Talk:Woodstock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Monterey Pop Festival

I added a link for the Monterey Pop festival, which deserves an article of its own. Monterey was, as far as I know, the first rock festival of its kind, and probably served as the inspiration for Woodstock. I have to say that, after looking at the roster of artists who performed at Woodstock, I am blown away with just how impressive it was. No wonder so many people wanted to attend.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egern~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 November 2001 (UTC)

Overlinking

Don't you think there are way too many hyperlinks in this article? Words like "rainy"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiba (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

Neil Young

I changed the Crosby, Stills, & Nash (and Young) reference to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, but I later read that Young only joined the trio after Woodstock. Apparently he did perform some numbers with them, but I don't know if he and they were featured separately and this was just serendipity. Could someone chime in on this? -- Jeff Q 06:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Neil Young joined CSN during the electric portion of their Woodstock set. He can be heard on lead vocal on the song, "Sea of Madness" which is on the original 1970 album. Jonathon Hiatt 24.118.0.57 04:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of the USPS Stamp

I hate to be a killjoy but doesn't the license on the stamp used on this page specifically rule out its use in this manner? Nrbelex ^(talk) 03:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Edit - Grateful Dead

The Grateful Dead played at the festival but did not appear in the film or in any music releases due to their refusal to sign the contract given to them just before they went on stage.

I took this out, because this isn't true about the Dead and Woodstock. This happened with the Dead and the Monterey Pop Festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jck strw (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Abbie Hoffman incident

I took the entire part in the Abbie Hoffman article about him and Woodstock and created a section in this about it. Meddling 00:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Meddling

I just read the section. it was funny reading about how he states that the incident didn't occur - I've listened to a bootleg of the performance and Townshend clearly yells at him "fuck off my fucking stage" before the sound of him being hit with the body of a guitar is heard and the audience starts laughing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.39.140 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, not exactly. Either your bootleg copy is of really poor quality, or you didn't listen very carefully. The version from 30 Years of Maximum R&B couldn't be clearer, and anyone with properly functioning ears and a command of the English language who listens to it will realize that Townshend says, "Back off," and not "Fuck off." Did you even consider for a moment how utterly ridiculous "Fuck off my fucking stage" sounds? It makes NO SENSE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingray86 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, Abbie Hoffman is clearly trying to downplay the incident. Townshend wasn't merely tuning up. They were in the middle of performing Tommy. And Townshend obviously didn't simply turn around and bump into him. You can hear the anger in Townshend's voice and the surprise in Hoffman's when Townshend lights into him. Clashwho 13:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More sources template

I've added the above header to the article. There are many sections in the "Festival" section that reference facts and figures that should be sourced. This is a good area for footnotes so the remarks can be verified. I don't like to use the {{fact}} template because it makes articles look clunky, but just about every paragraph in this section could and should be referenced. There are also numerous single sentence paragraphs here that either need to be expanded or reworked. I don't have the expertise in this subject to do it myself or else I would be bold and do it. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency?

in the description it says "The Who did not take stage until about 4:00 in the morning" but when you school down it says 3:00. Consistancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.120.138 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The most famous

We really need a source for that. Otherwise it's just original research. bogdan 20:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Local View

I recently lived in the area of the concert for almost two years (I lived in the town of Thompson, Sullivan County, N.Y., adjacent to the town of Bethel). I am young (born 15 years after the festival), and I was surprised that many longtime local people I met from the area, did not have fond memories of the event. As other areas did not originally want the concert, this area of Sullivan County was somewhat unwelcoming and unprepared for the festival. People told me that the strain it put on the police and other public employees/officials as well as the roads being shut down were the biggest problems. Even in retrospect today, some people wish the festival had never happened. I also herd a rumor of a recent find: An old car trunk contained a dufflebag filled with unused, untorn tickets from the festival, and was found by a garage mechanic in Monticello, N.Y.(Town of Thompson). Maybe someone knows about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.116.124 (talk) 23:35, December 15, 2006

Of course the local people didn't like the Woodstock festival; mostly they hated it. They were country people, mostly too old to be fans of the musical genres represented, and these outsiders were disrupting their lives. You need to realize that in 1969 no one in a small town over the age of 40, and very few over the age of 30, would tolerate acid-rock music, marijuana, LSD, long hair, beards, exhibitionism, and so forth. Only the shopkeepers liked it -- they were able to sell all the twinkies, milk, soda pop, and cigarettes they could get their hands on. At that time the USA was very polarized (even more so than in 2007) and the largely middle-aged people of this rural area were on the opposite side from the young people attending the festival. (Of course the people attending the festival are in their 50s and 60s today, so age is no longer a very reliable guide for one's attitude toward neo-bohemianism, but it certainly was back then.) Paul 04:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone out there hates this page

protect was unfortunate, but it had to be done...this is getting out of hand Meddling 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Meddling

FYI: Placing the "sprotect" template on the page doesn't mean it's actually semi-protected, it just means that there's now a box at the top of the page saying that it's protected. As you've no doubt noticed, we're still getting anonymous IP vandalism. To request Semi-protection you need to go to WP:RPP. I think we have a pretty fair case, given the amount of vandalism we've been reverting on a daily basis. Cgingold 14:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, we have no case. There's been 10 vandalism edits over a week, that's nopt enough. The only pages that get protected are the ones with 10 vandalism edits a DAY. -- Scorpion 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure it's only been 10/week? (I haven't gone back and counted them.) At any rate (no pun intended!), it definitely doesn't require 10 per day to get semi-protection from anonymous users. (Full protection is another matter entirely.) It may be somewhat on the low side, but I think the severity of the vandalism needs to be taken into account -- for some reason, this article gets a high quotient of blanking, which strikes me as a more serious concern than mere nonsense edits. Cgingold 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SInce February 1, there have been 7 sets of vandalism (10 edits), that is not enough. They will merely say that the vandalism is containable by having the page on watch. Perhaps it's not 10 per day to get protected, but I can tell you that this page most likely would not be protected. -- Scorpion 15:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Underwood

"Jay Underwood got most of the bands to perform and was also on stage for many of the songs." Who? The only Jay Underwood otherwise known to Wikipedia was then a baby. —Tamfang 21:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Promoters

This article needs the names of the promoters and financial backers of Woodstock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.173.35.26 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The promoters were: Artie Kornfeld, a former Capitol Records A & R executive; Michael Lang;

John Roberts, heir to the Polident denture cream fortune; Joel Rosenman. A very stoned Kornfeld and Lang appear in the movie. It should be noted that Lang went on to promote the subsequent festivals (1994 and 1999). Because the festival lost huge amounts of money and John Roberts allegedly had signed over $500K worth of bad checks (Source: Trivia, 1994 Woodstock box set), Roberts basically cashed in a portion of his inheritance. The story of Woodstock Ventures, Inc. and the festival's organization (including the chronology of events during the festival) can be found at a number of trusted Woodstock-related websites.

