the gathering in GA happened since the people who hosted it live on the private land it was held on. Did anyone who was not a personal friend or aquaintance of the land owners go to this gathering? How many people showed up? As for the VA gathering can you list a single newspaper citation as evidence that this gathering actually happened? If not, is that because it was so small that it passed with out any notice or was this gathering simply a wish and a dream that never came to fruition as so often happens with gatherings that are announced? How many people, if any, were at the VA gathering? The rainbow family and gatherings are an important cultural phenomina not because an invitation was sent out in 1972, but because over 25,000 people showed up in response to the invitation. If only a few dozen had been there in 1972 and in subsequent years it would have been meaningless and there would be no wiki article. Sending out an invitation to your gatherings does not make them important if almost no one shows up. Again I ask you what is it about these small local gatherings you promote that they deserve recognition along side the national getherings attended by thousands? Again I ask why do these gatherings get this recognition when there are many other local and regional gatherings that have several times the attendance and have been held annually for many more years that are not listed? oceankat

Again I see no effort from you to dialog on this issue. In the past week I have seen no reports from your "gathering of the tribes" in any on the traditional rainbow websites. I have seen no newspaper articles even verifying that these gatherings even occured. This is not "welcomehere" your personal server where you can put up any information you desire, but is meant to be an encyclopedia. Do you have any citations from any of the local newspapers with information on the number of attandees or even to verify that they actually occured? Since you will not discuss this I have no choice but to continue this edit war. july 13, 2006 oceankat

If you want to engage in an edit war that is your business, I will not participate in any war. Further, I am not bound to be your charge and do not have to engage you in conversation if you can not be civil. I am filing a formal complaint with wikipedia since your attitude and demeaner is less then par. Good day. Lookingheart

Lookingheart, removing comments is poor form. Please stop or I will file a formal complaint against you.

___________________________________________________________________________

1. Rainbow Fallout, A-Camp violence, Lawsuit agains the Feds per

Posted by: "David Crockett Williams" xxxx@xxxx.xxx gear2001us

Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:49 am (PDT)

All the foibles of the Rainbows
Rainbow rental returns wrecked ("A" Camp out of control this year)
Suing the feds per Religious Freedom Restoration Act

Other reports indicate the alcohol and commensurate violence was more of a problem this year and real "not good" the reports of abuses by "A Camp" folks doing the "front gate" with recommendations that a remedy be determined to prevent this in future.

I've removed cut-and-paste of the articles. Please don't post copyright material here. Please sign your posts if you're not logged in. Please avoid posting someone else's email address. Please wikify your text so it can be read. Thanks! Clappingsimon talk 03:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to balance the newspaper article above, in my experience, after the site was cleaned up/seedlings planted over the toilets/the trails aerated, the rangers have said that a month-long gathering has less impact in terms of trash/trails/destruction than a troop of boy scouts or Off-road's camping for the weekend. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of welcomehome external link

Welcomehome is a notable and informative website. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_paper#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Notability. Clappingsimon 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and if a body was to read the hip story on this site, it is from others reporting about one or two different people, with no validation of the facts other than a fictional story in a book, by an author or authors with no real contact with gatherings. while there is some truth in the articles, they are mainly based on one individual's memory of the facts. but no words from the dozen others who were actually there in person to uphold these facts. while i know some is true, i do see a distortion of facts, and or a glamourizing of same by the author. it is well to note that rob savoye used to keep a calender on his site till he ran into the problem of who to beleive when different states were calling in different directions for different gatherings. other than that, there is no hip story concerning changes in the family nor any updates to facts that actually happen now. again this site is the work of just one man, and reflects his desires too! miketwofeather@sbcgloabl.net 4.245.4.166 19:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopi prophecy & welcomehere links

Removed sections which are covered on Hopi prophecy page, and on the external links, on the grounds of relevance. Whether someone's father owns a pipe reputed to have belonged to a traditional person adds no weight to the legend. Cleaned up the links on the basis of relevance as they point to things not covered in the Rainbow Gathering article; they are all accessible from a link that remains Clappingsimon 10:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Removing cleanup tag. Grammar and spelling look okay. Clappingsimon 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with law enforcement

This section seems a little light on citations. The last paragraph, in particular. Note: I'm not trying to cause a fight here, just noting that it doesn't seem to be up to the level of citations that is the norm for Wikipedia. enordgren 06:54, 30 June 2006.

I agree, it's not cited, though there are plenty of identical newspaper articles (mostly smaller local papers). First sentence fails NPOV, as there was no actual 'violence'. The newspaper reports were written from the Forest Service POV. None of the on-the-day newspaper reports mentioned a rock being thrown. The FS NIMT has a media site for RG's [10] but the 'incident' is not covered. However yesterday the USDA FS has declared fire restrictions for the area, which is very tactical. Guess the gathering needs a solid night of rain Clappingsimon 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if needed i could forward all the personal accounts to the violence to see both sides of the incidents recorded, to share a point of veiw. as far as fire danger goes , it is not the ground that needs the rain, but the dead trees killed by beatles that is the danger of fire. ground water could be 100% and a fire would still be just as devastating in that forest. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

Hi, I am not the official mediator but I will try to help. You may wish to appeal to a broader community for input by asking at the Village pump, posting a Wikiquette alert, or filing a Request for Comment. --Ideogram 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counsel / Council

The term in common use is Council in the mini-manual. I've reverted 65.65.225.1's changes of Counsel to Council until they can show a reason for the change. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary.com shows "Council" to be a governing body of elected officials who have power to administrate and impose sanctions while the spelling "Counsel" is more in the nature of egalitarian views and conotes the exchange of ideas through conversation. While the two spellings do sound similar, there are major differences in their meanings. The spelling "Counsel" is more proper for what Rainbow Gathering Counsel circles actual do when engaged in an informal conversation, which is discuss issues and work towards solutions without any authoritarin body to oversee. This is of course working from the primise that Rainbow Gatherings are non-hierarchial and that there are no leaders or vested offices to be held

Please sign in or sign your posts, I can't tell who you are (see WP:SIG). On http://groups.google.com/ there are 51,000 hits for - rainbow council - and 8,000 for - rainbow counsel -. Council is the common use, though there seems to be regional differences. Counsel is not used outside the US. Most readers won't understand the term counsel the way you do. If you do a google search on - counsel defined - or - counsel definition - the definitions actually relate to one-to-one-advice-seeking or to lawyers. Please see Counsel. You won't want to wikilink to that :-) Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i would think the tradional way it was used for years is council, even tho the meanings are different. you could even find reference to this in the mini-manual. original writers were not concerned with how it was spelled but in the fact that they used it for other meanings. and the fact that it is still used today. without any thought to the exact meaning of the word. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.245.4.166 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello, I am an independent editor here to see if I can assist in solving the dispute outlined in a request made by Oceankat at the Mediation Cabal, here. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foremost, I would like to request that interested parties abide by two simple rules:

Remain civil at all times.
Assume good faith in your fellow editors.

