Talk:1980s

The Worst Decade Of All Time

By : Aishah Bowron

The worst musical era of all times were the Eighties. I disliked that decade. The only good bands and artists that I liked from the Eighties are Bon Jovi, Def Leppard, Europe, Guns N’Roses, Michael Jackson and Prince and that’s about it.

All the best rock bands came out of the Seventies. The Seventies produced proper pop and rock bands like Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Bad Company, Trapeze, Free, AC/DC, Judas Priest, Thin Lizzy, Whitesnake, Motorhead, etc (but not Evil Glitter). The Seventies were about the music, not about marketing and that was a good thing. Bands from the Sixties and Seventies cared about and were enthusiastic about the music. The Eighties were about synthesizers and poppy little sounds. Synthesizers were boring instruments because you couldn’t jump around with it like you would do with a guitar. Even worse there were all these horrible bands like the Pet Shop Boys, Erasure, Depeche Mode, OMD, Kajagoogoo, Thompson Twins, Howard Jones and many similar acts in the Eighties. Then you got the Stock Aitken and Waterman nonsense, which drove me bleeding mad. They were responsible for producing cheeseball hits like Never Gonna Give You Up and I Should Be So Lucky..

The musical scene in the Eighties was a joke. You had record companies and managers who were more important than the artists. These managers acted like dictators telling you what to do like polishing your music and looking a bit. You had to live by the strict Draconian rules forever doing TV shows , playback performances and photo sessions. It was too nice and too tame. You had no control over your music because you had to play the way the manager wanted you to sound. The Eighties were backlashed against the guitar because the producer toned it down to make room for the synths. That is amongst the reason why I think the Eighties were awful.

The Eighties seem to forget that the foundation of the music business is music. The Eighties were so corporate, uncaring, insensitive and thoughtless about the origins of music. You had graduates from business colleges who happened to favour commerce than art and I don’t think it was a very good thing. The Eighties is a decade not worth remembering .Aishah Bowrontalk16

47 14 February 2009

Archive 1

Page is far too US-centric

I note the removal in early July 2008 of all External Links except one: US Cultural History 1980 - 1989. This typifies the imbalance of this wikipedia article. Look at the section on United States TV, then the "Rest of the World" link below! The 1980s should not be an article heavily biased to one country.

The page edits seem to be very dominated by a very few people.?Geekpie (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be even worse until I got started on it - and I deliberately used the "rest of the world" section title to show how bad the bias was. please feel free to show that America wasn't the only country in the world to have television, (I recall the privatisation of Italian TV, and in the USSR Glasnost led to the investigative show 600 Seconds and the comedy show Vokrug Smyekha). And there are the completely empty sections on the Middle east, Latin America etc - in the 80s there was shitloads going on, but the article had nothing on that but endless guff about cartoons and fake wrestling. If the page edits are dominated by few people, that is a problem - am I just replacing pro-US bias with pro-UK bias? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Second bit - There will always be pro-US bias on Wikipedia for two good reasons: America is the biggest English speaking country, outnumbering all the others together; and it also has (I think) the highest rate of internet access - not surprising cos they invented it! there will always be a feeling of swimming against the tide on this matter, as an example try clicking on petrol, and see what article you get. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in that en.wikipedia will always have a slight American/British (and countrie formally or currently part of her empire) Bias, however that's not an excuse for the page to stay in this state. That being said, you cant expect people from those areas to know everything that happened everywhere in the world in a given time period, cuz that's just not gonna happen. A) It was 2 decades ago and B) local news usually takes priority in the persons memory. English speaking people in other countries need to add said information in, and if someone from the U.S. removes it, re-add that information, and if necessary, seek mediation, as this is -English- Wikipedia, not American wikipedia.

And.. the U.S. is hardly the most connected country... and, from the beginning it was an international effort. While Americans have greatly contributed to it in its early stages, and started Arpanet, people from all over were involved in creating the various protocols and such that make it up, from the very beginning. We did not "invent" it. Nar Matteru (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that it was the last pre-internet decade, and all the news archives are on paper or microfilm etc which are hard to look up. Without moving into the British Library's newspaper department with a sleeping bag and laptop there's only so much one can add. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to look up, and also harder for other users to verify/contest. Most users, myself included will be relunctant to remove information they know to be false if it is sourced, even if they have little or no access to said source Nar Matteru (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All the American TV trivia is the type of thing American students probably chuckle over in the bar, but I'd actually question whether there should be a TV section in the article at all. It's too trivial and cliquey, and I'm sure Americans would object if someone from Kazakhstan listed all their favourite Kazakhstani TV programmes from the 80s.

How many Kazakhstani TV shows gained large international exposure though? Shows like Macgyver are very well known outside the U.S. and have huge followings in many other countries. Nar Matteru (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Americans didn't invent the internet: they had the first implementation. Lots of people invented it. Packet switching is pretty crucial, and that was invented by a Briton, for example. Also, the internet had no impact on our lives before the web (and email) came along, and that was invented by a Briton, Tim Berners Lee, who decided to put hyperlinks and the internet together. However please let's not have this conversation here, but I felt you were being simplistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geekpie (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, most of what we now know as the internet came from the US Defense Department. In addition, most of the major computer and software manufacturers that made its spread possible are American. That's off topic, though. On-topic, I think trying to write an article that accurately describes and entire decade is futile. Perhaps it should be broken up into separate articles by country. Even then it would be difficult to construct anything really useful. That said, the article as it now stands contains numerous errors.

One example: "The War on Drugs was instituted by Reagan and the conservatives...". The term and associated programs were originated by Richard Nixon.