P.S. Please also note that the set list is not accurate and that I added Arlo Guthrie's set list for Friday, August 15. Please go to any of the better Woodstock websites for this source material.

-Jonathan Hiatt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.0.57 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

When

The Clarence White-era Byrds were given an opportunity to play, but refused to do so after a melee during their performance at the Atlanta Pop Festival earlier that summer.

This will work better if a more exact time was specified, as the usage of "summer" here is ambiguous.

A new interpretive center dedicated to the Woodstock Festival and its meaning is scheduled to open in the summer of 2007.

This is also ambiguous. Substituting the exact date will work better here. --B.d.mills 03:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

An exact date for the opening does not exist. Working dates have been Memorial Day, July 4, and Labor Day, but currently there is a hold on setting the exact date due to rights clearances for several performances. The opening is not likely to occur before October 2007, but could be later — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.51.26 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just visited the site yesterday (August 4th, 2007) and one of the staff said it was scheduled to open this fall, but will most likely be moved back to spring 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.61.72 (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The museum is scheduled to be opened sometime in Spring 2008, although there is no exact date available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.104.3 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Other Perfomances...

is there any way to get the videos of other perfomances? like the one of ravi shankar or the other songs of great musicians like john sebastian, richie havens, jeff airplane and so long... the woodstock documentary should be at least 3 days long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.184.99.4 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Attendance

How many *actually* attended? Claims of 400,000 are regularly made, but where does the figure come from? --Robert Merkel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.128.xxx (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2001 (UTC)

According to a sign on the Yazgur Farm marking the site, "over 400,000" attended. Sca (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Complete, more organised setlist?

There's a setlist at DigitalDreamDoor, but it's inconsistant with the one here, and I think there should just be a complete setlist rather than an small, short description of their performance, for the time being I will be using the setlist at the website, and people who know differently can change it as they please if their information is wrong. Meddling 21:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Meddling

I have two quibbles with the setlist. (1) There is a Jimi Hendrix song on the "Woodstock Two" album (Cotillion Records, 1971) titled "Get My Heart Back Together." (2) OK, I wasn't exactly sober at the time, but I saw Mountain at New York City's Felt Forum on December 31, 1973, and I recall Leslie West introducing their performance of the song "Nantucket Sleighride" as "a song we played at Woodstock." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.240.84 (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The set list is a lot inconsistent with the one here (http://woodstock.wikia.com/wiki/Setlist). There are some cited proofs on that site. Someone can verify and change it accordingly. I also think that there should be a separate page for the set list because there might be a lot of edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoursvivek (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. I was just over at the German Wikipedia Woodstock article complaining about the setlist, now I'm here and I see that some work is already done. This setlist is based on research of some Woodstock experts. Since 2004 they discuss on a Yahoo! mailing list everything around Woodstock, they also pointed out how to assemble the Woodstock Complete compilation. I created the Woodstock Wiki, http://woodstock.wikia.com, in order to transfer the knowledge of the non-public mailinglist to a consistent and public form. And one of the main points is the correct setlist according to the latest research. I know that this statement doesn't make this list better than the Wikipedia list but there are a lot of proofs from hard facts (audio recordings, photos, videos) which leads to the setlist on the Woodstock Wiki.

A note regarding the song listing: The Woodstock Complete compilation (Version 3) covers 236 track and was aimed to re-create the festival as it took place. It was very important to arrange the tracks correctly and thus results in the given listing. The setlist is for sure incomplete because some songs are just missing (ie. not recorded). Hints on missing songs are stated in the individual pages of the artists on the Woodstock Wiki.

84.119.22.25 (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

John Lennon?

The promoters of Woodstock refused John Lennon? Any reason why? Sure, it would have been nice if the Beatles had been at Woodstock, but why refuse Lennon?-10/4/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.9 (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2006

Because Abbey Road and Let It Be hadn't even been released yet, and so for many the Beatles weren't over yet. John Lennon wasn't an act on his own.--SMac — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.155.193 (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but that's the biggest pile of shit i ever heard, even ringo was name of his own, because he was ringo starr of the beatles, jesus, and lennon played solo at the rock'n'roll revival concert with the ono band before woodstock, just like he played on the rolling stones rock'n'roll circus in 68, and if they had booked lennon they would have had clapton also, and that would have been another big name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.227.222 (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wavy Gravy

Shouldn't he and his "Please Force" be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.79.108 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2007

A frankly reprehensible omission as these guys appear to be the only "source" responsible for holding the whole mess together.Jameselmo (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess Who

Acording to Randy Bachman, The Guess Who were invited, but because they played some other festival, which the considered to be the best, they declined. They went on to record American Woman at thet time. He said this on his radio show some time back. I can't remeber exactley how it went, but if anyone can eleborate upon this, it should be included.
ufossuck 01:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, he said this on a radio show? has he provided any proof? who cares? Does it have any bearing on this iconic historical event, that a virtually unknown band, before their one international hit was released, didn't make it? Why should an unproven comment be included and even if they have a proffered contract as evidence, should this be of any interest to anyone?Jameselmo (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

iron butterfly are mentioned there, and probably if the guess who had played woodstock they had become bigger than they were, i mean look at what woodstock did for santana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.227.222 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

Why is the article at "Woodstock Festival"? I notice that the most common name, "Woodstock", is a redirect here (I would have thought that the best spot for the article unless "Woodstock" was a disambiguation, which it isn't). I also see that acording to article, the official name was apparently "the Woodstock Music and Art Fair" and I didn't notice an explanation of why it should be called "Woodstock Festival" in the article. Just wondering, -- Infrogmation 03:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Woodstock is a town, not a festival, that's why.Jameselmo (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Infrogmation, I was wondering the the same thing, and it appears that (more than a year later) no one has provided an adequate answer. Even if the article name is informal, the headword should reflect the actual name of the festival. Ringbang (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The term "Woodstock" had prominence for reasons other than the festival long before 1969. I personally don't even think the page entitled "Woodstock" should redirect here; it should go to the disambig page. But the current "Woodstock Festival" article definitely should not be retitled "Woodstock", just as Madonna should not be the page for the singer. Wikipedia should not be that narrow in its interpretation of terms. Ward3001 (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix and Neil Young