I would like to start by obtaining statements from the involved parties, Oceankat and Lookingheart, that you are willing to participate in the mediation process. Any other interested editors are welcome to sign as well. Please indicate your willingness to participate by signing below with four tildes (~~~~):

(example) Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lookingheart (talk) 21:00 pm CSDT

twofeathersTwofeathers 00:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lookingheart - and a small request. Would it be possible to make sure you are logged in when making edits to this page, at least for the duration of the mediation process? It is difficult for editors to determine your actions when your edits are marked with an IP address (meaning you are not logged in) but you seem to be taking time to type out your signature with a username. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aguerriero for taking the time to ask valid questions and for putting forth the effort to mediate this issue in an unbias manner. Respect for myself, the heartsong of this new tribal energy and the dynamic nature of this movement called Rainbow Family is all I ask. Please also understand that the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is not seperate nor distinct from the Rainbow Family of Living Light as we are all One Tribe, rather the new energy is a unified expansion of the gatherings themselves, there are many paths to peace and sometimes it might be difficult to understand the trail. Communication and guidance is always appreciated as the vision unfolds. Love and Light, Shine! Lookingheart 2:32 am CSDT

Thanks for helping to mediate this disagreeement. What is a rainbow gathering has long been disputed. Rather than get into a fruitless discussion on this point I have always defined it very loosely. I see the "gathering of the tribes" gatherings as rainbow gatherings. When these small gatherings were added to the "National Gatherings" listing among gatherings of thousands I was faced with a choice. To remove them or to place them in context by adding similar gatherings. There are many "expansions" or "alternative" gatherings. All local and regional gatherings are born of the National Gathering and are an expansion of its energy. Many have been in existance for more years than "gathering of the tribes" and have many more participants. If only the "gathering of the tribes" is listed it appears as though it is the only or at least the most significant of the alternatives. It is not. It is the newest and among the smaller of the expansions. If these gatherings are listed at the very least a dozen larger and older gatherings should be listed. What is the criterion for listing small gatherings? If all of those that are the equivalent of the "gathering of the tribes" are listed the end result will be a few hundred little gatherings being listed as each local editor adds their small gathering to the list. Some will be added in an attempt to publicize it to increase attendance. Some that are listed will not even occur as the energy never manifests to pull it off. oceankat July, 16, 2006

My understanding of the sitation

I will attempt to summarize the dispute as I understand it here. From what I can tell, these are the main points of the dispute:

There are groups of people who are gathering under the name "Gathering of the Tribes". These people feel that they are part of the overall "Rainbow Gatherings" philosophy, but as an expansion, different enough to have their own name.
Lookingheart would like to list these gatherings on the Rainbow Gathering article, and Oceankat is opposed to the listings.

If you agree with my summary of the issues, please sign below using the same method I described earlier:

(example) Aguerriero (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lookingheart (talk) 21:00 pm CSDT

miketwofeathers 4.244.57.33 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC) twofeathers4.245.2.65 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the name A gathering of the tribes is out of respect for the annual. not different to have their own name. miketwofeathersTwofeathers 00:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the choice of the name that I have issue with, many gatherings have picked interesting names to call themselves. It is that the "gathering of the tribes" are not unique nor are they very large or very old. If they are included all the gatherings that have been in existance many more years and have had larger attendance would need to be listed as well. oceankat July, 16, 2006

My questions

Before I propose a solution, I would like to have these questions answered. If you can answer, please answer directly below each question, making sure to indent your answer with a colon and sign your name using four tildes.

Is "Rainbow Gatherings" an official organization, non-profit or commercial?

Rainbow gatherings are not for profit but not an official non profit organization. There is no official organization. The rainbow family is sometimes jokingly refered to as a "disorganization." There are some loosely adhered to concepts to facilitate an ad hoc organization on the land. There are no membership requirments or an official membership list. For this reason I have always been among those who accept most gatherings that call themselves rainbow as rainbow gatherins. oceankat July, 16, 2006

Lookingheart (talk) 21:11 pm CSDT - It is my understanding and experience that Rainbow Gatherings are non-organized and no official entities have filed a statement for non-profit status with any secretary of any state nor have the Rainbow Gatherings ever been promoted for commercial interests. The Rainbow Gathering are founded on ideologies and principles that project a free form attitude wherein individuals are encouraged to participate freely and of their own accord working within a counsel process with an over all prayer for world peace and fostering an egalitarian attitude towards building communities whether those communities be land base, temporary - with or without structure.

rainbow gatherings have never been comercial or official in nature, no organization period, i have the charter name under an LLC as of this date to prevent the name rainbow family of living light to be used commercialy, as words in the wind that some were at one time trying to create a burning man type of situation.The rainbow gathering is and was started on the judean principle of peace for all peoples. this may be short but it is what it started as, what it is now is totaly different in nature, many propose peace, but new age children coming in are making the changes in the rainbow family and they have no knowledge of hip story( beginings). many rainbow family members found some of the new things not in likeing and have strived to get back to what it started as peaceful, many have come to the alterntive, some have said it is splitting the family up(note; that is their exact words) these new gathering peoples beleive in the old ways of rainbow and wish to carry the old ways forward, without the new age thinking of violence, drugs and other negative things. miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.244.57.33 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for "Gathering of the Tribes"?

The same as I stated above. I have never disputed the contention that "gathering of the tribes" are rainbow gatherings. oceankat July, 16, 2006

Lookingheart (talk) 21:25 pm CSDT - The "(A) Gathering of the Tribes" is an expansion / heartsong of the Rainbow Family of Living Light and was consented to by individuals in 2003 after much counsel and brain storming. These alternative Rainbow Gatherings are unorganized, unincorporated and non-commercial. There is no authoritarian council body. In 2006 these gatherings where held in 3 different states within the borders of the United States. As of July 2006 there have been talks in other circles about helping manifest these alternative gatherings elsewhere in the United States. Vision statement for the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is: "All peaceful beings are welcome to come share the gift of harmony and prayers for world peace as we celebrate interdependence day in unity without glorification of war. A circle of silent meditation will commence with the rising sun on the morning of July 4th until noon." *A Gathering of the Tribes Home Page

