Talk:Counterculture

Cleanup

I've cleaned up many comma splices, pattern problems, and moved sentences within the section to make things more clear. For instance, I moved the introduction of Hippies into the overall discription of the counterculture of the 60s where people are spoken about rather than have it next to a bunch of 60s musicians. I have combined the music and pop-art paragraph with the sentence on spirituality. I've taken a couple of areas where several words were used into a single word. I have concentrated on leaving the message and tone intact, trying to only improve flow. HIPPIES ROCC

Additional opportunities for cleanup remain. The phrase "Vietnam War" seems to be overused in this section. There are weasel words that need cleanup (i.e. "they have left a lasting mark on society that continues to inspire modern-day movements." --which movements?; "These demonstrations went on to create far-reaching changes affecting many aspects of society." --which changes, which aspects?). The answers may be obvious to the original authors, but not neccessarily to every reader. Citations are needed for many of the claims in this section, much of it reads like original research. Jamesfett (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Surrealism and Counterculture

The cultural impact of Surrealism persisted after its heyday. It remained attractive to leftist artists and writers who were not comfortable with the Stalinist cultural model. Among them is the Martinique poet and playwright Aimé Césaire who served on the editorial board of US surrealist journal VVV. Breton was an avid admirer of Césaire, whose 1955 "Discourse on Colonialism" was republished by Monthly Review. Along with CLR James, Césaire served as a revolutionary alternative to Stalinism for a generation of Caribbean intellectuals. Another editorial board member at VVV was Philip Lamantia, who was to become a leading figure of the new poetry of the 1940s and 50s that included the beats and the San Francisco Renaissance writers. Lamantia, in effect, represents a link between the counter-culture of the 1930s and that of the 1960s. Surrealist poetry and culture were read by young people in the 1950s and 60s, "who were searching for an alternative to the Rationalism of their time, which amounted to Cadillac tailfins, the H-Bomb, conformity and Madison Avenue for all practical purposes."

This subsection was removed from Sixties and seventies counterculture. See more on this on the Surrealism Talk page. Ought it not be included here in some form? -12.7.202.2 (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is up to the person adding the material to show how it is relevant. The original poster did not do so, and neither have you. Most of this is not relevant to the subject of the counterculture. As I have said elsewhere, the part about Lamantia might be relevant in the article about the Beat Generation, but not here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Warhol?

The following was stuck right in the middle of the '60s and '70s counterculture subsection, right in the middle of a paragraph on music, actually.

The pop-art culture led by Andy Warhol also played a part in social change in the United States by redefining what art was and what made it valuable. Warhol's mass-produced monographs and silk-screens, such as the iconic Campbell's Soup Cans, challenged the notion that art is only about certain subjects (i.e., wealthy patrons or pretty landscapes), or that art is a singular creation. An entire generation's liberal views about art and drugs found prominent expression in Warhol's paintings, films, and music.

This has no references, and extraordinary claims like this need a good source. ---<fontface="Georgia">RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is good that you removed that - because it is wrong. In fact, the one remaining reference to pop-art should be removed too.

The whole concept of "pop-art" is something that would have been considered "establishment" by the counter-culture. They rejected the whole idea of intellectual ideas about art, including both "pop-art" and what it replaced. Pop-art was something used by successful people of the day to make themselves look "hip" and trendy. More importantly, it was used by the Media as something they could use as a substitute (or a symbol) for actual counter-culture, because they knew that Average Joe could understand that Weird Paintings were, well, weird looking.

The terms "plastic hip" and "faux hip" describe this phenomenon well. Buying a pop-art painting allowed you to feel "trendy", without actually doing anything counter-cultural - in the same way that buying a nude statue allowed you to feel "naughty" without actually having to have sex with anyone.

In reality, pop-art was still an establishment product being sold commercially. At best, pop-art was a movement in art that happened to coincide with the time period of counter-culture, and utilized the counter-culture as a marketing gimmick.

BTW, this is from first hand experience at the time.

Oh, and in the removed paragraph, the sentence that says "An entire generation's liberal views about art and drugs found prominent expression in ..." the next word should not be "Warhol", but absolutely and without any question should be BOB DYLAN. (Although that oversimplifies things, since it was the early baby-boomers who were expressed by Dylan - those born before 1953, while those who were born in 1953 and later, viewed the Beatles as their spokesmen - and that is purely a time-related distinction, since both agreed on most of the relevant issues.)

effect of terming any social/-political movement as 'counterculture'

Is there no one who can add any research results about the effects of labeling trends as countercultures? Surely this is of interest to the topic, and some sort of research must have been done on the subject.