I've read where Neil claimed that he and Jimi were on their way to the Woodstock stage area. However, being that it was a bit far off in the distance Neil hijacked a pick-up truck and drove it thru the fields while Jimi rode on the hood pointing the way. T. Cole-Chicago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.220.64 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

A slightly contentious version, Neil originally claimed "He rode in pick up "we hijacked" (borrowed without permission?), others: Mitch Mitchell & Billy Cox remember it as just a rough ride in a station wagon, as they couldn't get a helicopter.Jameselmo (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

Hey, I always thought that there were 24 hours in a day, taken from 12.00 to 24.00, so why is this set list artificially divided into 3 days when the festival actually ran into 4, yet another example of 'fitting' the evidence to a pre-concieved Ideal, lets get back to reality, the audience certainly did, no matter how spaced they have been percieved as, the majority headed off back to routine of 'Monday Morning' and a lot of those that stayed for a glimpse of Jimi left shortly after he arrived on stage.Jameselmo (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not a continuous show (on stage) from Friday evening 5PM to Monday morning 11AM. There were long gaps, more than 6 hours, between first & second day, and second & third day when no performance was going on stage. It will be really strange way to put things according to calendar date. Think about a song starting at 23:58 midnight and ending at 00:03 on next calendar date. How will you put that? Vivek^Talk!! 09:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased edits by User:68.53.171.208

A large amount of biased edits have been contributed today by 68.53.171.208. This could be vandalism or simply a disgruntled critic of the festival, but either way, I'd ask everyone to keep an eye on his/her contributions to see if any further action should be taken. Thanks, Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, GB. I've just removed several speculative, unsourced, I-read-it-someplace statements in the set list section. This sort of thing has plagued this article for years. If somebody can find sources for these things that supposedly went on (viz, The Who wouldn't play unless they were paid first - this may very well be true, but it should be sourced), by all means restore. Seduisant (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is some text (and a link) in a book which discusses the matter of paying The Who (and others). However, there are no footnotes to substantiate this specific information:

---> "A local banker, Charlie Prince, went way out on a limb and extended $250,000 of credit to Woodstock Ventures at a crucial time. Because additional ticket revenues were not coming in and some acts (Janis Joplin, the Who, and the Grateful Dead) refused to perform until they were paid, ..." --P. 270

-- Rounds, Dwight. The Year the Music Died: 1964-1972: A Commentary ... 2007)

http://books.google.com/books?id=qOrk3NEDr-kC&pg=PA270&dq=%22the+who%22+woodstock+refused&client=safari&sig=ACfU3U1MYkmNyZO8SRUwHwG5hOg3glz_Xw

The same information appears (again with no footnotes) in this 2006 book, It Happened in New York:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ISwdFTPvipoC&pg=PA124&dq=%22the+who%22+woodstock+%22refused+to+play%22&lr=&client=safari&sig=ACfU3U1kJat4QjSHXllhC3CN9ynU--usNw

So, I do not know if you all would consider these sources as verifiable information. Designquest10 (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note about Led Zeppelin

This sentence makes no sense and appears to be missing a word or two: "Instead the group went on with their hugely successful summer tour, their only time out being taken to attend Elvis Presley's show, at the International Hotel in Las Vegas, on August 12." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.101.64 (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Important Festival Organizer

Wesley Pomeroy should have been included in this article. He was the Vice President and Director of Security for Woodstock, which played a very important role.

Source Source

There are several other sources if you need them. As he was a key and essential organizer for the event, he should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.67.206 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim Hardin

It says that Tim Hardin headed up an hour-long set but only shows two songs he played (which together are somewhere around five minutes long); I'm just curious as to how he filled a whole hour. Did he play some jam session or something for the remainder of his set? 69.134.33.93 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

the beatles

you should really take them out of the article, i mean a few weeks ago there stands that they coulnd't get the beatles to play there but john offered to be there with the ono band(but they turned him down), now there stands that the beatles would have come if the ono band could also play, and if this would be true why the hell should they turn down the beatles just because after them there would play the band who played give peace a chance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.249.95 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment is so incomprehensible that I question whether it is serious. But The Beatles are part of the history of Woodstock precisely because they were offered a spot but turned it down. It stays. Ward3001 (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

yeah but please check why they actually didn't came there.(the changes in the first post are from me because i wrote the first post) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.228.25 (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to add a source. Ward3001 (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

well, it's been rewritten, okay, i meant this, imagine the beatles, biggest best selling band of the world, haven't played live since 66, would appear at your festival and you turn them down because after their performance the band who had a hit with give peace a chance would have played, i mean even i don't hate yoko enough for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.227.222 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodstock Jazz Festival

A "See also" link to Woodstock Jazz Festival was placed in the article twice. I have removed it because I see very little relationship to Woodstock Festival except for the coincidence of both containing the word "Woodstock" simply because the jazz festival occured in Woodstock, NY. The jazz festival was not based on the 1969 rock event (as some other music festivals have been), and the music genre was entirely different. A coincidence of name is not notable enough for inclusion in the article. If that was the case, we would be linking such unrelated articles as an 1826 novel entitled Woodstock. Ward3001 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of citation tags