i have focalized this gathering a few years myself(the last two) while i myself never claim the name rainbow (which i was not when they started) i do claim membership in the rainbow family of living light, i think calling oneself rainbow is a misnomer. i have been to "rainbow gatherings" since the begining the last two years i prefered not to attend the antional because i do not like going into a tent and pronouncing a person dead again from drugs purchased at gathering. i still never called my self rainbow, as i was not when i helped start the gatherings, and i am not now. i do not like labels per se, and if i was to claim a certain tribe it would be blackfoot, my native tribe. there is no difference in the annual gatherings, and the gathering of the tribes, if one would like to read the original invite to see where it was not a gathering of rainbows either, i could add it somewhere here. i still claim this original writings as my basis for gathering, and A Gathering of The Tribes is exctly what the original gatherings were about, and carries the traditions forward. it is true many have complained that missouri peoples in particular are trying to create something that is not rainbow in nature, this is a false statement, many people from many states and other countries attend the missuori based function, i have seen where it said 75 to 200, this number is wrong too! and would challenge that fact, 2005 on july fourth i would say 500 were in attendance, this years number more like 350, next year probally more as people see more violence at the annual gathering, also enconomic factors will play into this as fuel prices go up and more people gather closer to home, than nationaly, but these same gatehrings will not be regionals, any one from any state is welcome, including the world. regionals are more focased on just those who reside in a certain state, and by the way, i am originaly out of the west coast and still own land there but currently reside in missouri. and a further note when plunker had a gathering up in montana at the same time as the national that gathering was not complained about, most of the complaints are from certain and the same individuals every year, with no true hip story put down, just the complaint it is not a real gatherings. www.rainbowsendfarm.info miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net 4.244.57.33 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard in place for what constitutes a "national gathering?" Is it any gathering that is published and advertised nationwide? Or are there "official" national gatherings?

On July 7 at the National Gathering a "vision council", which anyone can attend, chooses by consensus the location of the next year's National Gathering. That is the standard and I guess what makes it "official" is that 10 to 25 thousand show up at the consensed location. This is the crux of my arguement. There have been several hundred gatherings in the past 34 years. Even before the web the majority of them have been listed nationally and everyone was invited. Some have happened annually for a few years before fading away, some, like the Ocala gathering, over 20 years and on going. These are local or regional gatherings, in that for whatever the invitation said, the vast majority of those in attendance are from the local population and rarely exceed a few hundred. But there is one recognized National Gathering over the fourth of July that has attendance of 10 to 25 thousand. One can easily find a dozen newspaper articles in reference to this National Gathering each year. I could find no reliable information on any of the gatherings lookingheart has listed. Rumor has it that less than 100 or perhaps nearly 200 were at the Missouri gathering of the tribes. I haven't even been able to get any rumors as to the GA gathering held on private land that lookingheart listed. My experience leads me to believe no one other than the friends of the land owners showed up. As for the VA gathering, again I was unable to find any newspaper articles or reports from individuals attending on any of the traditional rainbow related newsgroups. Perhaps this gathering never happened. Quite often gatherings have been listed on calenders by those who desire them to occur but the energy never manifests. If it did happen I would guess there were less than 50 people in attendance. Should any gathering in its first year, as VA was, with less than 50 people in attendance be included in the National Gathering listing? Gatherings so small as to not even be noticed by the local newspapers? If gatherings such as Ocala, Shawnee, and many others which have been around longer and have larger attendance are not listed why are "gathering of the tribes" listed? If the "gathering of the tribes" are listed, even in a separate section for local and regional gatherings, the end result is that over time several hundred similarly small gatherings will be listed cluttering this article with trivia. oceankat July, 16, 2006

Lookingheart (talk) 21:30 pm CSDT - This is no standard that I am aware of except to say that these so named gatherings should take place on a National level with the invitation going out "Nationally" as oppossed to regional gatherings with a local invitation. As a side note it should be known that some people prefer to call the National gatherings "Annual Gatherings" so as to make them inclusive and not exclusive. Much conversation is always continuing on AGR

Lookingheart (talk) 21:36 pm CSDT - There is nothing "Official" in Rainbow as it is a dynamic ideology Spirited by individuals. Most gatherings are advertised by a variety of means to include printed material, internet communique's, word of mouth, ect. but nothing "official" as there is no one group or entity who has a valid claim on any rights concerning The Rainbow Family of Living Light. It is a long held consensus that no one may represent the Rainbow Family.

Hello- My name is Hawker (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org). To answer your question, because I don't think it was answered. Each year at the "national gathering" on July 7th we get together in what is called a vision council and select the next location for the national gathering. Hence this is the standard of what is the national gathering. There are very few people that would dispute what is the national Rainbow gathering and what is an alternitive gathering. The location agreed on on July 7th at each "big national" (this year in Colorado) for the next year is the one and only NAtional Rainbow Gathering of the TRibes. There are other alternitive gatherings besides looking hearts but no one tries to dispute them as THE gathering as LH does. This has been a long standing issue and most of the family feels that he is manipulating and trying to confuse his small gathering as the national rainbow gathering. It is also my opinion that AGOT (LHs gathering info) should not be included. He should make a new Wikipedia entry of A Gathering Of the Tribes and put his info there - perhaps link it from the main entry as an alternitive gathering. If we allow him in then we must allow every alternitive gathering and other gathering in and that will clutter and take away from this entry. As others stated this is a small <100 person gathering that is in contrast to the generaly recognized national gathering of15k-25k people. Hawker

Non-NPOV! (see above): In the above comments, (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) refers the the (A) Gathering of the Tribes as "Lookingheart's Gatherings." This is biased information and non-factual. Additionally he (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) eludes to an issue of trying to "confuse" the separate gatherings, this is either a misunderstanding on his part or an outright fabrication. Factual information can be found on the (A) Gathering of the Tribes website. Hawker, this is not AGR and we are looking for facts and solutions. Please do not bring any hostilities to this forum as it will not be appreciated.

Mediator Note: This person is and has been hostile in past encounters, any information provide by this person should be verified to keep the conversation valid and truthful, thanks. Lookingheart (talk) 07:54 pm CSDT

No. Hawker is not hostile. Not now, not before. Lookingheart, I find it bad form that you simply refer to someone as "hostile" when they do not agree with you.Bstone

and one comment is that lookingheart is the gathering of the tribes, this is totaly false as people assume it is him since he puts out the calender on his sit(which by the way welcomehome took their calender off) he is just one small cog in the A gathering of the tribes, and is not the leader or in anyway in charge of anything, there are no leaders assumed or imaginary in rainbow. if no one minds i will step in here and add a few things to clarify past and present postings, i do not know who oceankat is, but my real name is what it is mike twofeathers.

there is no official anything in rainbow period, never has been, never will be, there is no standard other than original hip story, to which i see has never been posted to wiki either, only one person's words have been put on wiki, when there is so much more, and even that person has no strived to be more political in nature than peaceful, original gathering in 1972 did NOT have 25000 people attending, at most it was from 1900 to 2400 people, not all climbed the mountain through national gaurd troops to get to mount. i am one of the original people from rainbow house, my validation is my brother who made barry adams a preacher if that is beginning enough. even the world gathering in 1972 was not the first that year, a gathering of the contact tribe earlier that year(a copy of this in the media can be found at http://www.motherearthnews.com/DIY/1972_July_August/A_Gathering_of_the_Contact_Tribe_in_Missouri , the phenomina of gathering that year was spectacular, and you will find that earlier gathering very similar to the so called rainbow gathering. but still even that wasn't the first gathering, first one was a gathering of the tribes in golden gate park a few years before either the contact tribe or the rainbow family of living light gathering. and i saw in wiki where it was supposed to be the beginning of rainbow, this was false too! it was not the beginning of rainbow, rainbow gatherings were a callaboration of folks after a concert in oregon that was supposed to pacify protesters. not well before that, the two are so totally different, totally different vibes, totally different concepts. and the gathering of the tribes in golden gate park was never brought upduring the process of building a "rainbow gathering"!

