Talk:Youth International Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

I'm going to delete the "alternative modern use"--please don't restore it unless you you can supply some citations for this use of the word. "Yuppie" was derived from "yippie," and it meant pretty much exactly what this post claims "yippie" means. And the "Chomskite" buisness is hopelessly POV.

"yuppie" as in "young urban professional"? 60.234.229.137 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yuppie is far more capitalism oriented. The neologism use of "yippie" here is a somewhat popular alternative to "yupster" (yuppie-hipster) except forging hippie and yuppie together. Yippie as such is supposed to describe middle-class, anti-capitalist, anti-authoritarians who have thrown away personal activism in favor of sideline cheering. The type of folks who would frequent yuppie Starbucks only to self-righteously buy the one "fair trade" option. A quick google search pulls up these:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=44d9c450-26c4-4eee-b098-08049d180d96&k=32144 http://www.strategicmarketingmontreal.ca/2006/07/grups-are-never-broken-down-by-age-and.html http://thedailygrowl.blogspot.com/2006/01/yippie-yindie-yupster-which-are-you.html http://williamgillis.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_williamgillis_archive.html

The alternative definition is already mentioned on the Yuppie page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuppie#Related_terms

--24.21.85.144 01:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Party

This article leaves me asking "What was their agenda? What did they believe? What did they wish to accomplish? Where were they on the political spectrum?" Yes, they were theatrical, but they were a political party, they had to have some sort of platform right? Kyaa the Catlord 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a fair criticism - I know what the Yippies were about, but if you read the article cold it doesn't come through. If someone has the time and energy, expansion here would be a good idea. If I can find the time I'll try, but I hope someone will get the ball rolling. Tvoz 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Yippie poster.jpg

Image:Yippie poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Other movement called "Yippies"?

What I searched for when I got to this article is a movement called yippies I've heard of, which by the information on this wikipage does not seem to have anything to do with the Youth International Party. They supposedly where something of an misantrophic group, something of an counter-hippie movement, which where represented in the more destructive parts of phreaking and blackhat hacking, seeking ways to crush the society (by hacking banks, information infrastructure etc.) and creating, spreading and hosting of so called "anarchy philes" (plans for making bombs, guns and other weapons). They are mentioned several times in the book "Copyright finns inte" (Copyright Doesn't Exist) by Linus Walleij from the late 90's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.216.158.20 (talk) 13:23, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from an english translation of the book:

Yippies are a kind of tough hippies that do not hesitate to use violence and terrorism to obliterate (as far as possible) American society. They also advocate the use of hallucinogens. Yippies consist of people that have become so sick of American society and its system that they only see one solution to the problem - total destruction. As opposed to classical anarchists, they were not opposed to technology; rather, they exploited all knowledge and resources available to them. One of the most frightening aspects of the yippie movement was that many of its members were quite intelligent . The yippies represented fundamentally different values and norms, which rocked the foundation of American culture.

[1] 80.216.158.20 00:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, after re-reading this wikipedia article I think it actually is the same yippies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.158.20 (talk) 00:58, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
I'd say that book had it completely wrong. Yes, some Yippies thought hacking was a revolutionary act, but they foresaw corporate domination of the web and wanted to stop it. Yippies want to radically change society, but that doesn't mean "total destruction" and "terrorism". Nice to think we "rocked the foundation of American culture" though.Berkeleysappho (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

House Un-American Activities Committee

I copied the material from House Un-American Activities Committee. It needs more sources, and more detailed referencing. I added some reference details to the reference links. It needs more work, though. Maybe some people can help. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Judy Collins

I think it is a dubious proposition to claim that Judy Collins is an "activist associated with the Yippies" because she sang at a press conference they sponsored. I think that it is likely that as far as she was concerned, it was a generic anti-war event. I think we should be cautious under BLP about making this sort of association, because Collins does not generally have a reputation as an anarchist bozo dilletante. (see Judy Collins#Activism.)--Leatherstocking (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"anarchist bozo dilletante". Interesting. As opposed to blind, chest-thumping, goose-stepping, herd-following supporters of a war that eventually most people came to realize was a mistake? Wikipedia is not a political forum. Please see WP:TALK. In her 2004 interview with Bill Moyers she didn't say anything that indicated she regretted her participation. Here is the relevant part of the interview below.--Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NOW with Bill Moyers. November 26, 2004 transcript [2]. PBS.

