Post #384002 by bigbrotiki on Sun, Jun 1, 2008 11:24 PM

My thoughts on that: The article on Tiki on Wikipedia is a good example of how imperfect it is as a source. While I cannot fault the article in general (I think it's actually quite good and level headed), by its concept of having to be a short and concise definition it has to leave out a lot. And then it can be edited by everyone, like this for example:

"Heyerdahl material:
I have moved the material on Thor Heyerdahl into the Thor Heyerdahl article, as it did not seem to have anything much in common with themed restaurants in the United States. Kahuroa 23:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)"

I am sorry, but Thor Heyerdahl was as important to Tiki culture as James Michener. Bad move. And arguments like this:

"Tiki Culture outside the US:
The assertion that tiki culture is a phenomenon unique to the U.S. is incorrect. For example, there are numerous tiki bars/restaurants in Spain, and several exotica bands in Germany. And I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg."

Well, Tiki Culture is absolutely unique to the US, all other incarnations in Europe were inspired by its US precedents, and make up such a small percentage of the whole phenomenon that they would simply confuse the issue if mentioned in such a general definition as Wikipedia. One byline at the end, with links to Butlin's and the Barcelona bars might be OK...

Anyway, I guess I can't complain if I don't get involved and try to clarify things myself....so maybe I should, especially in the case of Witco. It's just I have tons of other writing projects. And why make everything so easily accessible, it's good to leave a little mystery out there. AND maintain a reason why people looking for wisdom about Witco should buy the Book of Witco, also known as TIKI MODERN. :D