`  == Vandalism on ``Hippie: Drugs``? ==  I don't think it was vandalism, Mombas. The section that was added was full of spelling errors, errors in language, errors in logic, and in general it was just very poorly done.  Also, much of it was untrue, and some parts were wild exaggerations.  I applauded its demise and am sorry to see it back.  I think it detracts from the article in a serious way. Would you consider reverting the revert?   If you think it inappropriate and unworthy of a fix up, even though it would appear you won’t say why it’s inaccurate, then you delete it yourself. It would appear that it’s difficult to get anything past the self appointed gatekeeper. Right mate ;-)?  And while we are on the subject, I must admit many of the articles which make up the hippie inclusion are woefully inaccurate anyway, and reflect only that minor aspect of the 1960s and 70s social revolution involving the social dramas caused by American youth desperately seeking to find some political solution against serving in that debacle the Vietnam war. Can’t blame them really, and from down-under we helped stop this war too. The articles seem to be dominated by issues essentially covering events which the corporate media deemed important to have on their front pages at that time. But I know there was much much more happening all over the world.  `