MOYERS: Is it true that back in '69 and '70, you were called to testify before Judge Hoffman in the trial of the Chicago Seven?

COLLINS: Yes. I was asked to testify at the trial. And I said, I'd be happy to.

MOYERS: Judy Collins had not been present in Chicago in August of 1968 when protesters against the war in Vietnam clashed violently with the police at the Democratic National Convention. But six months earlier, in New York, leaders of the YIPPIES — a countercultural group known as the Youth International Party — had asked her to sing at their first press conference. And she did. Some of the YIPPIES would be arrested for their role in the Chicago riots that August, and at their trial the next year, Judy Collins was called to testify.

COLLINS: So when Judge Hoffman asked me if I would tell them what I did at the press conference, I said, well, this is what I did. "Where have all the flowers gone?"

And along came the guard from the door and put his hand over my mouth and stopped me singing. And the Judge said, you can't sing in court.

MOYERS: They muffled you.

COLLINS: They muffled me. They muffled me. Well, those were the years, you know. There was… the war was going on and… that war, which we've now revisited so much in these past few months, it's been very painful.

MOYERS: Why did you put your career on the line for that?

COLLINS: Well, I didn't think of it as doing that. You know, that's part of my upbringing. When you have a political idea, when you have a belief, then you take an action and you make your presence and your point of view known. And it wouldn't have mattered if I was a singer or a person who was teaching at a university. I knew many, many of those people who became part of the movement and were protesting against the war, I marched with a lot of them around the country.

MOYERS: Did the war make you angry?

COLLINS: Oh, still makes me angry.

MOYERS: The Vietnam War?

COLLINS: Oh, my God. It's so heartbreaking to me and so painful. One of the most painful parts of it, of course, that everybody knew. Everybody knew we were on the wrong track. And eventually, we'd say so, whether it was McNamara or President Johnson, or whoever it was, finally would come around to just a terrible mistake. I don't know that I've ever seen anybody say it was a great thing to do.

I don't see regret in Judy Collins remarks. I see pride. The sheep back then are the ones now who seem to have regret now for calling antiwar leaders "anarchist bozo dilettantes" back then. Of course some people still believe in their fairy tales of glorious war to "liberate" the savages while killing millions of the savages in order to "save" them. Or they believe in quiet, buttoned-down, polite activism only that doesn't require them to stick their necks out, or to sing in public at Yippie press conferences, or in court. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:I believe that you are conflating opposition to the war with support for the Yippies. Collins opposed the war, there is no argument about that. The Yippies were more about legalizing reefer than stopping the war. WP:BLP requires us to think twice about affiliating Collins with the group, unless you have something more concrete than the source you are offering. --Leatherstocking (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC);
The Wikipedia article does not say she was a Yippie. It said she was associated with the Yippies. The article quotes her. You can't get more concrete than that. WP:IDONTLIKEIT on your part does not negate this. WP:BLP means we put out info from reliable sources. Bill Moyers and PBS are reliable sources. The quotes are reliable. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, can we stop the political discussion, and stick to writing a Wikipedia article? I am sure we both have many opinions on all the issues. And I am sure we have many opinions on what the Yippies were or were not. But simplistic incorrect analysis such as "anarchist bozo dilettantes" and "more about legalizing reefer than stopping the war" is just one POV amony many, and only invites my equally simplistic, sarcastic comments in reply. I actually have a much more nuanced opinion on cannabis, the Yippies, and the effectiveness of various forms of political activism. But that type of discussion is not what wikipedia talk pages are made for. Please see WP:TALK.
Also, you did not fill out the RFC wikicode correctly, and you put it in the wrong place. You put it in the middle of our discussion. I moved it down below our discussion to avoid confusion. Your RFC is still incorrectly formatted. I did not change it in any way. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
:::I believe that I have fixed the RfC template. Your clarification edit in the article is misleading: you say that Moyers asked Collins whether she put her career on the line for "that and the other activism," "that" referring, by implication, to the Yippies. Moyers did not ask her about the Yippies at all. -- this is your own original research. I would request that you remove it. --Leatherstocking (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC);
Bill Moyers specifically discussed the Yippies, as did Judy Collins. Read the relevant part of the interview copied higher up in this section (interview is in italics). I clarified the text further though in several ways. For example; I clarified "associated with". Here is the first part of the sentence in question: "Other activists associated with the Yippies (though not all called themselves 'Yippies')...". There is no reason you couldn't have clarified this yourself instead of deleting all the Judy Collins info as you originally did. It is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines to delete sourced info. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Does singing at an anti-war press conference, sponsored by the Yippies, make Judy Collins a Yippie?