Ward, you are invited to join the discussion on the talk page regarding your use of fact tags. First you haven't challenged the material in question. Second, section tags are preferred to multiple citation tags whenever possible, especially in cases where it appears that a single topic is covered by single sources, such as an event like this. Third, with all due respect, you do not appear to be familiar with the material in question, as you do not seem to have made an effort to look for sources. Specific fact tags are used for controversial, challenged, or quoted material. If you can't be bothered to do the research, then that's fine, just excuse yourself from this article. If on the other hand, you are serious about adding sources, I welcome and invite you to participate. Now, please join the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, don't accuse me of edit warring when I made one revert, and then you reverted me. That is not edit warring. False accusations, when done sufficiently, constitute a personal attack.
• Section tags are preferred IF AND ONLY IF the entire section is absent citations. Such is not the case in this article. Specific parts of sections, NOT the entire section, need citations. Citation-needed tags are preferred in that case. And specific citation tags are not restricted to "controversial, challenged, or quoted material". Link a policy that says that. But more to the point:
• You said I haven't challenged the material in question. If you'll take a few seconds to look at the edit history, I am the one who added many of the tags, and that is, in fact, challenging the material.
• "If you can't be bothered to do the research, then that's fine, just excuse yourself from this article." That is utter absurdity. Again, give me a policy that says someone who adds the citation-needed tags is required to do the research. Anyone can add a cn tag if material is unsourced, and that does not obligate that person to find a source. It's done that way all the time. And I will not "excuse myself" from any article that I choose to edit. So please don't assume that you tell other editors what to do if they are not violating policy, and please don't assume ownership of this or any other article. So before you revert again give me the policy that says I can't add cn tags without then doing the research. Ward3001 (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ward, you've been here long enough to know how things work. There certainly is edit warring going on here, and often times it doesn't even require a revert. It's your confrontational attitude in addtion to your revert. First of all, you're mistaken about the use of the unreferenced-section tag. What you might not be aware of, is that many different types of unsourced section tags redirect to that tag. Also, it can easily be replaced with {{Refimprovesect}}, which again meets your objection. We don't need multiple tags that discusses the same material in one section. Editors who add fact tag after fact tag to each sentence in one section are often reverted because this is not the way we do things here. Standard procedure is to use a particular section template instead of multiple tags. If there is a particular piece of material that is questionable, then make that clear on the talk page and either add a fact tag to that one piece of material or remove it to the talk page. If you don't know anything about the material, then say so, but repeatedly edit warring with your attitude isn't improving this article. Listen to what you are saying. You just threatened to edit war instead of discussing the issues. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And your second revert. At least you proved my point. You are more interested in edit warring than in improving this article. Thanks for demonstrating that I was 100% correct about you. I feel vindicated. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See talk. Don't edit war. Undid revision 256750310 by Viriditas (talk)) Hilarious! Simply hilarious! Ward, I have not laughed this hard in a long time. Thank you for the comedy. Who could imagine that you would edit war while demanding that others do as you say, not as you do! Glorious fun! Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Second request: Link to the policies to back up what you say. Where specifically does it say that "Standard procedure is to use a particular section template instead of multiple tags. If there is a particular piece of material that is questionable, then make that clear on the talk page and either add a fact tag to that one piece of material or remove it to the talk page." Link to the policy.
• "You just threatened to edit war instead of discussing the issues": Please quote my words where I threatened to edit war. Please cease false accusations. I will consider the next one to be a personal attack. Ward3001 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
• "It's your confrontational attitude in addtion to your revert": I see. If I disagree, it's edit warring and confrontational attitude. If you disagree, it's following policy.
• My second revert? Look at the edit history. You reverted edits made before today, and you reverted my edit today. Ward3001 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ward, I want to thank you for this exchange. If it had not occurred, I would not have been alerted to the cold, hard fact, that everything you say and do cannot, under any circumstances be taken seriously. Again, thank you for demonstrating this with your two reverts to the article and your demand that "others" stop edit warring. BTW, if you are ever in Hawaii and decide to do some stand-up comedy, let me know. But, please, don't wear the clown suit. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I'm still waiting for the link to those policies that you seem to be so expert in. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath. Ward3001 (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

crickets chirping... Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to foreign-language sites

With the most recent edit to this article, there are now two External Links to foreign-language (French) Woodstock sites.

As a casual editor, I don't know the WP policy about non-English links, but the addition of these links seems to me to be a bit de trop for an English encyclopedia. In addition, the links appear to be rather promotional in nature. Could a seasoned Wikipedian please comment, and if appropriate, delete these references? Merci. Seduisant (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually would agree that we should remove foreign-language sites if there are English sites available. In this case, however, I'm not as sure. The French link is Canadian. Many Canadians speak English but prefer French. Out of respect for them, I would be OK with leaving the link. By the way, maybe I'm missing something, but I only see one foreign-language link in "External links". Ward3001 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not evident, but the final - and most recently added - link, "Destination Woodstock," is a French-language site also - some kind of weird "tribute" thing, listing past and present Woodstock-themed shows that take place in Paris and other exotic European locales. It's entertaining enough, but what it has to do with this article is less clear. As an aside, Ward3001, I appreciate all the policing and cleaning up you've done on this article over time. I've been at it for years, and as you know it's a thankless and never-ending task. Seduisant (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed "Destination Woodstock". In the unlikely event enough people object, it can be added again. Thanks also to you for your hard work. Ward3001 (talk) 00:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I just took a closer look at "Woodstock En Beauce" and got a Google translation, as I don't speak French. It does not appear to pertain to the original Woodstock Festival. It also appears to be a lot of spam. If no one object, I'm removing that link in a day or two. Ward3001 (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the removal of another article: the Portugese one addressing a possible Woodstock tribute concert in Brazil. Not only is this article not in English, but it also is only speculation and does not certify the future occurence of an actual event. --Mrkemper (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Albums

I was stunned to find that the article had virtually no info about the albums, apart from a brief mention in the intro. I added a small section, just below the section about the film. EJSawyer (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

link to Woodstock.com

Today I reverted an infobox entry/external link to something called woodstock.com [1], which features some Woodstock content, but is mostly reviews of concerts, albums, etc. by non-Woodstock bands, plus lots of ads. There's also content from "fans", Facebook-style, listing concerts they've attended, and similar drivel.

Usually I would dismiss this out of hand, but I did a WHOIS on the site, and found that it is the work of Joel Rosenman, one of the festival founders. Any registered article-watchers want to weigh in on this link's inclusion? Thanks. Seduisant (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a spamlink to me. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Woodstock.com is a JV between Sony Music and Woodstock Ventures. Joel Rosenman and Michael Lang are both very involved. They have both participated in writing copy for the site. Sammyg77 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any less spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

25 years?

Wasn't the idea that there'd be a Woodstock every 25 years? The next one (#3) being in 2019? --98.232.181.201 (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

ALSO, there was a Woodstock festival in 1994 (25th Anniversary) and the 30th Anniversary (30th Anniversary). The last event was marred not-so-good bands, a bonfire protesting high prices at the fest and a rape, and there were many comments from interviews stating they hoped there would be no more "Woodstocks". It seems like this should have AT LEAST been mentioned. V Schauf (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have suggested additions regarding the 1994 festival, you might want to try the Woodstock '94 article or its talk page. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was invited to talk

by Viriditas (talk) about the change I wanted to make. Viriditas may I ask your permission?Markmark12 (talk) 09:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thruway closing