As I recall it, the expression rapidly became a self-identifying phrase by those it referred to. (Unlike "hippie" which was imposed from externally and only used ironically as self-identification.) There was a sharp drop-off of the term's use in mass media in the U.S. at some point in the '70s. As I recall at least one newspaper chain wrote an article (A bit Orwellian, I found it when I read it) stating they would thenceforth refuse to employ the expression "counterculture". Unfortunately it would be difficult (but possible) to track this down. The thinking behind this would make an outstanding addition to this article. talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unintelligible sentence (in the section on Russia)

"...use of explicit language, graphical description of sex, violence and illicit activities and uncopyrighted use of "safe" characters involved in everything mentioned." Wha?? 81.107.31.178 (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirect issue

I noticed that this page emphasizes it's distinction from "Fringe Culture," but "Fringe Culture" redirects to here, and this page makes no mention of fringe culture beyond the one sentence. Some clarification would be appreciated.

70.173.70.232 (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Combine

Could this article be combined with others that are similar? It seems that there is a lot of overlap. --RichardMills65 (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this article is designed to cover the "counterculture" concept specifically and its various incarnations generally, and therefore warrants being separate. RobertGustafson (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding ISBN on Paul Krugman book

I have moved the "Please check ISBN" tag to outside the citation tag (immediately after it); there seems to be a problem with nesting brace tags. This way, the link brackets around the ISBN # (which might confuse casual readers) don't appear. RobertGustafson (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Lede

It seems as though both Peter morrell and Apostle12 disagree with how I have gone about improving the lead section to this article. As such, I find it necessary to justify my edits.

First, I should say that I am in the process of eliminating unnecessary use of the phrase “term used to describe” in Wikipedia articles, Very often, the articles that use this phrase in their lead sections are also otherwise problematic, prompting me to go further in fixing the introductory prose. This was the case at this article, where I edited the lead section on August 9:

1). I removed the phrase "term used to describe" since the article is about the concept, not the term.

2). I reworded the definition to be clearer. The earlier definition made it seem as though a counterculture was a group's values and norms when it is actually the group itself. This is an incorrect definition according to the source cited.

3). I removed wording that added additional meaning not present in the dictionary definition, namely that the necessary and proper attributes of a counterculture also include:

a). A counterculture must be significant and visible

b). A counterculture must reach "critical mass" (which, by the way, doesn’t make sense)

c). A counterculture “persists for a period of time” (which is technically redundant)

d). A countercultural movement “expresses the ethos, aspirations, and dreams of a specific population during an era”

4). I removed the claim that a counterculture differs from a subculture and a fringe culture, as the article doesn’t cover this (remember, per WP:LEAD, a the lede should reflect article content) nor does it even clarify what that difference is.

5). I changed “Countercultural milieux” to “Examples of countercultures.” Since it's a good idea to use words that people are more likely to be familiar with, and since milieu is arguably the wrong word anyway.

6). The countercultural movement of the 1960s-1970s was mentioned twice. I removed one of them.

Subsequently, Peter blanket reverted my changes, with the thin, vague claim that my edits were not an improvement. Since this would hardly be true for all of my edits, I figured that Peter was focusing on the more arguable content removals, I restored my changes but with one modification: the additional, unsourced aspect of countercultures that they persist for a significant period of time. Note that this is an improvement on the wording originally present, which I presume is closer to what was intended. In case Peter really failed to see how my edits were improvements I briefly justified them in my edit summary.

Peter must have been partially convinced; he only restored #3d and #4 with a citation tag to the latter. Since a citation would not alleviate the concern I'd already alluded to with #4, I removed it while retaining the fact tag for #3d (which a citation would have adequately addressed), and a more explicit edit summary.

Peter then restored the deleted, inappropriate, vague sentence and removed the fact tag that he himself added. His edit summary pointed out that one term, subculture was a separate article. The other, he said, was a redirect. I quickly realized that, not only was the statement vague and inappropriate for the lede, it was also false as a "fringe culture" is a synonym of "counterculture." With that in mind, I removed the sentence again, this time attempting to address Peter's expressed concern by putting “fringe culture” in bold as a synonym, per WP:BOLDTITLE. I didn’t link to it, since WP:REDIRECT says to avoid self-redirects. I also moved the link to subculture to the See also section (which I also alphabetized, per WP:ALSO) justifying my edits in the summary. Peter then blanket reverted my edit.

On top of this, Apostle12 reverted back to the version before I'd edited, which is hardly an improvement.