  • No, but then no part of the article is claiming Judy Collins called herself a Yippie. Testifying at the Chicago Seven trial does not make her a Yippie either. The article only states the facts of her singing at the first press conference of the Yippies, and of testifying at the Chicago Seven trial. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
::Then I question her inclusion in the article as one of "Other activists associated with the Yippies (though not all called themselves 'Yippies'.)" The essential point of WP:BLP is "do no harm." The article Judy Collins makes no reference to any association with the Yippies. I think that the implication in this article could be embarassing to Ms. Collins. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC);
What harm? She is not embarrassed by these facts. She is proud of her activism. She said so to Bill Moyers. Obviously, from your previous remarks, you would be embarrassed if you had been involved with the Yippees. But this article is about the Yippees, not you. The biography article about Judy Collins is another article. The editors there have to choose what facts (out of many) to include. They have to put the main details of her life in her biography article. There is not enough room there to put all details of her life. They have to pick and choose. I leave that up to the editors of that article. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
::::Again, I must object to your sleight-of-hand logic. Collins says she is proud of her anti-war activism, which is what Moyers is asking her about. He is not asking her about any connection to the Yippies, and she is not answering about it. The idea that anti-war activism is the same as support for the Yippies is your idea and yours alone. --Leatherstocking (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC);
You must not be reading the same interview. I will let other readers decide. The sleight-of-hand logic, and constant spinning of the facts, is on your end. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation tag for Yippie sense of humor

I removed the "citation needed" tag that appeared after the statement that the Yippies were famous for their sense of humor. The article provides several examples of the Yippies' pranks.76.69.120.101 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I moved this talk section to the bottom of the talk page. New talk sections go to the bottom of talk pages. Please see WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know why the article received the advertisement tag. Could someone select some parts of it that show that bias ? I dont see them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.107.45.30 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just removed the advertisement tag. Nothing in the article has been claimed to be an advertisement. The tag had been up since February 2008. It is up to the person making the claim of advertisement to point out the advertisement. Otherwise the tag is meaningless. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Pieman - A Yippie

Is not obviously covered in this article. [3] 71.199.104.170 (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

YIP

The Youth International Party was more of an anarchist or anti-authority party than an anti-authoritarian party. Authoritarian governments are like incomplete democracies. An example of an emerging authoritarian state could be The Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin. There is suppression of dissent, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. Monopoly of tv political ads for Putin or his chosen successors. Russia is no longer a totalitarian dictatorship but is not a full democracy,and has moved away from democracy under Putin. An anti-authoritarian party would oppose an authoritarian government like Russia and perhaps China. The YIP opposed the United States of America, which with all its imperfections was not an authoritarian state. I think the YIP was anti-authority, or anti-establisment perhaps, or anarchist.Alex2706 (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

'Anti-authoritarianism' is anti-'authority' not anti-'authoritarianism'. I'm aware the wording, and english grammar makes this awkward to understand. I had to think about it for awhile. Also, self-identified anti-authoritarian groups tend to see th United States as authoritarian anyhow. Zazaban (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Political party"

Is the YIP a registered political party in the U.S., or has it ever been? Has it actually run human candidates in elections? If so, we should include ballot statistics. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC);

Postings by sock of banned user struck-through.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Lower house representative

The sidebar lists the YIP as having a lower house representative. This is cited anywhere in the article, and I can't find a source online. Being that larger parties such as the Greens, Libertarians, and Constitution party all don't have any state representatives at all, and there are only a handful of elected third party/independent representatives in the entire US, I find the claim that such a fringe movement could have one highly questionable.98.95.220.134 (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's questionable. I don't believe the Yippies, despite the word "Party" in their name, were ever a formal political party (although I may be wrong about that). I'd be perfectly happy to remove the electoral information if nobody objects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and remove it, as I can find no source to cite them having a seat.-LCG8928 (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I was farily intimate w/ the group at #9, and I cannot recall even a desire for political representation: anarchist in that respect. --John Bessa (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

1984 onward

To put those advanced times in perspective, the movement followed the Great Depression by 30+ years, yet the movement's hey day was nearly a half-century ago. A good part of the yippie activity was from the mid-80s to the near present, when #9 was foreclosed upon, effectively closing the movement. Besides the passage of time and NYC's changing economy, also important was the imprisonment of Dana Beal in Wisconsin; Dana was the backbone of the party as long as I knew them. Keeping the party alive meant meeting the increasingly inflated NYC property prices while preserving its initial purpose and flavor to an obsessive degree. The environment only changed to create the coffee shop and museum, which, I believe, was considered an economic necessity.