A recent AP story quotes Bethel museum Director Wade Lawrence saying that the NY State Thruway was never closed, contrary to the BBC article cited. I added a line indicating this was disputed. I went to the NY Times articles at the time and there was no reference to the Thruway or even Rt. 17 being closed. It only indicates that Rt. 17B was blocked off. On balance, I think it may be an urban myth.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The announcement that the Thruway was closed was announced to the crowd and has been replayed over and over due to its inclusion in the movie. If you are driving to the site from New York City you head north to the The Thruway then at an exit some 60 or so miles from the site you go onto Route 17 or as it is popular known as "The Quickway". So it would seem odd that The Thruway would be closed but not The Quickway. Gridlock on the Thruway was very likely. During the 1960's Sullivan County was a hugely popular summer vacation destination for New York City area residents. Our family like many had a bungalow in the region. One Saturday in the mid 1960's we tried to go there after three hours turned around after not getting even halfway due to Thruway gridlock. I would add The Times article look at the an the Times Herald-Record which is the area paper. They have to be doing retrospectives. Edkollin (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the Times Herald Record exhaustive 1994 retrospective[2] and saw no statements about any closing. Their 40th anniversary retrospective is Thursday and if there is nothing more I probably will cut the line off at the statement that there was a massive traffic jam, note the Thruway closing announcement to the concertgoers and note the museum director disputes it. Edkollin (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anything in the Times Herald Record? The closing of the Thruway was mentioned by Arlo Guthrie on stage. We don't know his source. It wasn't really announced.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

While there was plenty of interesting reading and in some cases article worthy material nothing on this topic, so I will make the minor changes I mentioned. Edkollin (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The Woodstock Stop

Can anybody tell me why there is nothing about Woodstock Stop? This is the biggest open-air rock festival in Europe. It's ogranized since 1995 in Poland from 1st to 3rd of August.

Of course it's different festival but in fact, it have really big refers to the traditions of 1969. For example, at the oficial site of the festival there is short triler at the top, which shows clips about 40th anniversary. Or near the logo of this year edition, there is the logo of the classic '69 festival.

The Woodstock Stop is very popular festival, in this year there should be about half milion people there, so I suppose that there must be some information about it.

This is the links to sites:

http://www.en.wosp.org.pl/woodstock/ (english)

http://www.wosp.org.pl/przystanek/2009/ (polish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.66.70 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that there was Michael Lang on Woodstock Stop in Poland. He was there becouse of 40th anniversary of Woodstock. Woodstock Stop is connected with whole Woodstock tradition. Organizators of Woodstock Stop have the same ideas, they try to change the world and for example in next year there would like to invite Al Gore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.66.70 (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Did Rolling stone sponsor woodstock?

Does anyone else hate that Rolling Stone is there at top as well as the stuff in the pp that follows. As someone who wasn't around then, it certainyl doesnt help summarize the essence of what it was. it just reeks of raining on the parade--what credibility to they have in determining what was and what wasnt about Woodstock? maybe if Rolling Stone explained what made the event historic , and there was a link to that article...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markmark12 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

original research or unverified claims - what a mess

Statements like these litter this article:

The festival was held during a time of military conflict abroad and racial discord at home, and participants quickly became aware that the event had taken on a meaning beyond its original intent. The site of Woodstock became, for four days, a countercultural mini-nation. Minds were "open", drugs were used, and "love" was "free".

Yet, in tune with the idealistic hopes of the 1960s, Woodstock satisfied most attendees

A concert hall has been erected up the hill, and the fields of the old Yasgur farm are still visited by people of all generations.

99.164.68.102 (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for claiming that you did not provide an explanation for the tag when I removed it; for some reason I missed your comments here. Some edits/deletions have been made to the statements you cite; let's discuss here if you think further changes are needed. And, how about creating a user name? Jgm (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph cited above, as it's pure OR, but the article still has an inappropriate tone. As you can imagine, this article is going to get a massive number of hits because of the 40th anniversary, and it really has some deficiencies.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Dylan

Is it true that the main purpose of the festival was to coax out Bob Dylan? This isn't really mentioned in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An unsourced reference to the choice of Woodstock, N.Y. as the location, in part to coax out Dylan, was removed. I believe that is accurate and I have read it somewhere. If reliable sourcing can be found it should go back in. There are a lot of urban myths repeated in the media (such as the closing of the Thruway, which never happened) so we have to be careful.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times and The Media

There is a source ^ "Reporting Woodstock: Some contemporary press reflections on the festival" by Simon Warner in Remembering Woodstock, edited by Andy Bennett (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2004)." that seems to be the citation used for the claims made in the section. Because we can't link to the section there is no way to immediately figure out if the claims made from this section come from this cite. If they are there is no problem. If this can't be confirmed this needs to be taken out as there are some very serious allegation being made here.

On a longer term note this section should evolve into a general overview of how the media covered the event. Edkollin (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines suggests that sources have to be available online to support claims in articles. Bongomatic 02:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I know they don't have to be available. But since they are not available I just want to know if the claims being made here are coming from that particular source and if they are coming from that source they accurately reflect what the source said. These are very serious claims being made against people, some of whom might be still living. The New York Times has been criticized for years for promoting an agenda by story placement and emphasizing and deemphasizing topics. If the every editor pressed a reporter to knowingly mislead his readers and have their newspaper act like a tabloid this takes things to a whole other level. This situation calls for caution. It seems like it is properly sourced. I just want to make sure it really is. Edkollin (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In any event, I question how this section adds to the readers' understanding of the article topic. There is no inherent *notability* in how one news outlet covered the event. The article is not about the NYT; there is no useful context for details about an apparent disagreement between a reporter and his editors. Jgm (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This at best should be covered in one or two sentences. A whole section is WP:UNDUE Edkollin (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is totally disproportionate to its significance. Media coverage was notable for being rather not notable as far as I can see. The Times gave the festival short shrift and, surprise surprise, the local paper covered that 400,000 people descended on its area. The subsection on the Times Herald Record is ridiculous. Naturally the newspaper covered the festival in depth. It would cover the dropping of an A-bomb on the area too. Unless there is independent, third party sourcing ot indicate that its coverage of the festival was notable, it should be greatly shrunk.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed a phrase suggesting that the Times Herald Record was under serious consideration for a Pulitzer. This is attributed to one unidentified Times Herald Record. Totally inadequate sourcing. I wanted to clarify my edit summary, as by "editor" I meant editor of the paper not Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I put back the gutted paragraph about the Times Herald-Record. All the information is cited. Indeed, there is a lot more that should have been included, such as the Pulitzer consideration (which was in the cites, Johnny) and that the Record had the only daily coverage from the ground. ----—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron Dave (talk • contribs)

I think that all the details on the newspaper's coverage are far-overweighted for an article on the festival. For an article on the newspaper, perhaps, but for the festival it is, at best, trivia. I notice from your talk page that you give your name as Romm, and you reverted mention of two T-H-R staffers named Romm, one of whom was the editor. I don't like to revert when there is a good faith dispute, but since this is evidently a COI edit I am going to revert. If I'm mistaken about the COI I apologize, but I think that you need to clarify here if you are related to the Romms whose names you reverted, and/or to the newspaper. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