then we come to the name rainbow gathering, this is a misnomer, for many of the first years it was not called a rainbow gathering, but a world gathering of the tribes, later when more and more started to say the rainbow family (referring to those early days) is having a gathering lets go, then many started to say rainbow gathering. this has evoleved to mean rainbow gathering, and or peace gathering and or many other names over the years, people started calling them selves rainbows, another phemonena(spelling) really not knowing what rainbow family of living light really was, original writing on a small wooden frame said other things, i will and can put it here if need be, but the first basis for rainbow was judean in nature, with respect for all relegions in the name of peace. this has caught on to include all relegions into the rainbow family. i will look through these archives and add more to some i think need to be addressed. wether a gathering is published national, or world wide is irrevelent i would think, the first few were word of mouth and had attendance from all over the world, there are still some gatherings which are done word of mouth, and alot that are done worldwide on the web. ther are no rulers in rainbow, and no one has the power to deny any gathering from being called anything at all. nor is there any person in rainbow that can deny the use of the name rainbow or anyother name from being used. hip story says no leaders, no organization, no denials for anything.forgive my spelling ans punctuation, it is not the best. i also think it should be asked of the naysayers just actually what they are trying to do. many claim they speak for rainbow, but none can, i surely don't. none can control or should be able to control the name rainbow, out of respect for the "annual gathering" A gathering of The Tribes was a named use to differeaint(spelling) between the two functions, many are fed up with the violence, and sales of things in the gatehring. many dispute this and say it doesn't happen, i could put many personal posts from others that say the oposite, one source might be the colrodao rainbow family yahoo group(the family hosting this years anual. this group may give you more of an insight to what happened for real at gatehring, another would be to use the welcomehome agr email list to find more, there is an archive there. you would find many of the FS reported things kinda glamourized by the newspapers, but the same type of informational posts from attending members at this years gathering. here is the links to both the colorado rainbow group and the welcomehome mail list with archivesbelow in the last sentence. i think to find out if some of the reports from newspapers were true to read posts from attending rainbow members, here is one group who hosted the gatehring this year, you will find many accounts of the same violence to verify the things that did happen, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ColoradoRainbowFamily/ another place to verify violence is welcomehome's email list archives, here you will again find verification of violence and other actions by actual rainbow members themselves. http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/index.html at bottom of page you will see eamil<>news gateway, this will take you to the page where you can join and then read archives and such. finaly, to leave any rainbow members out of the history of rainbow family is a devastation in it self, i would compare this to leaving canada out of world war 1 and world war 2. all were involved then just as all rainbows are involved now. no matter what one person says with nothing other than just words. forest service reports bring in reporters, if one is to beleive reporters speaking of a gathering than i think all the violence reported by those same reporters be put into play to show the true heart of the annual gathering if one calls it disinformation, then all reporting should be left out as disinformation, some said 15,000 this year, more like a little less than 10,000 showed, with plenty of violence which could be verified on various rainbow groups. doesn't take long to look at a few files in a few groups to find a reference to the violence. so disinformation and naysayers behind. i remind those who do edit, that the facts speak louder than all the words we have, and just a little research can go a long way in disputes. for those who do not have a long standing in the rainbow family, i think i can say they only know what they hear or what they feel, not neccesarly the truth. living it is so much different. and i have done this myself.i can count how many people have a beef with welcomehere, and i have the people who are disatisfied with the annual now numbering way above those who do not like welcomehere. which by the way is the only reliable calender in rainbow that is well known. thanks for your time miketwofeathers@sbcglobal.net miketwofeathers Twofeathers 00:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC) 4.244.57.33 12:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A timely request

I am still reviewing the various comments made above, but I would like to reiterate one request and make one new one:

Please make sure you are logged in before posting comments in this mediation, and please sign your comments with four tildes. Signing this way produces your username, and your date/time of posting. When logged out, you are effectively anonymous - I cannot tell who you are, and thus your comments in the medation carry much less weight. I am disinclined to consider comments from anonymous editors, even if you are trying to identify yourself by typing out e-mail addresses or web sites.
Please stop editing the list of gatherings until we have resolved this matter - it is only serving to escalate the dispute and increase the negative energy in here at the very same time as I am trying to solve the dispute.

Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have not and will not make any edits to the main page as long as mediation is continueing no matter which version of the National Gathering listing is up. I also have made no edits to the talk page beyond adding my reasons for my edits on the main page. I wish to seperate myself from the anonymous editor who has accused lookingheart of vandalism. I have no idea who this editor is. I have not nor will I accuse anyone of hacking or vandalism. I appreciate you taking the time to help me begin to learn the proper format for this discussion. Oceankat 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that at least one anonymous user is intent on continuing to edit the list of gatherings. I have left a message on their talk page asking them to stop, and to review the latest discussion here. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed so long as the current version stays the same as it is now listed (07/17/2006 - 05:38 pm CSDT) and until a proper consensus is agreed upon by all concerned parties. Oceankat, I appreciate your not modifying the text while mediation is ongoing, that does show so character on your part. I will however edit any derogatory and false comments made by whomever that is vandalizing the wikipedia. Shine!!!! Lookingheart 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

Lookingheart, this is disruptive behavior. My request was that everyone involved stop editing the list, not that everyone involved change it to the way they want it and then agree to stop editing only if it stays that way. I see also that you edited the list anonymously and then logged in to comment here. Is there a reason for that? It is fairly easy to see what is going on here. If you can participate here without being disruptive, we can continue this process. If not, I will close this case and recommend other actions to involved editors. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and close the case then or get additional moderation assistance. I am no seeing you as mediating but rather dictating based on biased assumptions. All the edits have have made where to return them back as they where and I have noted those changes above with my name. If that is anonymous then I dont know how much clearer I can make it known that I personally reverted them back (BTW: My IP Address generally stays the same). Mediation is a two or five way street, your allowing those changes that are unacceptible to some parties involved is not mediation otherwise you would note that whomever keeps changing the historic information is causing conflicts and call for those actions to be halted until further notice. I suggest that at this point your tenure as mediator is almost void unless you can gain some confidence in this issue. Additionally, if you are to gain more faith I suggest that you look at other creative alternatives or ask the concerned parties what might be in their best interest, try asking what might work. 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart

I appreciate your voicing your concerns. I will attempt to address each one.