Without question, the greatest activities were the marijuana (MJ) march with a destination concert, which, I believe, began as a revival of the British anti-Nazi movement called Rock against Racism. The concerts were, and presumably still are, "smoke-ins" (descendant of the 60s be-ins and love-ins), and the rallies are/were pot parades. In 1984 this was called Rock Against Reagan for a tour that targeted the Republican National Convention, where the US flag was burned to create the landmark case that legalized flag-burning (that no one today actually remembers!)

The MJ events remained big through the 90s with thousands attending despite increasing free speech repression and police harassment. Today, the events are tiny and include the splinter MJ group formed in the mid-80s amongst squatters who were purely anarchist, and thus opposed to Beal's control. Significantly, a recent march included two other backbones of the Lower East Side / East Village movement, Aron Kay (Pieman) and Jerry the Peddler of the squatter movement--both aging. Aron Kay is still active however, and posts frequently to Facebook (FB) despite health and financial problems.

From what I could tell, there was only one "version two" yippie leader, Dana Beal, and one very strong theoretical or spiritual leader, Aron Kay. However, very significantly in recent years, and as Dana Beal sat in prison (suffering a heart attack), and the building approached foreclosure, a whole new cadre came of of the woodwork, so to speak, to take "ownership." Despite visiting #9 frequently I had never seen any of this apparent background crew except AJ Weberman --and him only once. I only came to know of them recently from FB and I was quite alarmed by their seemingly-fascistic tendencies, especially rampant censorship reminiscent of Stalin, and also racism (that I don't wish to detail here). This suggested to me various things: that there was an invisible Yippie "board of directors," that the Yippies had decayed in ways described by Jacques Camatte in his "On Organization," that the marijuana movement increasingly took on a racketeering flavor, and that there was a background relationship between the Yippies and core capital that included Rubin's move to finances (as an example). Because this background cadre was so disproportionately Jewish, because there appeared to be a financial link, and because this background column was so seemingly neoplatonic, I have hypothesized that the yippie movement (and perhaps much of the NYC Left) was a front as evidenced by the relationship between #9 and Weberman's Jewish Defense Organization (JDO) across the street at #10 Bleeker, and the nationalist-sounding racism (that I don't want to describe). This suggests to me that the NY Left was the Israeli Right (despite tolerance for the idea of Palestine in the context of sharing Israel). This hypothesis came to me during the aftermath of Occupy Wall Street movement (that more-or-less coincided with the foreclosure of #9) as it also saw a financial connection: the 99% ultimately came in full support of Paul Krugman's globalist-stimulus "liberal" economics that are presently the "name of the game." I wonder about other Yippie traits, especially why the environment was ignored (as by Occupy), and why humaneness to animals was wholly rejected as an issue (also as by Occupy). This callousness towards the Earth suggests that old-school communism and socialism still play into the picture in both the left and Occupy, and that capital (as a development of the cattle trade) is as left as it is right. --John Bessa (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note on the above, it's a coredump of experiences (obviously) with an attempt to explain some of the stuff that was going on that neither I, nor my friends/comrades, actually cared about at the time. But, now, with a stimulus economy that is neither left not right in that it is considered "good," that promises to melt the ice caps, I find myself on a monodiet of my past that included a considerable investment in the YIP as well as the squatter culture, such as it was. The YIP culture lives on, but ambiguously largely because of its Jewish Left supporting-structure and the current Jewish relationship with capital. In contrast, however, I am personally currently dealing with a difficult and decidedly non-Jewish culture (that is borderline anti-Semitic) that nearly, exactly resembles Brando's "On the Waterfront" (inq. into Fr. Corridan) that I call "Wooden City".
A difficult part of this coredump is that we, as yips, were trained to attack the dominant Christian culture in unique ways by the Jewish Left (such as in Steal this Book, which is a sort of information bomb); but, now that Jewish culture dominates the financial capital of NYC, and any inquiry into its dominance (such as with the Koch brothers) is considered anti-Semitic. This isn't to say that the old-school Left and its current youth don't give the Koches a hard time, because they do :) --John Bessa (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
John, some interesting ideas here, if rather elusive esp. as it regards to Jewish vs. gentile culture. BTW, the Kochs, however, if I'm not mistaken, are not Jewish. Seems to me some of the Yips (not Ed Sanders or Tuli certainly) were just straight out opportunists or worse. This could explain the existence on the scene of a cat like Weberman with his political Schizophrenia, but also characters like Tom Forcade, who as a very non-ethnic American much more represented the hustler wing of YIP. I certainly hope Abbie was on the level but, Rubin? who knows, after all the New Left (including and especially the Yips) were rocketed to fame by the very establishment they purported to despise. I'm blanking on the guys name now, but do you remember the WASPY Yip purported revolutionary had wrote about his experiences as a gay hustler and by 1975 was writing for NY Mag about fear over lgoing bald. Detmcphierson (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Youth International Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Youth International Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Youth International Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Question

