Talk:Drifter (person)

It is important to understand the real political nature of this term, generally assumed to be about homeless people.

"High Plains Drifter" was about the reconstruction of society by an analyst. Why call him a drifter? Because drifters are analysts of society.

It is crucial to realize that in the context of a modern city, homeless and directionless people have no visible markings as such. "Drifter" is a claimed identity of a specific subset, between "Psychoanalyst" and "Punk" This page hopefully describes this subset, referencing the literature of the subset in a verifiable way.

Drug warrior (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Self sufficient non-conformist? Interesting how you could glean that all from an online dictionary.

• Not to mention "free, fufilling life". The dictionary definitely does not say that. --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 21:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let it go (virtually) without saying that I hold a great romantic attraction to the lives of those we describe in this entry; nevertheless, I object to the idealized terms with which particular individuals have decided to characterize them. Live several months on the road, guy; then let me know it it fulfills that Karouacian fantasy. Bottom line: it's harsh, unfriendly, and cold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.46.223.103 (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"A completely free, fulfilling life"?

I agree with the above comments that the tone of the article is unencyclopedic and heavily biased. Could the person who has been reverting everyone who attempts to improve this article (usually accusing them of 'vandalism') please explain themselves? It's been going on for months now - if that many people think there's a problem, maybe you should try discussing it? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverted again, accused of vandalism again, and told to take it to the talk page again. No sign of the article's owner joining the discussion or responding to any of the concerns voiced on this page, though. Again, please explain why you think your preferred version of the article should stay in place or stop reverting others' changes. And please stop throwing around the word 'vandalism.' Good faith edits are never vandalism. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "owner" here, only people who have devoted their time to this article (me excluded), have made edits that make sense. A few have tried to improve the article, many have tried the opposite. How have YOU been trying to improve the article? Just by looking at this edit, it's obvious that you don't even care what it is that you are reverting, as long as you continue edit warring and becoming the owner yourself. Wikipedia is not meant for that. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say that it's clear I don't care what I'm reverting? I know exactly what I'm reverting - your reversions of my (and other editors') constructive changes to the article. The current tone is unencyclopedic. I was attempting to improve the article by making the tone more neutral and eliminating the flowery, romantic language and defensiveness about terms like 'vagrant'. You, on the other hand, appear to be attempting to prevent any progress on the article. How is that 'improving' it? How does the current tone of the article meet WP:NPOV? And how can an attempt to meet the guidelines in that page be anything but an improvement? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit you've made that I was referring to was linking back pages in different languages to a completely unrelated article. You didn't even bother as much as checking to see whether that was an appropriate thing to do, all that it mattered to you was reverting something to make the article WORSE, not better. Again, Wikipedia is not meant for such trolling. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I most certainly did check. Those articles are on the 'concept' of being a drifter. They're not identical articles, but they're similar enough. Now, stop with the accusations, please and thank you. Wikipedia is 'meant' to be improved. How does your insisting on retaining this absurdly romanticized language improve the article? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, they are not similar. One is about this article, the other is about a different one. You said you certainly checked that, yet here is the proof you didn't even after you've been told about it on this page. So yes, you are a vandal and a troll who needs to stop disrupting this article. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not proof of anything. I'm aware of that article. It's linked from this one. That's because they are about similar subjects. But you're distracting from the real issue here. I've asked you several times why you feel that the romanticized language in this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You seem to keep forgetting to reply to that point. Care to enlighten me? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that is beside the point. The point is, the article's current state is good as it is, yet you keep disrupting it with edits that don't make it better, and even claiming that numerous contributors are the same editor as if that somehow proves your right (it doesn't). One obvious proof of this has been linked already, as well as the latest fact that you still deny it despite the evidence of otherwise staring at your face, which clearly shows what your real intentions are. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Look, it's really not all that common for editors to use proxies to edit wikipedia. It's unlikely enough that multiple editors would all be watching and reverting this article to keep the romantic language in place using the same tactics and the same edit summaries, but it's even less believable that every one of those editors would happen to be using an open proxy. It's blatantly obvious that the five or so ip proxies that have been used to prevent improvements to this article were all operated by the same person. Calling me names isn't going to change the fact that your preferred version of this article is not up to Wikipedia's standards. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's be fair here, your issue is entirely with editors that you disagree with, including me. You don't care about the article nor what it looks like, your only concern is to have the last word, no matter if your edits are coherent or not. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

