Talk:Timeline of 1960s counterculture/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Timeline of 1960s counterculture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

position of "etal" correct?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

please review for accuracy of placement of what might be "et al." but expressed as "etal" is correct:

Under 1947,
* Hollywood writers, directors, and performers suspected of communist sympathies become subject to "[[Hollywood blacklist|blacklisting]]" by the US [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] (HUAC).<ref>{{cite web|title=HUAC (Text & Multi-Media Resources)|url=http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/huac|website=history.com|publisher=A&E Networks|accessdate=June 23, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Ceplair|first1=Larry|last2=Englund|first2=Steven|title=The Inquisiton in Hollywood: Politics in the Film Community 1930-1960|date=1979|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley, CA, etal ......"

and

Under 1953,
* April 13: Project [[MKULTRA]], the CIA's mind control research program which grew to include testing LSD on both volunteer and unsuspecting subjects into the 1960s, commences.<ref>{{cite book|last1=US Senate|title=Project MKULTRA, The CIA's Program of Research in Behavioral Modification|date=August 3, 1977|publisher=US Senate|location=Washington, DC|page=70|quote=Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence, etal ........

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 March 2015‎ (UTC)

Done Both are now corrected. The second ref didn't need "et al."; the quote was actually a subtitle, so I merged the entire subtitle into the title. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

SCLC: Council or conference?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section on 1957 references an article labelled "Southern Christian Leadership Council" while the article is called Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In the referenced article the organization is never called a council.--178.201.239.132 (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks to all who have improved this article. Your ongoing help is very much appreciated! Learner001 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Lots of citation errors

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just wanted to point out there are a large number of citation errors that have accumulated in this article. I might fix them if and when I have the available time, but if someone wants to beat me to it, have at it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Got most of them, Stevie. Thanks for watching this article! Learner001 (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

1967 Jackson State Incident which was deleted

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There were actually 2 Jackson State incidents, one in 1967 and one in 1970. It was best to remove the 1967 entry for now, though, as it had wrong info, cites, wrong date, etc. I will try to clarify them and put it back if warranted. Learner001 (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on New Entries?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There have been many recent additions by new editors, and most are high-quality, however finding credible cites for the older lot of uncited entries from before the split is difficult without need of attempting to keep up with new non-referenced and OR-type material, however "good faith" such entries may be.

So, can active editors on this page please discuss/reach consensus on the following? 1. No new entries or additions to existing entries w/o credible sources. 2. No new references to music or album releases w/o very specific era relevance/context, and sourcing to reputable music critics or other qualified professional reporting or commentary. 3. No generalized claims as to significance or notability w/o credible sources. Even if true, "well known facts" must be cited as best as possible. 4. Should any unsourced entries or additions by unregistered editors be summarily undone? I say yes.

PLEASE share thoughts! Thanks and best wishes... Learner001 (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

So, instead of adding new, unsourced material, PLEASE work on finding high-quality sources for existing uncited events! :) Learner001 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, this would be a good way to keep out misinformation and very trivial items. Randy Kryn 20:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of Neutrality

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please discuss! Learner001 (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

An idea about follow-up information

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In case the edit I made after seeing the tag, which echoed my own thoughts about this page, sticks, maybe follow-ups in the later years can be incorporated into the listing. The final item now is Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". Adding further information about Nixon within that sentence would both add to the page and distract from the poetry (maybe not, if worded right). Randy Kryn 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

With the deep-timeline being kept, I at first thought it should start with the Bohemian era in Europe, but now it seems directly connected to the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, which could lead off a deep-timeline with quite a bit of legitimate context. Randy Kryn 22:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

More is more here, in my view. People can always skip ahead to the core period. Everything else is simply context so readers might understand the complex "hows" and "whys," which this article still can only really touch on. Era end date is also a very reasonable question. Nixonian events are probably key, as you noted. The way most academics see it, the era died a slow death and was subsumed. I see the late-'70s entries as the death throes. The death of Lennon seems to be the very last gasp, but again, this is cultural history and not mathematics. I always remain open for discussion! Best Wishes Learner001 (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Source issue

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I'll make this simple. You need to follow WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RS when you write things. This cannot be an indiscriminate list of events vaguely related (or sometimes completely unrelated) to 1960s counterculture. For example nothing from the Breitbart source has any bearing whatsoever on this article. In lieu of understanding these policies I agree with the wholesale removal of anything dubious in this article for now. You're going to need very strong sources to include anything that didn't happen during the 1960's, not shitty Breitbart articles that don't even mention counterculture. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF: Your basic premises are sound, but you still need to discuss. There is no real harm in keeping the content in question until it is discussed. Wholesale removal works sometimes but not if there is a dispute in progress. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fwiw I think everything here from 1959 to 1977 is part of the topic timeline, certainly the reports that came out in congress in the 70s about covert activities against the counterculture. Some things before 1959 are also relevant such as the development of the slang terms beatnik and hipster. 172.56.37.208 (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