{{{help me}}} Is it impossible to edit the references section? (Says "reflist" and it took me forever to find out what that was.) Because its somewhat of a mess and I'd like to clean it up. I know a lot about this subject, these were my peoples; still in touch with a good number of them. (I am listed on this page, which is initially what got my attention and got me interested in Wikipedia some years ago.)

If this is not possible, please see reference #12 -- link to New York Times article, which is what I wanted to fix. Not sure why the link is not working: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/nyregion/emptying-a-building-long-home-to-activists.html

If you read it, its about the emptying of the Yippie building, which means the last part of the article should be updated to say the last few Yippies who were living at 9 Bleecker Street have officially vacated the premises, and the Yippie Museum is now defunct-- "unclear about enterprise going forward" can stay in.

Sad but true. thanks PB57 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello PB57, and welcome to Wikipedia. The "References" section is a list of the article's footnotes, and by design, the footnotes are incorporated in the body of the text. To edit footnote #5, for example, click on the little caret between the "5." and "Gitlin, Todd (1993)." That will bring you to the place in the article's text where footnote #5 appears. If you wanted to correct, say, a misspelling in the name of Gitlin's book, you would edit the first section of the article, find the footnote (it's sandwiched between <ref> and </ref>) and edit it. When you click on "Preview" (below the edit box), you have the opportunity to see what the revised footnote will look like in the "References" section after you save your changes. If you have any further questions, please follow up on my talk page instead of this page, which is supposed to be specifically about improvements to this article.
It looks like the problem with footnote #12 was a misspelling in the URL -- it should have ended with html not html/. I just corrected it.
Please feel free to edit this article -- and any other Wikipedia article -- but if you can, try to cite reliable sources for the facts you add. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Youth International Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

C-Class

Hi. A couple of things. Could others watching this page possibly give me some pointers on what needs to be done to update this page to a C or even B class article?
Aside from that could somebody please justify the yippies political positioning as 'Post-left (unofficial)'? As far as i understand it 'Post-Left' as a label far proceeds the Yippies and i cannot think of any logic that will place them in this grouping that isn't overly permissive, If this can not be answered I will remove/revert this change.
A Last question: Is the 2020 section necessary? All it contains currently is information about a movie relating to the Chicago 7 trial of which there are already several. Thanks, W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC).

Agreed that it doesn't seem all that important to me, but I added it since everyone else assured me it was. If you read the links, it seems that the film implicated "Black Lives Matter" and the question of when civil disobedience is called for; folks were reading a lot of our present-day sensibility into past events... which I thought made the film somewhat more significant than the past movies. (the cast was much better too) The film itself was probably a lot more popular since 1) viewed during pandemic, and 2) "Black Lives Matter" protests happening at the same time. PB57 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions re: rather aggressive editing on the Yippie page

1) I was informed in the Teahouse that linking to an image of a photo or poster was an acceptable way to prove it happened, since these are historical documents. Is this no longer true? Referring to your removal of 1) a Yippie poster and 2) leaflet of gallery event.

I was told several times that these were acceptable to link, when did this policy change?

2) Huffington Post is cited all over wikipedia, when was this pronounced an unreliable source?

3) I was also told long-standing edits of years' duration should only be edited when absolutely necessary, and then only for errors. (there were none) Is this also no longer the policy?