{outdent)I'm not interested in your theories about my motivations. I'm interested to hear why you think that the article's glowing language about the romantic life of the drifter is encyclopedic. And what about the two other people you've reverted in the last few hours? Are they just trying to 'have the last word', too? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, none of the article additions were mine. You only keep saying they are as an excuse to keep reverting your own. There is only one other person who became actively involved (assuming that's not you, as you both misspelled lead as lede [1] [2]), and his argument for reverting was that new-account's edit is correct because "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". 71.83.247.202 (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lede

No offense, but the discussion above has turned into an involved argument between two editors. I'm pulling out the points in dispute for further discussion, and probably and RFC.

The first matter deals with defining drifters as...

"Drifters are self-sufficient anticonformists who never stay at one place for a longer period of time, and continually move from one location to another with no fixed destination, living a completely free, fulfilling life."

This is sourced to the Oxford Dictionary online.

To begin with, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If you'll check that policy page, you'll see I'm trying to explain that dictionary definitions are usually narrow and specific, while encyclopedia articles should be broad. Defining drifters as above ("are") effectively defines them 100% of the time, which isn't accurate. If the dictionary quote must be used, I would suggest that the sentence be softened by using "may be," or "are defined as," rather than using the broad dicionary definition. Dayewalker (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. The Oxford definition says nothing about "are self-sufficient anticonformists who never stay at one place for a longer period of time" or "living a completely free, fulfilling life."

Upon further review of a misrepresented source, I say to strike the sentence completely. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - even with a reliable source, information like this should be presented in a much less generalizing way. "Some find the lifestyle free and fulfilling" or words to that effect. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mentally Ill

This study [3] was sourced to add "There is a tendency for some chronically mentally ill patients to become drifters, often due to a lack of treatment and rehabilitation facilities and services in urban areas" to the article. It's been removed by an IP, and I find no reason to remove the sourced information. Can anyone elaborate on why this is not a reliable sourced and relevant information? Dayewalker (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So not only have you not looked into what the dictionary actually says, but you have also made your edits based on nothing but your hunch. Either way, let's take a look into this "hunch" of yours, as well as your editing conduct here. As I assume you must have missed my edit summary, "this isn't a dictionary" is not an argument to make the opposite claim of what the source states, be it dictionary or otherwise. Your reason for your edit is self-contradictory at its core, as if you were to say: "dictionary states that letter A is a vowel but since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, let's make the article say that letter A may be a vowel because it can't be a vowel 100% of the time."

Since you've already discovered that the Oxford dictionary does not state that particular part by actually looking at the source after you've made two baseless reverts, it's obvious that additional source is needed, as the "self-sufficient anticonformists" part is consistent with the French definition of the word Drifter (D%C3%A9rive).

As for the mental illness part, this article is not about that, and drifting has as much to do with it as any other form of activity in general. There is as much sense in reinserting that as for your other additions that you keep insisting on. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Letter A is always a vowel. Drifters are not always as you have stated they are. As for the mental illness quote, it directly deals with drifters. How is that not about the subject? Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence on mental illness is relevant, as many people who become drifters do so partly because of mental health issues. I should note, though, that the wording of the text that was in the article is partially copied from the source, and needs to be better paraphrased when it is reinstated. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article for one week because of edit-warring between several editors. If you guys work out a consensus before the week is up, I can remove the protection.

My two cents: changes like this are unencyclopedic, probably not accurate, and should be undone.