Another: "Music videos featuring minorities were not played by MTV..." Lunacy. Where do you think Michael Jackson and Prince got their celebrity? The "controversy" that came up was not that MTV wouldn't play music by black artists, but rather that they did not play RAP MUSIC from the start of its popularity. That changed after a few years.

I suspect attempts to improve this article will go around in circles due to the breadth of its scope. It is also riddled with excessive political correctness which distorts the focus.

Actually, Micheal Jackson had a lot of trouble getting on MTV in his earlier years because he was black, (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Jackson#Music_videos ) Nar Matteru (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it definitely needs a more global view, preferably divided into sections like entertainment, sports, politics, culture, technology, trends, etc and then each section can then be subdivided by country/region and all organized in a neat timeline type view, with the year listed before events and if possible more specifically months and days in order and possibly an overview type of timeline containing major events from all sections which were particularly relevant, although achieving such would be very difficult as there would be constant disputes over what is relevant.76.95.151.5 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence should be removed.

It says the 1980's was a decade that spanned from Jan 1,1980 to Dec 31,1989".I think saying the that it spanned from the years 1980-1989 would just do.I like the idea,although it is stating the obvious.Nothing of the sort appears on other decade articles.I'm not saying it should be removed,just giving an idea.←←←

Signed by:Not a member Sept 30,2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.32.230 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It should ideally be as specific as possible while not being drawn out; in dating, specifics are important, so stating it as such is relevant and valid, while one might argue that it is stating the obvious, what is the obvious anyways, a lot of articles on wikipedia might be seen as stating the obvious to people knowledgeable about the subject matter.76.95.151.5 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Section on Asia not representative

The issues highlighted in the section on Asia under 'International Issues' are not representative of what the spectrum of countries were facing at that moment. Only China and India were highlighted, while the rest of the countries mentioned are not even part of Asia. There needs to be more research done on the issues that the rest of Asia faced during this time period of the 1980s. Ladybug97 (talk) 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

they rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.199.117 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Page introduction should be in the past tense

It makes far more sense as, well, these events ARE in the past. In the bullet points later on, the present tense makes more sense. Doubt this'll change anything, though. Oh, and I'm too lazy. Syferus (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC) Theunhappymitten (talk)theunhappymitten

bias plus lack of pictures

This page is heavily bias towards africa as there is little to no contents about africa during the 80's. Also there should be more pictures relateing to the culture of the 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theunhappymitten (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The culture of Kids in the 1980s

Hi,

I am trying to find out specific vocabulary used among the youth during the 80s -- maybe kids between the ages of 10-17 yrs. Also, certain games kids played. Do you remember there was a time when kids used to tie elastic bands together until it was really long and use them not as a skipping rope, but they would tie up their legs in them and do weird tricks?

"Kids" are ages 3-10, not 10-17. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.26.192 (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

razzigirl@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzigirl (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting inaccuracies in the article

I've tried to maintain accuracy in the article, but this change keeps getting made [1]. Ceacescu government was authoritarian, NOT communist. I hope someone corrects this error. There's also other weird wording in this version. Maybe the editor making this erroneous change can explain their reasoning? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As head of the Romanian Communist Party, he was at least nominally a communist; the degree to which he matched anyone's vision of the "ideal" communist is a matter of opinion, which must be sourced if it is to be mentioned in any article. My reason for using neutral language is pretty simple, really: WP:NPOV. But one must be especially careful with the word "dictator." While it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make a non-trolling case that certain individuals (Hitler comes most readily to mind) were not dictators, Wikipedia is not obliged to take any overt stance on when the title should apply. WP is here to state, in a neutral, encyclopedic voice, the dispassionate, sourced "facts," leaving to the reader questions of what emotions these facts should evoke, and of what emotive words should be invoked alongside these emotions. As far as dictatorship is concerned, the following articles have been deleted: List of modern day dictators, List of dictators, Benevolent dictator (now a redirect), Totalitarian dictators (now a redirect), List of dictators currently in power, Friendly dictator, The World’s 10 Worst Dictators, List of dictators before 1789, and List of European Dictators. Add Category:List of dictators for good measure. Do I think Ceauşescu was a dictator? I sure do. But is it appropriate to say so in the article? Evidently not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominally a communist? Why don't you reword it accurately. Use authoritarian if you don't like the word dictator. But you've made unsourced hanges that make the text inaccurate and that's a serious problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What unsourced changes? The text lacked sources to begin with; I simply reworded it to make it more dispassionate and neutral. But surely it doesn't require too big a stretch of the imagination to refer to the head of the Romanian Communist Party as a communist? Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No sir. You changed accurate descriptions and have imposed wording that you acknowledge is misleading. If it's a reword you were after, it was executed poorly. As you yourself stated he was head of the communist party. There is little to no evidence he was a communist. This is one more bit that supports the fact that he was a dictator or authoritarian which you've removed, rendering the text inaccurate. Please fix the damage you've done. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a rather famous (or is it infamous?) saying, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." It is easy to find sources discussing "Communist" and "Post-Communist" Romania (e.g., [2]). It may not be your opinion, my opinion, or even Karl Marx's opinion that Ceauşescu was what a communist "ought" to be (addendum: and note, by the way, that the idea of communism predates even Marx--there are a lot of opinions about what a communist is), but if he's a communist in the sources, then as far as we're concerned, he's a communist here. Now, having said that, it's also easy to find sources (including the one I just provided) that refer to Ceauşescu as a "dictator." The difference is, there has already been considerable agreement that the term "dictator" is unencyclopedic (as I have already explained), whereas no such agreement exists about the word "communist." Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've gone ahead and wikilinked wikilinked "communist government" to Communist Romania Communist Party of Romania. Hopefully this should eliminate whatever ambiguity there might have been. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)