You are welcome to reply on my page, or here. Peace out PB57 (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

^ above copied over from my talk page and I am addressing it here. @PumpkinButter:, the cited sources do not meet WP:RS because they're WP:BLOG posted by something other than a reliable third party. When something having happened is only featured in those sources, it is not due to include it, because not everything belongs here. Please see WP:HUFFPO. Journalist/staff written articles are not the same thing as contributor posts and it is specifically addressed on the reliable sources page. If you still feel that these sources that I've removed should be included, I suggest you take those sources to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and obtain input there. Graywalls (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice I did not ask about HuffPo and found the answer to that one myself. However, I would argue the other blog link you deleted was just a collection of AP photos of nightclubs (included an account of Steve Rubell getting hit with pie inside Studio 54) (aside: giggles) and see nothing wrong with that one. Aren't some blogspot blogs allowed? Is there some specific criteria for exclusion?

My primary question is specifically about the poster and leaflet you deleted, I was specifically informed it was okay to link a photos since I could not get the copyright info to post the photo/posters on the page itself. (the posters and photos I did manage to get posted/approved are all ones I silkscreened or took myself and I have the copyright) Because it was SO difficult to find who even made these things (lots of these ppl are dead now, is why), someone said, go ahead and post a link to the posters/photos and that is okay. So I did. You deleted a smoke-in poster and a leaflet from a gallery show about Aron Kay. I need to know if these types of things can no longer be linked, as I was informed that they were okay or I would not have even thought of doing it in the first place. thanks. PB57 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

10 days and no reply. So, was the edit that crucial after 3 yrs, if nobody cares enough to even tell me why the poster (in particular) and leaflet were removed? Is it okay to add them back, in that case, if I leave out the sources deemed unreliable? (Why or why not?) I find this kind of thing maddening, when people swoop in with Draconian edits and then refuse to engage. This somewhat-disrespectful modus operandi, along with use of the strongly-politically-biased term "HuffPoCon" (for HuffPo) causes one to wonder if in fact this was a "good faith edit"? Since the leaflet would better serve on a page about Aron Kay, which I am afraid to make myself (and this conversation illustrates the reasons for that!)... I have restored the link to the Smoke In poster, only. As I said in my edit summary, I would prefer being able to put the actual poster ITSELF on the page, but no idea who made it or who has the copyright. I hope this is an acceptable compromise. PB57 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@PumpkinButter:, HUFFPOCON is not a political term, it's a spin from WP:FORBESCON, meaning Huffington Post Contributor article, which per consensus is generally deemed unreliable. I removed the posters, because it seems unclear what the posters add to the understanding of the article, which is the purpose of the article, not just to showcase things for the sake of it. Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Graywalls: A poster was like a TV commercial back in the day; it was our social media.

Nowadays, it is a pretty reliable way of verifying an event really did happen, as well as an historical artifact. Posters are also a way to communicate the culture of the times: art work, graphic style, which info was emphasized and which info was left out/excluded. All over Wikipedia, there are posters of concerts, movies, political campaigns, debates, famous events. Some are printed in their entirety, but often, if they are not yet public domain or the source unknown (etc), they are linked to in the manner I did. Similarly, sometimes ppl link a series of photos in a museum or collection.

I was posting the Washington DC smoke-in poster in that vein; since it was called a "countercultural tradition" in the text, it seemed a countercultural poster would be called for. Also wanted to prove it was a Yippie event (the Moonies tried to take credit for it several times, so the legend goes) and was specifically organized for July 4th. as an acknowledgement of Independence Day. On several levels, the poster certainly qualifies as a historical political artifact now. (In fact, the geographic location for the old smoke-ins is now the site of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.)

As I said, the leaflet about Aron would better belong on a page about him, IMO. But someone lots braver than me would have to start that page; and as we see, I am not nearly brave enough to be participating on this one. Peace Out. PB57 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aggressive editing, continued

@Graywalls: Do you edit right wing pages as often as you do left wing pages?

Not seeing that.

Just a question, since I detect a strong political bias in your editing pattern... in short, you really hate the Yippies, doncha?

Sorry to piss you off so much. But if you aren't pissed, you might want to learn to stop editing in such an accusatory, condescending fashion, because you sound quite pissed: Your way or the highway.

Well, have fun. I see that anything I do will be immediately changed, so I promise NOT to touch it again.