David, according to your user page you are the brother of Joseph J. Romm, which would make you, like him, the son of Al Romm, former editor of the T-H-R and the subject of this edit along with Mrs. Romm, your mother. This edit therefore directly related to your parents. If I'm somehow misunderstanding what's on your user page, please let me know.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny: Correct, I am the son of Al and Ethel Romm. I was in and around the Record and its coverage of Woodstock. Why do you insist that eyewitness accounts that are now online cites are somehow less than others? I'm undoing your cuts. Please stop editing this section. ----—Preceding unsigned comment added by Baron Dave (talk • contribs)

The issue is WP:UNDUE, and the insistent re-insertion by yourself of tangential text about your parents. This article is about the Woodstock festival. The text that you keep reinserting is tangential to that event. You have a clearcut conflict of interest. Please be mindful of WP:COI and confine yourself to the talk pages.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FA for the 17th

Does anyone believe this article can be made ready for nomination for FA for the 40th anniversary of Woodstock on the 17th. It would be nice but it is rated C class and still haves at least 1 tag. Just a thought. B.s.n. (R.N.) 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. I have to shoulder much of the blame personally as I just haven't had the time.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

So, did Woodstock eventually create a profit for the investors?

Here's my take:

• in the movie one of the organisers (the one with the curly hair) states that they invested US$ 2 million
• this article states that 180k plus tickets were sold at at least US$ 18 = US$ 3.240.000

So, even with Woodstock eventually becoming a free concert, it should have created a pretty healthy profit.

Does anyone have further information on this? Thanks! Maikel (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The tickets were sold at $7 for one day, $13 for two and $18 for three days. See books by Robert Spitz ("Barefoot in Babylon"), Michael Lang and Pete Fornatale. $18 was the top ticket price, not the bottom, therefore your estimate of revenues is too high. The festival eventually turned a profit due to sale of the movie and album rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.13.191 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Profitable or not?" is, like all questions, to be answered here by reliable sources). I have seen clips of interviews lately relating that there were many lawsuits following the festival (upwards of 80, according to persons in the promoter group), indicating that the two million "invested" was not sufficient to cover the true costs incurred by the promoters. There should be some reliable sources out there for this litigation. Steveozone (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if this article included a section about how the festival was financed, who paid what, and where the money went. This is especially true if the "peace and love" concert was followed by 80 lawsuits. GregE625 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How does it rate?

How does Woodstock compare to other big concerts of the era? Was it the biggest until then? Was it the biggest concert ever?

Was there anything new about the idea to host several bands, not just a single act and their supporting band?

Let's put Woodstock in perspective, folks! Ta, Maikel (talk) 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Timing of Country Joe and Sebastian appearances

Two of the major books on the subject (Robert Spitz "Barefoot in Babylon" and Pete Fornatale "Back to the Garden") state that Contry Joe's solo appearance and John Sebastian's occurred on Friday night, after Richie Havens. They go into considerable detail about how this occurred. Michael Lang's book has their appearances on Saturday afternoon, as does this article, without a citation. What's the real story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.13.191 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat shocked to hear about this, as it is utter nonsense. Are you really saying that BOTH these books state independently of each other that Sebastian and Country Joe played on Friday? If I had the inclination I might look this up, but I sat in that field for 4 days, and believe me (and I hope this ain't OR) both these guys played on Saturday. The order of performances in this article is correct (as for the setlists, well... I dunno). I know this sounds old and farty, but if you can find a vinyl copy of John Sebastian's eponymous solo album, the back cover is a picture of JS playing at the Festival, in the middle of the day. I wonder what these "authors" are smoking; in any event, I'd be disinclined to use these books as "sources" for anything based on this assertion. Cheers. Seduisant (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiber's account disputed

Elliot Tiber's account of the origins of Woodstock, and how it came to Bethel, needs to be treated with caution. He claims in the book Taking Woodstock, which I've read, that he personally introduced Michael Lang to Max Yasgur. But Lang says Tiber introduced Lang to a real estate salesman, and the salesman drove Lang to Yasgur, without Tiber. This is a pretty big discrepancy. Tiber may be right, but Sam Yasgur, Max's son, agrees with Lang. Given that this key factual detail is disputed, prudence requires that anything attributable to Tiber be stated as such in the article. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If two or more involved sources disagree, whether it be this subject or a date of a performance it is best to write in both claims while attributing each claim to its source. These guys are self interested businessmen and we are dealing with 40 year old events so discrepancies are not surprising. Edkollin (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading through contemporary accounts of the festival in the NY Times as I build up the Max Yasgur article, and noticing how he just isn't mentioned at all, I'm growing increasingly uneasy about such a lengthy paragraph devoted to Tiber's factually dubious account. I noticed that Publisher's Weekly called it an "improbable" book. Improbable="probably bull." I'm going to reduce it in size while retaining the essence of what he says. Also I notice that he claims in an article he wrote that some of the performers stayed at his motel and not word one appears on this in his book Taking Woodstock! I'm removing that completely.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur

Editors familiar with the history of the festival are urged to take a look at Sam Yasgur. I just became aware of this article. It claims that Sam Yasgur persuaded his father to bring Woodstock to Bethel. That is unsupported by the two references. I'd suspect this was a hoax, but it has been around for four years.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I had never heard of this individual before this moment. I read his "article", and he's a tangential footnote to ... what, exactly? He did not "play a vital role American music history," as the article so pompously trumpets - his celebrity consisted in talking to his dad, is all. I don't think this is a hoax, but the article should immediately be deleted on account of WP:NOT. The kid is already mentioned in his Dad's article, and that's certainly enough for anybody. If I knew how to nominate an article for deletion, I'd do it to this one. Nice catch Johnny. Seduisant (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Brau poem

An anon editor insists on creating a new section consisting solely of a description of a poem about Woodstock by Argentine poet Edgar Brau. There is already a "Cultural references" section, where any mention of this poem would seem to belong; there is no indication it deserves a section of its own. Additionally, the added content contained an extensive description/analysis of the poem's content, which is completely unsourced. As added, the entry appears spammy, unsourced and gives undue weight to one work by an author who, while probably is considered important in his homeland, does not even have an entry in English Wikipedia.