• As other commenters above have stated, "drifters are self-sufficient anticonformists" is not desirable wording; "anticonformist" suggests some motive that we cannot ascribe to every person who is a "drifter" without a big assumption on our part.
• "living a completely free, fulfilling life" is obviously not appropriate; who are we to say that a drifter's life is fulfilling, or "completely" free?
• "Some of these terms were coined to have a negative connotation, with intention to divert people from having any relationships with drifters, or becoming drifters themselves." No source for this addition, and without a source we cannot make claims about the etymology of words. For all we know the terms were not "coined to have a negative connotation", but began as neutral terms and the negative connotations arose later; without sources, we can't speculate.
• "There is a tendency for some chronically mentally ill patients to become drifters, often due to a lack of treatment and rehabilitation facilities and services in urban areas." As far as I can tell, no rationale has been provided for removing this sourced and accurate statement, so it should not be removed.

rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely, which is why I was asking for the semi-protection to force this IP to come to the discussion page and explain. As you can tell above, there's not much in the way of policy they're bringing up. Since you applied full protection, can I ask you to revert those edits that the rest of us find completely unbased in -policy? Thanks for the protection in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"As other commenters above have stated, "drifters are self-sufficient anticonformists" is not desirable wording; "anticonformist" suggests some motive that we cannot ascribe to every person who is a "drifter" without a big assumption on our part."

Not true. Anticonformist means they do not conform to actual norms, hence they are drifters, not people who settle down like everyone else (e.g. have a job and a family).

""living a completely free, fulfilling life" is obviously not appropriate; who are we to say that a drifter's life is fulfilling, or "completely" free?"

I think what the original editor meant was that drifters are free of social standards that society accepts as granted. Drifters don't conform to such, thus they are "free." This seems appropriate.

""Some of these terms were coined to have a negative connotation, with intention to divert people from having any relationships with drifters, or becoming drifters themselves." No source for this addition, and without a source we cannot make claims about the etymology of words. For all we know the terms were not "coined to have a negative connotation", but began as neutral terms and the negative connotations arose later; without sources, we can't speculate."

I agree with the statement made in the article, but just like with the other part, the source is needed to support the claim. I think 'citation needed' note should be added for now.

""There is a tendency for some chronically mentally ill patients to become drifters, often due to a lack of treatment and rehabilitation facilities and services in urban areas." As far as I can tell, no rationale has been provided for removing this sourced and accurate statement, so it should not be removed."

As said previously, commenting on mental illness of any activity, including drifting (traveling) doesn't make sense, and is bias. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Then you are misunderstanding the comment. That sentence is not saying that drifting is "crazy" in some way. It is saying that some people who are mentally ill become drifters (which is entirely accurate, and is a valid counterpoint to your argument that people choose to be drifters to cast off the fetters of society). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

"People choosing to be drifters to cast off the fetters of society" is exactly what becoming a drifter means, and that is not my argument or opinion. It is certainly not something that mentally ill patients from mental institutions become while recreating in the community park either. Also, that is what being mentally ill means, and that is WP:Bias when added to an article like this, no matter how you put it. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a wide variety of reasons people become drifters, just as there are a wide variety of reasons why people become anything. You saying it's "exactly" what you think is your opinion. And quoting a study that shows a correlation between drifters and mental illness isn't "bias," it's reporting what a reliable source indicates. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All of your arguments seem to be based around your own opinions of drifters. Those opinions aren't applicable in every case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

All my arguments are based on common logic derived from what a drifter is. That's not my opinion, as I wasn't the one who implemented those edits, yet I certainly agree with them. YOUR arguments however, have been proven lacking to say the least, including the ones you've made in your edit summaries. 71.83.247.202 (talk) 00:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?