I am not dictating anything - I proposed a compromise. All of you are free to accept it or reject it as you see fit. If I make a statement, it is not based on "biased assumptions", it is based on the information you have given me here and on Wikipedia policy.
If you are not logged in, you are editing anonymously. I can guess at who you are based on your IP address, but in many places, hundreds of people might share the same IP address. Therefore I request that you log in so your actions can be plainly seen.
I am not allowing or disallowing any changes. I simply requested that people stop editing the list. You changed the list, then conditionally agreed to stop editing it, and then changed it again after someone reverted your edits. Whomever did that is also anonymous, leading to even more problems, and it is not someone who signed their name here to agree to stop editing.
All Wikipedia articles are bound by the requirement that they be notable. My compromise offer of listing the main, national gatherings was based on that. Listing anything less than a national gathering (for any organization, not just this one) is not notable for a global encyclopedia. See WP:N for more information.
Whether you care for my mediation methods or not, no mediator can be successful in here without cooperation of involved parties. If the edit warring continues, or editors continue to take anonymous actions, or no party is willing to entertain compromises, then mediation will fail, period.

I will wait and see if Oceankat agrees to your compromise offer below. If the third editor, the one whom I believe is reverting your edits to the list, chooses to start participating, we can weigh his comments as well. If you truly feel that I have acted in bad faith or with bias, I will gladly ask another mediator to take over. --Aguerriero (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be to ask the third editor if indeed it be them making the edits and ask them to respect the listing as it is now as to not inflame the situation while mediation is in progress. You might also ask them to quit placing derogatory remarks as well if they are doing that also. As a point of direction, please note that the (A) Gathering of the Tribes is a "National" invitation and has nothing to do with regional events, gatherings or affairs. I am still looking for the resource information posted on the Official Rainbow Gathering webpage where a counsel on the land gave it's blessing for these gatherings to continue in unity with the Annual Gathering. Respect and an unbias attitude is all I ask. Lookingheart 04:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

I have tried a blanket request that people stop editing the list, but that has not worked. The third editor has remained anonymous, and has decided not to participate in this mediation. Since they are anonymous, I cannot directly ask them to stop. I think we are finally reaching the crux of the issue though - determine whether or not the Gathering of Tribes are large enough to be notable, and therefore listed on this article. If everyone can agree on that point, we can move forward. However, if anonymous editors continue to edit the page, our efforts may be in vain. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offer

Okay, I have sifted through the information presented here and I will try my best to outline a solution. I want to note up front that is has been exceedingly difficult to determine everyone's viewpoint because of mostly anonymous edits to this page, and because of frequent edit wars on both the main article page and this Talk page.

My primary observation is that there seems to be a rough consensus among editors of this page that only the main, annual gathering should be listed here. Lookingheart, you seem willing to go against this consensus to list "alternative" gatherings.

Wait a minute!!!!!! As a mediator you are supposed to be unbiased. What gives you the inclination that I am unwilling to do anything? What do you base this assumption on? I anticipate a reply to the comments you have made above with a full explination, thanks. Lookingheart 22:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

I didn't say you were unwilling to do anything. I said you were willing to go against consensus, which is clear to anyone reviewing the history of the article. Being unbiased means reviewing all sides, and then interpreting a positive course of action according to the rules and guidelines. I am unbiased - I don't know any of you and it doesn't matter to me whether the alternative gatherings are listed or not. I am simply offering my interpretation of the facts here, as the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia apply to them.

As I wrote below, please consider my question, and then consider my compromise offer. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you to consider the following question:

For a global encyclopedia, what is the threshold at which information is notable for the entire community?

Truth would be a good threshold. Historical facts is another. Would you agree that those gatherings that where under a permit stay listed? Many participants in the Rainbow Gathering feel as though those gatherings where not Rainbow Gatherings and instead where private events hosted by those private individuals who signed the permit. For a deeper understanding of that issue read up on free assemblies. Freedom of assembly is not a licensed activity. What about the years when there where two "National" Gatherings? Shouldn't both those gatherings be listed or is there a criteria that says one is the "Official" and the other was an alternative? Rainbow is many things to many people. The (A) Gathering of the Tribes has been likened to the original gatherings and the now co-opted National Gatherings are being headed by the National Rainbow Management Team. Which is the real one? The free form consensual Rainbow Gatherings that are open to all or the one that is Officially mandated by the NRMT? Now I agree this is all very complicated and for those who are not directly involved in the Rainbow Gatherings it may be even harder. Again, I would suggest that you attempt to get more mediation help involved and further suggest that you do more research. The first Gathering of the Tribes was in the Ozarks in 1972 April 1972 This was 3 months prior to the gathering in Colorado which was to be a one time gathering as noted in the hipstory. So which is the real Rainbow Gathering? The now co-opted NRMT Permit events or the free form consensual gatherings? Lookingheart 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

Lookingheart, you keep refering to historical data. The VA gathering you listed had never happened before and when it was listed it was in the future. I fail to see how that can be construed as historical. Virtually every gathering is listed nationally and everyone is invited. Even those few gatherings that attempt to limit the publicity in order to keep their gathering small and more easily managed invite everyone. This is one of the concepts the rainbow gatherings are based on, everyone is invited. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to what constitutes a "real" rainbow gathering, this has been discussed at length in the rainbow family without resolution. This discussion is way beyond the scope of what is possible in an encyclopedia article. While most are unhappy about the signing of a permit few would claim that a permit changes a "real" rainbow gathering into an "unreal" gathering. No one can stop anyone from signing a permit, it was expected these last few years after the signing in Utah. Yet 10k to 25k people felt the permitted gatherings were sufficiently "real" to attend. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is the purpose of the Mother Earth news article you listed. To summerize: Ed Sabin began writing to people in his local area who had listed their name in the CONTACT section of the mother earth new. He decided to meet these people. He invited them to a 2 day get together on a neighbor's land. There is no mention of national or local advertising nor an open invitation to the public. In fact the article specifically states it was a get together of the friends of Ed Sabin. 100 people came. This was an exclusive gathering limited to the friends of Ed Sabin. I cannot see any relevance to rainbow gatherings. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of only one year when there were 2 National Gatherings, 1993. As you can see both are listed. The reason it is generally accepted that there were 2 National Gatherings in 1993 is that each gathering had in excess of 5,000 attendees. That is clearly notable. If one gathering had 10,000 people and the other 200 it would not be listed nor would the majority of the rainbow family consider that there were 2 gatherings that year. If 10,000 people went to the "gatherings of the tribes" and 200 showed up at the vision council selected location for the national gathering that surely would be notable and it would be listed here. Oceankat 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed several other articles that are about communities that hold annual gatherings to see how they handle other offshoot and alternative gatherings. I conclude that this article is already handling alternative gatherings in the correct way: a section titled "Alternative Rainbow Gatherings" that explains their purpose and existance.