— The undue sections have been removed by several editors, and this topic has been raised on the user in question's talk page. It is a central issue about using sources for things they do not at all support, and clear violation of at least 3 core policies. Randy Kryn was the one who made the major removal of text, and I agree fully with his rationale. The sources used here do not indicate any relation to 1960s counterculture. It's all WP:OR Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose that you all go through the entries and discuss each one on their own merits, to see if there is WP:RS to connect them to the topic. If so, keep; if not; remove. Per AGF, this is longstanding content, and content that is not obviously unreasonable, so there's nothing wrong with pursuing this patiently. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great. I deleted the entire "1984" entry in the interest of GF, pending discussion. Just to clarify, Randy and I discussed and agreed to leave the longer version. There is an intro which clarifies why some of the entries are before the core period. I continue to believe that anyone can easily scroll down to whatever year they choose. More to the larger point, I welcome all productive discussion, even though those of us talking here seem to comprise most of the people actually visiting the page :). Thanks so much for your input Stevie! Learner001 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, after reading the entries again I thought it was probably a good idea for a limited lead-up to the 1960s events. I do agree that some entries should be discussed or removed. The 1919 entry on Methamphetamine, for example, seems quite tangential, as "speed" was not central enough a part of the subculture to justify it's own historical entry (might as well have early entries on the beginnings of Communes, or the entire History of Vietnam). I still think the page could possibly lead off with America's founding documents, or the Bohemian era in Paris and elsewhere, as a precursor of the later 1960s era and thought-process, but that too can be discussed. Randy Kryn 12:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm very happy with this change in tone. I think anything beyond the specific 1954–1977 era needs very strong sources, specifically stating its relation to 60s counterculture. The aspects of the atomic bomb are very important to the topic, but really aren't at all part of it, and I don't think they belong here. The first anti-war demonstrations against the Korean war or against atomic bombs seem far more related. Carl Fredrik^talk 14:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Timeline of 1960s counterculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your ongoing help! Learner001 (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Nineteen Eighty Four

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not sure exactly why, but of all the extremely controversial works of art, music, and both non-fiction and fiction produced during the 20th century, this book seems to generate the most heated intellectual discussion. Is it fear that we may work for, and therefore support, the machinations prophesied by Orwell?

Is it that we need such machinery in order to impose our systems of thought on others, or is it simply different interpretations of the same book? The most ironic part is that the year 1984 passed and people thought the predictions were bad. That may have been a premature conclusion.

The book is about repression by government, and is, therefore, highly relevant to the birth of the protest movement of the CC era. This was "must-reading" for students coming of age during the era, however distasteful the book may be to some today.Learner001 (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything distasteful in the book. I believe Pincrete is asking for some clear indication that this book (and various other examples of media and events) have some significance for this Wikipedia article. It seems to have started out as a largely blow by blow account of some significant events, but is now a melange of music, movie and novels mixed with occasional counter cultural events.

The original version of the inserted section was an incredible reach for the limited sourcing provided which consisted of some personal opinion about the subject in question. Glancing at many of the other entries this seems to be common with a lot of the claims. Very little actual evidence of its significance at the time, but then some one 40 years after the fact waxing lyrical about some aspect of it reflecting something in today's society. Koncorde (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If you saw any personal opinion in the original entry, I don't know what it would be. I have tried to keep my entries on this article as unbiased as possible, because I frankly don't have a bias. The era was chock full of positives and negatives. Trying to report more like news. That's why there are so many sources from so many outlets. I believe it's exceptionally important to the understanding of the era to understand what people were reading, what they were doing, and how their opinions may (or may not) have been formed. It's too much info for the main article, and that's why this was split off. If you have any ideas for additions to the timeline, please publish them. I prefer to be comprehensive, and that is spelled out in the lead. Getting back to the book: 1984 had a huge impact on readers at the time, as did many other books. Just trying to make note of that, and I like the latest language, but it needs to be cited. Always happy to converse, and Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Not your personal opinion, but specifically the personal opinion of what were a few limited politicised media sources (rather than historians, or people with significant notability for the period). There are plenty of sources for the impact and value of 1984, just in the books own article or the many sub articles that spin off from it. Whether they make reference to the "counterculture" of 1960's is a bigger ask however, and that is partly the issue with many of the items on this list. Their significance to the specific topic is unclear in many cases. If a connection could be drawn between 1984 and, say, protests against something that holds a parallel in the novel then that would be much better. It would need to be identified by a authoritative source however. Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)