Additionally, in the same edit in which I trimmed the poem description to that which could be verified (based on the English-language publisher's site, sort of COI in itself), I also included other minor fixes to other references and external links. The anon editor keeps reverting the entire set of changes without comment, undoing changes explained/noted in the edit summaries. Reverting for reasons given. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Tribute concert in Woodstock Illinois

Does a 40th anniversary concert comprised of apparently non-notable tribute bands merit mention? Rather than edit war, I'm bringing this here for a consensus. JNW (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Minimally it would require some reliable sources (beyond maybe the local newspaper) that establish some notability for the event. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

With a good reference, one line, melded with the appropriate section. As it stands it's a sore thumb, runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. JNW (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

John Fogerty Quote

John Fogerty's quote may be accurate as to what he said but what he stated isn't accurate. The Bic lighter wasn't around in 1969. The guy he mentioned would have been using some other type of lighter (probably a Zippo, maybe something else). Maybe the guy who was "flicking his Bic" was flicking a Bic ink pen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.198.16 (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A very moot and silly point. It's a direct quote, which we don't change. And "flicking his Bic" has become a nonliteral expression, meaning flicking a lighter. Almost everyone (in the United States at least) knows what the expression means. It certainly doesn't mean a Bic pen because Fogerty would neither have heard it nor commented in such a serious way on something that silly. Cresix (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote

There's now a Wikiquote page devoted to quotations from or about the festival, Q:Woodstock Festival. It's just a start. I know there are a bunch of memorable lines, but I don't have any books on the topic. If anyone can improve the page, have at it. (I copied in the John Fogerty quotation from this page already.)   Will Beback  talk  08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

listed the official 25th & 30th anniversary concerts

Woodstock 25th anniversary Woodstock 94 held at the historic 'Wilson Farm' in Saugerties, NY hosted 200,000+ folks who celebrated the spirit of the original festival with multiple stages, an eco-village, a craft-village and an installation by Todd Rundgren. The two main stages hosted major artists from around the world and were designed by Peter Max. Michael Lang partnered with PolyGram Records to finance this production.

Woodstock 30th anniversary Michael Lang and Jon Scher promoted and produced this festival located at an abandoned air force base in Rome NY. 250,000+ attended this festival which ended in riots. Major artists including the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, Dave Matthew's Band, Green Day and Rusted Root performed during the three days.

The above concerts were major events in Woodstock History and yet no mention is made on the page, they should be listed and linked to the relevant pages. Astralmaster (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you do some research and find sources? Google books is a good place to start.. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Woodstock Festival → Woodstock – The proposed title already redirects here, so issues of primary topic should be moot. I think people rarely append "Festival" when talking about this event; they just say "I was at Woodstock" or "Woodstock was a crazy time". That makes Woodstock the WP:COMMONNAME for this event. Powers ^T 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who grew up in Woodstock, my experience was that it was referred to as the Woodstock Festival as Woodstock would be ambiguous with the town, though I can see how that is probably a local thing. Monty₈₄₅ 15:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Woodstock already redirects here, though, so that'd be a different discussion if you're questioning primary topic. Powers ^T 17:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – I'm OK with the Woodstock Festival being the primary topic for Woodstock, but don't see a reason to move to the more ambiguous title. Dicklyon (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - As it's mostly known as just 'Woodstock'. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. It appears to be most commonly known as simply "Woodstock" and appears to be the primary topic for the term. If the festival is not the primary topic, then Woodstock (disambiguation) should be moved to Woodstock. See the previous move discussion at Talk:Woodstock#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  I think you're mixing up the question of what is the primary topic for Woodstock with what is the best title for the primary topic. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

  No, the festival's common name is "Woodstock" and it is the primary topic for that term. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - To me "it" has always been referred to, known as and called "Woodstock" and always will be. Mlpearc powwow 17:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support: It is commonly known as simply "Woodstock", and it already redirects. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Everyone calls it "Woodstock"; none call it "The Woodstock Festival." --Seduisant (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Already the primary topic and simply "Woodstock" is clearly the common name. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Joshua Light Show

That's a serious ommission in the article. They were there, in older books they're always mentioned, but I never knew the details. I start with putting up the Wiki article as ext.link, but it really should be in the article. AlterBerg (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)AlterBergAlterBerg (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Minor, but bothersome: How many died of a drug overdose (one place says one, another two). When did The Who start (3am or just before 4am)? John (Jwy) 06:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too.--67.50.233.95 20:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too.--josh3580 16:07, 23, Jun 2006 (UTC)

I heard from an expert that it was only one, so I fixed it. --Thetruereddragon4 01:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

A very helpful article in New York Times, August 18 1969, mentioned "an unidentified youth" who died after "what was believed to be an overdose of heroin", as well as an identified 17 year old guy who was ran over by a tractor (no mention of the sleeping bag, but it does sound believable). It also mentioned the births and miscarriages. Hexmaster (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Major inconsistency: what time did CCR actually start playing? Twice in the article a 3am start time is mentioned, but the performing artist list has them playing at 12:30am. Maybe there's an understandable reason for such a blatant contradiction (list contains scheduled start times as opposed to actual start times or something), but you need to explain that for the casual reader. It seems like a lot of work went into the article, and then you just leave in something that most people (including myself) are going to see as a huge inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.1.99.78 (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the inconsistencies are because nobody could get there. almost every performer had to be flown in.(helicopter) a few arrived on their own as most roads were closed or jammed solid with cars. so the time schedule went out the window. if they could find the artist and get him/her to the airport, most performers went on as they arrived. and some did just one or two songs with long pauses in between, mostly for announcements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.192.139 (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget Benny Hill

Benny Hill did a hilarious--and pointed--parody skit of the Woodstock Festival. Entitled "Woodstick," the segment featured a song with a refrain that went, "Woodstick, la-la-la-la Woodstick. . .three whole days of love-and-peace-and-joy," as the camera panned across a vast, trampled field littered with garbage. That about sums it up for me, as an early Gen-Xer who grew up with four insufferable Baby Boomer siblings and their pothead friends: "You can't remember the Sixties, man. You just don't understand." Yeah, these narcissistic, smug, self-satisfied Boomers have gobbled up everything as they've marched through life, leaving successive generations to fight over the shrinking pie, be it in education, jobs, housing, and, soon, retirement. The generation that gave us the Summer of Love is about to send Medicare spiralling into bankruptcy thanks to innumerable premature age-related illnesses induced by all of their toking up, junk food and other habits indulged in during those supposedly halcyon days and long afterwards. Benny Hill (born 1924) got it right. Drop dead, Woodstock. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.27.73.102 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Someone's been watching too much South Park. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.123.1 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Reads more like too much Fox "News". Rico402 (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

if you have anything relevant to say sign your post :) Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

(read the OP over "Yakety Sax"). It's good to know that each succeeding generation is less narcissistic and smug, and more enlightened and aggressively superior than the last. That's progress. Steveozone (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

contradiction_better wording needed

"improve the fencing and security, which might have resulted in violence;"

Should this not be "relax the fencing and security,..."? Because:

1. Improving it should result in less violence.

2. Improving it would cost more money, which was the problem at hand.

3. In the end, the fence was cut.

Therefore, I wanted to replace "improve" with "relax", but first wanted to clarify why.