I wrote that piece so I am very familiar with it. Lookingheart 02:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

The only compromise I can offer is that you include a link in the "External links" section to calendars of alternative gatherings. I wish I could recommend something better, but I can't rationalize or justify any other course of action because I don't think it would serve Wikipedia well. I don't think this is the proper venue to advertise or record alternate gatherings.--Aguerriero (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

If you agree with this course of action, please sign below on a new line, with four tildes. Again please make sure you are logged in, as anonymous signatures to this page will be disregarded because we simply cannot determine who you are. If you type a bullet and four tildes, click "Show preview" and see what you produced - it should look similar to mine below. If you see an IP address (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX), you are not logged in and your signature will be disregarded for the reason above. If you disagree, consider proposing a constructive alternative by starting a new heading below.

Aguerriero (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceankat 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Solutions

I propose that the Annual / National listings be corrected to show ALL gatherings that happened in the proper years. This should include years when it was obvious that there where indeed two gatherings. Additionally each year should indicate whether or not the event was a permitted event or a true free form Rainbow Gathering. The listing should have a kindclaimer informing the public on the differences between a permitted event and an actual Rainbow Gathering and there should always remain a NPOV banner at the top.

The (A) Gathering of the Tribes listing of historical dates can be listed in the Alternative Rainbow Gatherings section with an appropriate kindclaimer and continuous NPOV banner informing the public of the differences between the separate views.

If you agree with this course of action, please sign below on a new line, with four tildes. Again please make sure you are logged in, as anonymous signatures to this page will be disregarded because we simply cannot determine who you are. If you type a bullet and four tildes, click "Show preview" and see what you produced - it should look similar to mine below. If you see an IP address (XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX), you are not logged in and your signature will be disregarded for the reason above. If you disagree, consider proposing a constructive alternative by starting a new heading below.

Lookingheart 03:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

twofeathers Twofeathers 00:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation, Part 2

Okay, we seem to have stalled a bit on the mediation, due in no small part to the fact that the edit warring continues on the article. I would like to start fresh, and address two simple points, toward solving this:

I am going to ignore the editing on the article for now, and I advise parties interested in this mediation to do likewise. The edit warring is getting us nowhere.
Let's define what belongs in the list of gatherings.

Does that sound reasonable? Lookingheart and Oceankat, I request responses, and please be concise. In particular, are both of you prepared to compromise? Can we agree on what can be included in the list? I don't think it can be every gathering - that would be too cluttered. I also don't think it can be just one gathering per year. How about any gathering that both invites and expects attendees from multiple states? --Aguerriero (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked the talk page this morning the mediation 2 section had not yet been added. After I finally finished my response to mediation 1 and checked back I discovered mediation 2. It seems I have less time to devote to this process than others, it also takes me quite a bit of time to form my response,(as well as type it in without numerous typos and spelling errors) I will make a greater effort to respond more expeditiously. I am in general agreement with Hawker. If vision council at the National Gathering does not choose the location of the next National Gathering how does Lookingheart explain 10k to 25k people meeting over the fourth of July at the same national forest for 34 years? How is the location picked? As for the numerous local, regional, expansion, or alternative gatherings virtually all of them are listed nationally and everyone is invited. This is one of the core precepts of a rainbow gathering. All peaceful people are invited. While there are a few rainbow gatherings that make some attempt to limit advertising in order to limit the size and manageability of their gathering even those invite all people. Virtually all gatherings, even many of the smallest, have some people from multiple states. These gatherings posted by lookingheart are not unique in any way. I cannot accept small alternative gatherings being included in the National Gathering list. But even if I could, the vast majority of the rainbow family would not and sooner or later this controversy would reignite. For all the controversy over the signing of the permit the vast majority of the rainbow family only recognizes one National Gathering, the one picked at the previous National Gathering vision council. All the evidence I can offer for that is that 15,000 are estimated to have been at the National Gathering in Colorado and rumor has it that at most 200 where at the Missouri gathering of the tribes. As I offered long before this mediation began, I could accept a seperate section for local or alternative gatherings. Though without standards all the problems I have previously refered to would insue. I have no idea how one could craft a standard that included the VA gathering lookingheart posted that would not include every single rainbow gathering that has ever taken place. We could craft a standard that included only the Missouri gathering of the tribes, ie, must have had 3 annual gatherings with in excess of 200 people. That still would include hundreds of gatherings but at least one would be relatively sure that the gatherings listed actually occured. I am as yet unsure if the gathering in VA actually occured. Far too many gatherings have been listed on calenders that have never happened over the years. Oceankat 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oceankat. I do realize that it can be hard to follow all the discussion, but your comments were definitely read and appreciated, even after I had started this section. It seems like the real question we need answered, and I am depending on Lookingheart to help us with this is: How can we establish notability for the Gathering of Tribes meetings, and why should they be included here if the myriad other alternate gatherings are not? Clearly, we cannot include everything - the list would be unwieldly and unmaintainable in the extreme. If Lookingheart can answer that question, we can see if we can meet in the middle. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reposting deleted content) I feel as though this is the question I have been trying to ask in several different ways since I began discussion in May. I feel as though I have made valid points and questions that are worthy of consideration and answers. I have taken the time to attempt to respond to as many of Lookingheart's points as I can. I have seen no attempt by Lookingheart to address any of my points or questions. Sorry to seem discouraged but I feel that so far this mediation has achieved the same result as my attempts at dialog before the mediation began. I am being ignored by lookingheart now as I was then while he simply adds his gatherings to the main page. I cannot see how anything can be achieved without dialog. Oceankat 01:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oceankat, please see Lookingheart's post under "Notability" below, where I feel he has made a good faith effort to explain the notability of the gatherings he would like to include in the article. Your comments appreciated. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--- Sorry for no log in - I have no account and no time for it. This is Hawker (Hawker@ashevillecommunity.org) Can someone fix the CALM link at the end (since editing is closed) The link referes to the old CALM site (stale) at http://www.infolation.com/calm/ The current and correct one is http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/calm/

Also my 2 cents. Permits "what is real" or not does not matter. What is real or not (as LH aluded to) is part of ongoing and bitter controversy and opinion. Wikipedia is about facts not opinion and controversy. Both gatherings have had years with and without permits. this is about the string of gatherings that comes from the vision council consenses nothing else. This does not include AGOT. This NIMT and other conspiricy theories is all the same thing. Sorry LH but AGOT is not the RFOLL gathering, just an alternitive to it. The only year with 2 gatherings was 93 (alabama and Ky) and that is only due to a scout confusion. There are tons of other gatherings (For example NERF in a few weeks) but those do not come from the national vision council and hence are not inlcuded. For this reason I also think AGOT should not be included. Not any other "multiple listing" as proposed. There is only one gathering that comes from the "Rainbow Family Of Living Light" that this wikipidia is about. There are other gatherings besides RFOLL and AGOT and those folks do not confuse them as being the same and hence do not list them here. I think we need a line in the sand and this is it. With one exception (1993) there has only been one RFOLL gathering and that is all that should be listed.