BTW, Happy Women's History Month! Is this the month we collectively rend our garments, gnash our teeth and try to solve the amazing mystery of why more women won't edit wikipedia? (LOL--pretty funny, huh?)

Are women the subject of edit-wars/stalking more often than men are (per capita), or is that just some nasty rumor? PB57 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: OMG, did you actually revert a typo correction?

What was wrong with my quote marks?

This is getting personal, not to mention creepy. PB57 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@W1tchkr4ft 00 and PumpkinButter:, PB, enough with the personal attack. If I undid a typo correction, that was unintentional, and you corrected that, good. I removed the poster, because you generally can't source a photograph to justify including contents, because the article should be written primarily based on independent secondary sources. As for the pie throwing, if you're referring to Special:Diff/1010202501, I've thoroughly explained it in the edit summary. Herald Weekly did not say anything to the effect of "notorious owner of disco Studio 54, convicted tax-evader". This is full of loaded language that is not impartial and significantly editorialized and goes against our expectations of neutral point of view meaning that we don't editorialize things in such a way that it presents a different tone than what sources support. Graywalls (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Added Steve Rubell back, with no added commentary but to identify him as owner of Studio 54--subject of the linked article. PB57 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk about moving the goalposts.

You are now claiming the article I linked doesn't state Aron Kay was a Yippie, when he is all over the page, with plenty of links proving that he was?

Yes, of course I knew you'd revert that. (That was just a test, for those following along at home. Basically, I can no longer post to this page without this individual reverting everything I post. He has made this personal.)

Yours is much bigger than mine, dude. Happy International Women's Day, I'm out! Do you feel triumphant? (That's 3 reverts now... isn't there some kind of rule? Yes: One for women, one for men! LOL) PB57 (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Special International Womens Day update on edit war, for those interested

I fixed the sentence exactly to his specifications, then added the citation back... and yet he still deleted the citation, this time giving some other new, unrelated, bizarre, nonsensical reason...

Basically, this individual has decided I can no longer post to the page.

How does he get this power? Who gave it to him?

Because he is the intimidating one, so he gets his way.

THIS IS WHY WOMEN DO NOT FEEL WELCOME ON WIKIPEDIA, MEN ARE BULLIES.

Happy International Women's Day; when will you stop allowing bullies to intimidate, harass and win at edit-wars? Until then, Wikipedia World, please stop lying that you want women here, because it is deliberately and unapologetically a MAN'S WORLD; they freely intimidate, dominate and stalk women with considerable aplomb.

This is the task: get rid of the roadblocks and more women would feel welcome to participate.

As it is, when you give free reign to bully-boy culture, they know they can do whatever they want and there will be NO repercussions. PB57 (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't make further changes to anything about Aron Kay. Th edit summary relates to the changes I made and they don't necessarily relate to the edit immediately prior to it. I believe you're referring to my latest edit where I removed Matthew Steen from prose in which it referenced the source https://books.google.com/books?id=6iYiDQAAQBAJ , because the cited source did not have "steen" anywhere within the entire book. I also looked at Matthew Steen's article and did not find sources tying him to Yippie. On Wikipedia, contents being directly verifiable with sources is an absolute minimum requirement. When it comes to sourcing, there are requirements to be met to comply with reliable sourcing, which includes not using user generated contents, such as YouTube videos with a few exceptions such as those controlled by official mainsteram news channel. Graywalls (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Graywalls, from looking at the history page it's understandable for PB to assume you are riding her edits. She's done very good work on this page, so I hope you two work this out and revert the page back to a date where the edit war wasn't taking casualties. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Steen was repeatedly accused of being an informer, so his page has likely been scrubbed for overt lefty content/associations. Once someone becomes "suspicious"--nobody claims to know them anymore, LOL. He can burn in hell for all I care! (Is that bias?) Steen was everywhere for awhile, according to Dana Beal, Wavy Gravy, Leatrice Urbanowitz and others... then disappeared very abruptly, which is never a good sign. Rather than take up the unpleasant question of whether he really was an informer (this suspicion might be mentioned in the Berkeley Barb link, which I think did a whole article about him once, if memory serves?), better to take him off the page completely. So thank you. PB57 (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

With complete respect -- Maybe you should both spend some time away from this page to cool off. SP00KY talk 22:01, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Youth_International_Party/Archive_1&oldid=1214681598"