I think we might actually be better off returning this article to being a redirect to Vagabond (person), as it was until an IP (now blocked as a proxy) changed it back in November.[4] There seems to be substantial overlap between the two articles (Vagabond even begins "A vagabond or “drifter” is an itinerant person...") and that article seems to handle the subject rather better. This one is essentially a POV fork. Or we could migrate some of the text from that article here if it seems that this is a better name; either way, we only need one article. -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a great idea. I fully support the redirect. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I support. As far as I can tell, in the present article the only thing separating "vagabond" and "drifter" is an unsourced etymology. The rest of the content could easily be merged over. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Vagabond and Drifter are not the same. Vagabond is a homeless wanderer who doesn't go further than from one end of town to the other, but rarely or never out of the known area. On the other hand, Drifter is a homeless traveler who never stays at one place (be it town, city, or even a country) for a longer time. You can link it to Vagabond and scrap the article if you want, but that will do as much good for credibility of Wikipedia as would linking apple to orange (fruit). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.111.188.125 (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of the two articles makes the distinction you are making, and as far as I can tell no one has provided sources to make that distinction. Both articles treat them as synonymous; Vagabond treats the two terms as interchangeable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not here to argue with you, all I said is that I disagree based on what I know. If the rest of you think otherwise, then go ahead and do as you please. But if you are concerned that the two articles are not accurate enough in making a better distinction, then they should be improved, not all linked into one just because they currently appear to be very similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.111.188.125 (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you have sources that can improve this article, please post them here on the talk page so they can be added. Making each article better is the goal for all of us. However, right now we have an article with almost no information that was previously a redirect to a well-sourced article. If there's not enough distinction for a separate article, it only makes sense to reinstate the redirect. Dayewalker (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I never said there is anything wrong with the two articles, so it's not my job to fix something that you yourself are not satisfied with (hence the reason why you want something to be changed about it). My only suggestion is that whoever thinks this article is inadequate, needs to find reliable sources and improve/expand it instead of redirecting it to another article that only shares one common thing: two different types of itinerants. Second, I also said that as long as you all think otherwise, then you are free to do whatever you want with it, but I do strongly disagree with what has been suggested here so far. That is my opinion on the matter, and you are free to keep yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.111.188.125 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Every dictionary I've checked lists 'drifter' and 'vagabond' as synonyms. Barring some strong sources showing a compelling reason to treat the two terms as having distinct meanings, I think a redirect is the obvious answer. So what's our next step here? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary doesn't list any synonyms, and that one is probably the most credible dictionary on the internet. But if you are going to link articles into one by synonyms, then you could redirect any type of itinerant into one article, including hobo, vagrant, vagabond, nomad and tramp. According to your (lack of) logic, this makes perfect sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.111.188.125 (talk) 10:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that the compact OED does not list synonyms. At all. For any words, as near as I can tell. The complete OED, which is the dictionary you're probably thinking of as the 'most credible' dictionary for the English language, is not available for free online. So that argument isn't going to work (not that 'it isn't in this source so it isn't true' is a valid argument against any reliably sourced information.) There are many perfectly credible dictionaries available online, though, that do. So, once again, you are going to have to provide sources (and not just dictionaries with non-identical definitions) for your claim that a 'drifter' is specifically and exclusively someone who chooses to wander for the joy and freedom of it, and never someone who is just unable to hold down a job or otherwise cope with mainstream society.

So once again (and I'm mostly addressing Dayewalker and Rjanag here), what's our next step? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I am satisfied with the article the way it is, you are not. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Your only argument so far is that some dictionaries list vagabond as a synonym of drifter, and I have shown you that they also list other types of itinerants that are currently separate articles on Wikipedia, so merging articles based on that doesn't make any sense. I do, however, support improving the article with more reliable sources and expanding it, but that is where my support ultimately ends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.111.188.125 (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re 68.33.14.232: clearly there's not yet consensus for redirecting (even if it's 3 editors against one vocal editor, it's still not consensus). The next step would probably be to take the discussion to WP:AFD to get broader input. (If that is done, I hope all the editors involved, myself included, could limit themselves to one statement in the AFD at least for the beginning, since we have already had ample opportunity to voice our opinions here, whereas at AFD we should be more interested in getting other editors' comments rather than repeating out own.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the page is still protected, so I think you're the only one here who can do that? -- 68.33.14.232 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)