Hawker

Hawker, couldn't agree with you more. Also, someone has changed the link for CALM from welcomehome to infolation. Not sure why because the infolation site is old and no longer relevent in information. I tried to contact the fellow who runs it but he doesn't respond to email or phone calls. Weird. Bstone 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading but I wanted to make sure I got this right. ---- Hawker, are you saying that there is only one Rainbow Gathering and it comes from an official vision council. Is this a main council with an official hierarchical council body? If so, how does this work when Rainbow ideologies have always encouraged the celebration of diversity, participation and most of all free thinking? Is it then proper to assume that any and all other council circles are void unless they get permission from this official vision council? Can you point me/us to the directors/organizers/spokespeople of the Rainbow Family so that further questions may be asked about their organization?

I am still looking for the 2005 Vision Council notes from the Annual Rainbow Gathering. In these notes is the blessing for the AGOTT from Vision Council and as you may already know, it was voiced in open circle 2003 that some of us where going to be going another path to avoid the permits, NRMT, violence and high holy strangulation of the Spirit. Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

Lookingheart, this post of yours doesn't seem entirely genuine. We all know there are no officers/directors/leaders of Rainbow. That's the beauty of it. Asking for such people is not going to further this mediation effort. Bstone

Hey Bstone, This article dated in June of 2006 names "Rob Savoye" as the organizer for "The Rainbow Family." Rainbow Family settles in The article also mentions "Members." Are we then to believe that Rainbow is or is not an organization? If there is no organization then who is it to say what is and what is not Rainbow? Lookingheart 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

Lookingheart, that article obvious was incorrect. I know Rob and I know he isn't an organizer for me or anyone else at Rainbow. That article was written by someone who just doesn't understand Rainbow. Being that we do have a working knowledge of Rainbow, we all know that there are no organizers, officers, directors, etc. There is no official structure. Bstone 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, Hawker. We will also hear from other interested parties. If I understand correctly, your stance is that only gatherings sanctioned by the vision council. I suspect some may disagree with you, especially Lookingheart. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear more about how this "vision council" sanctions gatherings and further would like to ask their organizers some valid questions. Yes, I and many others disagree for just reasons. From what I understand of Rainbow, "No one represents the Rainbow Family." This would include a circle of individuals who are engaged in an informal conversation however, if Hawker can put us in contact with those who are officially in charge of the Rainbow Gatherings we might get some clarifications on this issue. Thanks Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

An acceptable objective criteria for the US National Gathering is if a United States Forest Service National Incident Management Team (NIMT) attends the gathering. Clappingsimon talk 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AGOTT is not the Annual Rainbow Gathering but the NIMT has attended in Missouri. Ranger Page's home district is in the Salem area and many of the gathering locations within the Ozarks are under her stewardship so she tends to show up with a few of her fellow forest officiers. I know this isnt what you wanted to project but it is a fact that they do attend. Lookingheart 00:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

A managing ranger is not a Type 2 NIMT team. See Incident Management Team . Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page is a head honcho (NIMT) and gained her footing in the Ozarks. As a side note, there are many gatherings within the Ozarks, the area serves as a training ground for many of the NIMT officiers. This area of the United States is not new to Rainbow or the NIMT. Lookingheart 04:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

The below section was recently deleted, this is not proper etiquette and can cause mediation to fail. I am adding the Notability section back and ask that all persons doing edits to respect the nature in which this section was offered. Shine! Lookingheart 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

This was due to an edit conflict when 2 editors (you and me) were editing the page at the same time - there should have been a Wikipedia warning. Anyway, I had no intention of deleting your contribution. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

The (A) Gathering of the the Tribes is notable on many fronts and has been recognized nationally & world wide as a defining changing point within the Rainbow Family of Tribes. Many Rainbow Family participants see the AGOTT's as eminent in character and performance for taking the issue of multiple gatherings to many counsel circles prior to manifesting and have also gained respect for the courage in taking a stand for a return to more peaceful gatherings. As the Annual / National Rainbow Gatherings have succumbed to permit harassment and constitutional violations, much detrimental violence, been co-opted by an unwanted management team and suffered much bad publicity, the AGOTT gatherings have offered viable options to those participants who desire to preserve the ideologies and traditions of the Rainbow Family of Living Light. It is also worthy of notice that the Annual Rainbow Family Vision Counsel in 2005 gave it's blessing for an expansion of the gatherings, this has never been done on such a grand public scale for any other Rainbow Gatherings nor has any group or tribe brought the issue to such a large audience in recent history. This expansion of the Rainbow Family of Living Light has been in unity with the Annual Rainbow Gatherings with much respect for those individuals whom desire harmonious venues in which to pray for world peace. As the AGOTT gatherings expand so does the opportunity for other individuals to become involved. This peaceful endeavor and expansion has lead to many open conversations which help foster better communal ties as well as the number of AGOTT / Rainbow Gatherings that are starting to happen across the United States annually on the 4th of July. It is a basic tenant that no one speak for the Rainbow Family of Living Light and no one counsel circle is above any other. It is for these various reasons as well as other viable considerations that the A Gathering of the Tribes is notable historically to the Rainbow Family of Living Light's hipstory and peaceful evolution into a new era of cooperation for the benefit of all humankind. In respect to all my brothers and sisters, HO! Lookingheart 04:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

Thanks, Lookingheart - this is a good step in the right direction, as I think it is important in this discussion to assert notability for information you want to include in the article. Oceankat and others, Lookingheart has asserted that not only are AGOTT gatherings a viable alternative, but they are recognized as significant and influential in the Rainbow Gathering community as a whole, and should therefore be included in the article.

Do other editors agree or disagree with this assertion?
Lookingheart, can you provide a reliable citation for this assessment, per Wikipedia's policy that information be verifiable?

Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been extreemly difficult to form a response to Lookingheart's post. Its so non specific and subjective. My inclination is to simply disagree, state that this is not NPOV and ask for citations to verify. But I'll try to formulate an appropiate response for a discussion related to an encyclopedia entry. "Recognized nationally & world wide" is unclear to me. I tried to think of who could do that recognizing. All I could come up with is newspapers or the rainbow family. I've seen no newspaper recognicion. As for the US rainbow family. The Missouri gathering of the tribes is in its third year and its a heavily publicised gathering. I would guess that most people who consider themselves part of the rainbow family know something of it. I doubt that many people world wide know anything about it. As for the other 2 agott gatherings my personal opinion is they are probably mostly unknown. Its true that there are some who are in favor of multiple gatherings and are very vocal in their support of it. They may feel that AGOTT is eminent. At least as many are against the idea. This and other issues related to the agott gatherings has stirred up a bitter controversy that has played out over rainbow newsgroups as a vicious flame war. Most of the rainbow family have not taken part in that flame war so I have no idea whether the majority of the family thinks agott is eminent or notorious. I would guess most see it as I do, a small local gathering at the same time as the National. Most choose to go to the National. I can only speculate as to their reasons for making that choice. I personally don't think the National Rainbow Gathering has "succumbed to permit harassment and constitutional violations, much detrimental violence, been co-opted by an unwanted management team." Certainly there are and always have been numerous problems that people are working on, sometimes with success, sometimes not. AGOTT is certainly a viable alternative these last 3 years for those who feel the National Rainbow Gathering has succumbed or for any reason they determine. Estimates of the National Gatherings for California 2004, 19,000, West Virginia 2005, 10,000, and Colorado 2006, 15,000. I can only assume that these are the people who think it has not succumbed. Are there any verifiable numbers for the 3 AGOTT locations? Is lookingheart suggesting those are the people who believe the National Rainbow Gathering has succumbed? Why are so many more people choosing to go to a gathering that has succumbed when they could go to an eminent gathering? I'm really struggling to come up with a rational, objective response to this post. I think I've failed in that endevour. This is the best I can do. Oceankat 04:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to dispel the name national rainbow gathering, i will put a quote here from barry adams, (plunker) i will not put the whole letter, but just those things that pertain to the name of the gathering, as some have been adamnant to make a notable proclamation that it is called the "national"