This is important, because the cutting of the fence, and the reason therefore, was a pivotal move in what led to the eventual attendance being so high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YamSuf (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

Outside of media coverage, why doesn't this article cover more criticism of the festival? It reads very "glowingly" of the festival yet it mentions deaths, arrests, traffic jams, food & water shortages. The media coverage mentions people working together to provide food & shelter to the masses that attended as if it was expected and not provided because it had to be provided. Wouldn't two accidental deaths in two days in any other city of 400,000 cause front page headlines? Surely there was criticism of the traffic management plan and the affect of people not attending and how they were inconvenienced. Did anyone else die because they couldn't get to the hospital due to the traffic jams? The article mentions law suits as a result of mismanagement - wouldn't that warrant a separate criticism section?

I know this was a huge event for the 60s but it had impacts beyond those attending and the festival itself but the article doesn't seem to cover any of that. Dbroer (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems incidents, difficulties and accidents, as you've noted, are covered in the article. No, two accidental deaths in two days in a city of 400,000 would normally not be front page news. WP:CRITS discourages the sort of separate section you're suggesting. If there's a sense that WP:NPOV isn't being adhered to, a consensus among editors would be welcome. My take is that it's not an issue. JNW (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The murder rate in 1969 was 7.7 and while the deaths weren't murder, you're talking about a much higher accidental death rate relative to the times. While a separate section might not be the best approach, it just seems interesting to me that the problems the festival created are glossed over. For example, there's no mention of sanitation or medical care issues due to poor or misleading planning. It also does not state what the lawsuits mentioned in the article are all about. As one who did not live through the era, it leaves me with questions that I feel the article should answer. I guess my main question stems from the statements stating that the festival was relatively peaceful, but that seems to be from the attendees perspective rather than those impacted by it. Dbroer (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone who has ever been associated with Woodstock has always remarked that as far as anyone knows there was never a fistfight or single altercation of any kind at the event..I don`t know if that`s true or not but that`s what they say which is pretty much the point when you get to it...it established the ethos of the jam band hippy festivals whatever you want to call it..on the grounds of the Wannee festival every year they bring in a few security people to be safe...nothing ever happens..the following weekend there is a country music festival where they hire every off duty cop in Florida and they still cant control the violence. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

To the OP: you might be aware of this (or not), but the establishment and large parts of mass media set out to soil the festival from the get go, partly because they disliked/distrusted the counterculture movement, partly because they expected a lot of violence, not just sex, drugs & rock'n'roll. Yet that didn't happen, so they had to change their story even before the last chords sounded. Some parts of the media focused on the overall feeling of social harmony and good music, while others went out of their way to find every little dirty detail to report. But at the end of the day, all sides more or less agreed that it was an uneventful gathering of almost half a million young people for 3 days, which is nothing short of a miracle. If there's so little meaningful criticism about the festival - both then and now - that's because there's little to criticize. Yes, there were traffic jams, shortages of food and sanitation, disruption for residents, the sea of mud, the litter, the brown acid. Yes there were 2 deaths (one of which had nothing to do with what the festival was about). But that's not the reason we still remember it 45 years later. Scoffers and hippie haters parodied Woodstock for years but they missed the main point: Woodstock wasn't about setting a model for how concert logistics should be handled! 143.239.64.169 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How many people attended Woodstock?

There is a citation needed tag on "nearly half a million concert-goers." The early news reports give the total as 300,000. Some articles written in late 1969 mention "a half million." These seem to be casual estimates. The festival promoters are quoted in this August 1969 article as saying 300,000 people.

• "State Investigating Handling of Tickets At Woodstock Fair". New York Times. August 27, 1969. p. 45.

The New York State Attorney General's office was investigating complaints of ticket holders who did not get into the festival. The promoters pointed out that the tickets specified that refunds would be granted only if the show were canceled.

"Mr. [Michael] Lang has said that more than half of the 300,000 people who attended the fair got in free because three times the expected number of people turned up and broke down the entire ticket - selling, ticket taking procedure."

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC) (I was in the crowd at Altamont)

I've seen numerous sources saying "half million." But honestly, counting crowds is always an uncertain business, so how can you get anywhere approaching a precise number? Also a full count would have to include the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, who were en route but were physically unable to come because of traffic jams etc. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that "Mr. Lang" had multiple constituencies and agendas, and if nothing else, was busy with other things, as contemporaneously recorded in the movie. I'd argue that he was not in much of a position to calculate attendance beyond "WTF???" IMHO shortly after the event, "Mr. Lang" likely underestimated attendance, if nothing else out of shame from the lack of sufficient "Port-O-Sans." There is, however, lots of wasted time to be devoted to the endeavor to try to find a more refined, and more importantly, reliable number between 300K (estimated from non-indicative ticket sales in advance of an event which clearly exceeded expectations and planned logistics) and half a million (based on other observers without a management agenda). Steveozone (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Over 500,000 people attended Woodstock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.93.12 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

since I was there, I would estimate 500,000 is near to short the number. As many people only wanted to hear certain performers and were not siting in the field at the times of show. most performers were listened to and we sat shoulder to shoulder full. there was also a show in a little ampitheater near the top of the hill. also there were yoga classes on going too. not to mention swimmers in Yasgar's pond ETC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.192.139 (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I`ve been told by people who live there no one will ever know how many people were there..it kind of depends on what you mean by " being there " a lot of people tried to get there who ended up stuck in traffic pulled over and just started partying..if you include people who were camped out on their way to the show it`s probably a pretty big number..I`ve heard 1,000,000 time and time again especially considering traffic may have stopped as far away as Canada at one point. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I see no need for ambiguity regarding what "being there" means. People who were there on purpose and were close enough to see and/or hear at least part of the festival are obviously the ones who count. Bethel residents/visitors who wanted nothing to do with the festival were just bystanders. Same goes for those who wanted to attend but got stuck in traffic and camped 10-20 miles away from the site. They might have engaged in hippie like activities while there, maybe even shook hands and exchanged words with concertgoers, but again, why should they be counted as part of the audience? As for the actual numbers, the most often quoted figure I've seen (and it's probably just a guestimate) is 400,000-500,000 people. 143.239.64.169 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)