quote follows:

Rainbow Family Tribe/Annual Gathering Way/process is that ALL "agreements", including "permits" and/or "operating plans" of any sort, must be brought before Circle/council July 1-7, 2007 for Gathered People to have opportunity to review and/or to Affirm Consensus (or not).... otherwise, any such "agreements", "permits", "operating plans", etc. et. al. are NOT LEGAL.... and I, among others, are willing to Court to ensure Inalienable, Constitutional Rights of Spiritual Association/assembly are protected.

I hope that indeed Resource and Recreation personnel will be those who are those who are the primary responsibility for 2007 Annual Gathering rather than Law Enforcement...

And that come 2007, Law Enforcement will lay down the gun, and, unlike this year, not force Resource and Recreation personnel NOT to come to Site to work with Gatherers... instead, I would hope there will be Peace...

The Spiritual, religious Ceremony of the Annual Gathering and/or the Rainbow Family Tribe should, shall be protected...

thanks, barry adams, plunker

this letter is freely open posted to the web, so no violations of protocal were apparent. you will note the person is barry adams, and will also note the name national was not used. this dispels the controversy of the name usage, and should clear up the controversy of it. this info can be found in the archives at welcomehome email gateway. Twofeathers 12:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly reminder

As an aside from the discussion above, I'm sure everyone is aware that the edit warring is contining on the article page. While I have previously suggested that we ignore this while we reach a consensus, I want to remind and educate everyone of Wikipedia's Three-revert rule, which states that editors must not perform more than 3 reversions to an article within a 24 hour period. What is occurring in the article right now constitutes reversions - since one editor is adding text, and one is taking it away, back and forth. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Lookingheart isn't keen on a break from the edit war during this period of mediation. I wonder how that looks to the moderator. Bstone 20:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I can see that it is you Bstone who keeps changing the text and also the one who keeps placing the derogatory remarks on the talk page. You are aware that your IP address is logged right??? I think it is your intention to make the mediation process as unkind as possible otherwise, can you explain why you keep hammering the text and placing the rude comments? Lookingheart 23:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Lookingheart[reply]

I simply am stating factual information pertaining to the history of Rainbow Gatherings. Again, Lookingheart, I ask you to please stop vandalising the page. It's unkind and unrainbow. Bstone 23:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am asking you to quit vandalizing the Wiki page and further insisting that you follow some proper ettiquette and log in first so that you cant try and sneak around putting derogitory remarks on the discussion page. You seem to be able to log in prior to posting your rebuttals. Do you understand or are you just attempting to be a "Good Rainbow" and cause chaos in these discussions just because you dont like other peoples views? Sign in if you your going to post your hateful remarks, at least stand up for what you believe and quit trying to be a little sneak.

A thought

What would everyone think of the idea of making a new article called A Gathering of Tribes and listing the alternative gatherings there? So here, the list of national gatherings would not include them, but would have a note at the bottom reading, "For information on alternative national gatherings, see A Gathering of Tribes" - and others could be added as needed. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree to this. Oceankat 22:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i could agree to it IF links and info in the original veiw section for the annual referred to it. but also the name change that people are so adversely seeing that the annual is a national, when even two founders, myself and plunker say it is called otherwise. i also think the violence and other negative things that show the true vibes at the annual gathering be shown too, to show true history. and to make wiki more neutral and truthful in context. which i see is left out, saying fs exagerates, if people beleive the numbers of people who attend as stated by oceancat(this again is fs numbers) is to beleived. then i think all articles relating to such put out by fs be beleived too! this article is so full of holes it leads the reader to beleive that the gatherings are so peaceful, when in real life it is not, and the exagerqated numbers of attendies is wrong to and inflated by oceancat, where he/she underinflated the numbers of A Gathering of the Tribes. the intent of wikipedia is truth in writing. and i am still waiting for it. Twofeathers 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up some issues that are not part of this mediation, but they are noted and appreciated. You are of course welcome to edit the article as appropriate, providing reliable and verifiable sources. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize there is a controversy as to whether the gathering is called the National Rainbow Gathering, the Annual Rainbow Gathering, or the Annual North American Rainbow Gathering. I have no pony in that race. I used the name National Rainbow Gathering in this discussion since that was the name previous editors appeared to agree upon. I would not be involved if there was an editor conflict over which was the appropiate name. I used the estimates from the FS for the Annual/National because they are verifiable. I used rumors and quesstimates for the AGOTT gatherings because I could find no verifiable estimates. I repeatedly requested verifiable information on the AGOTT gatherings. Oceankat 16:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gathering of the Tribes (1967 pagan festival) already exists & would require a disambiguation page. I reckon there will be a notability problem with a "A Gathering of the Tribes (Rainbow Gathering)" article which would probably trigger an WP:AfD and if that failed we'd be back where we started. To sidestep this problem I'd suggest we call it Alternative and Regional Rainbow Gatherings (USA). This wider scope will not suffer the same notability problem. Clappingsimon talk 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. As of now, we are just waiting for Lookingheart to respond to this proposal. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree to this. Waiting on Lookingheart. Bstone 06:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What now? Has Lookingheart decided to drop out of this mediation or was/is he simply away for the weekend? Oceankat 16:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know yet. Lookingheart has not made any other contributions since the 20th, so he may just be away temporarily. I am typically willing to wait 7 days for a response to an inquiry, and I suggest we follow that here since Lookingheart has otherwise been timely in his responses. If he does not respond, we can decide whether to close the mediation case with "no action" since one of the parties dropped out, or to close the mediation case with the consensus action, which is to move the alternative gathering information to Alternative and Regional Rainbow Gatherings (USA). Thanks everyone! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine with me. I'm not trying to hurry the process along. I would prefer to wait rather than have people upset thinking things were rushed without enough time given for responses. Thanks again for the time and effort you've put into this. Oceankat 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]