While not too contentious of a dispute, I think it's time to talk these edits over. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

For a moment, let's please just focus on the first sentence of the lede as it appeared before I reverted:

"In sociology, a counterculture (also written counter-culture) or fringe culture is a cultural group with values and norms of behavior that deviate from mainstream societal norms in some way,[1] often to the point that it persists for a significant period."

In terms of structure, this is a remarkably awkward sentence, but the core issue is your assertion that a counterculture is itself a "group," as opposed to being "the values and norms of behavior that define a group." Thus we must say "the counterculture of the hippies;" we must not assume that "counterculture" refers to the group itself. Please check several dictionaries, as they all agree with the cited source that this is the primary definition of "counterculture;" only occasionally, within the context of discussing a specific counterculture, can "counterculture" refer to the group itself. So, with your first sentence, the reader is confronted with a substantive and confusing distortion.

Moving on, the sentence begins with a parenthetical phrase, "in sociology," then immediately introduces another phrase placed in actual parentheses, "(also written counter-culture)," then it introduces yet another parenthetical comment, "or fringe culture"--all this is extremely distracting and requires mental gymnastics on the part of the reader.

The last clause of this first sentence is especially problematic, because the subject, "it," refers back to "cultural group," which is a long ways away. The reader is forced to go through an arduous process of elimination, rejecting "mainstream societal norms" and "norms of behavior" (plural, not singular--can't be it) before finally settling on "cultural group," to deduce the intended meaning.

There are other, more minor things wrong with this sentence. "In some way" is a nearly meaningless phrase. And "often to the point" is extremely vague.

I really don't have time this evening to point out the many problems I find with your commentary. Good writers almost instinctively recognize good writing, because it goes down easy and communicates the author's thoughts with precision and clarity. Bad writers can be informed in what ways their writing fails; getting them to write well becomes a far more difficult task.

I certainly don't claim masterful writing skills, and good writing can always be made better; often that is what happens at Wikipedia. But I agree with editor Peter Morrell that the lede after you edited it was not an improvement:

"In sociology, a counterculture (also written counter-culture) or fringe culture is a cultural group with values and norms of behavior that deviate from mainstream societal norms in some way,[1] often to the point that it persists for a significant period. The term "counterculture" is a neologism attributed to Theodore Roszak,[2][3][4] author of The Making of a Counter Culture.

"Examples of countercultures are the nineteenth-century Europe Romanticist, Bohemian movements. Later, in the twentieth century, a more fragmentary counterculture arose in the form of the Beat generation.[2] A countercultural movement tends to express the ethos, aspirations, and dreams of a specific population during an era—a social manifestation of zeitgeist.

"The concept came to prominence in the media with reference to the social revolution that swept North and South America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand during the 1960s and early 1970s.[1][2][4]"

In fact after your edits, the lede became unclear, choppy, and otherwise...downright terrible! That's why I reverted the changes you made. Apostle12 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are fair points points about the structure of that first sentence. It seems an easy fix. For example:

"A counterculture (also written counter-culture) or fringe culture is a subculture with values and norms of behavior that deviate from mainstream societal mores."

This addresses what you've brought up above, as well as my own concern about "term used to describe" and restores the link to the subculture article, which I'm sure Peter is in favor of. It also stays pretty close to the definition from the source.

I must not have those "writerly instincts" of which you speak, as I don't see how my other changes weren't improvements, particularly as you seem to be focusing on prose clarity. Two examples:

Original: "Countercultural milieux in 19th-century Europe included Romanticism, Bohemianism, and the Dandy.

My edits: "Examples of countercultures are the nineteenth-century Europe Romanticist, Bohemian movements."

I removed Dandy, since the article on that didn't show it to be a counterculture. I also removed milieux, which I explained above. I see that I mistakenly omitted an "and" though that's a simple fix.

Original: "Another movement existed in a more fragmentary form in the 1950s, both in Europe and the United States, in the form of the Beat generation,"

My edit: "Later, in the twentieth century, a more fragmentary counterculture arose in the form of the Beat generation."

The original had too many embedded clauses and not enough punctuation. I mean, look at the awkward "existed in a more fragmentary form... in the form of" construction! Is that really better?

Like I said, I'm not saying my edits made the lede perfect, but I'm just not seeing how they made it worse. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no, your proposed fix for the first sentence (above) does not begin to address my objections. The critical element of opposition, for example, is not conveyed by your word "deviate."

In your earlier comments, which I again do not have sufficient time to address in full detail, you objected the to lede's metaphorical use of the term "critical mass." This metaphor is, however, apt because a limited opposition undercurrent does not rise to the level of a "counterculture."

And, although you objected to "redundan(cy)" in the phrase "persists for a period of time," the critical factor of duration is similarly important; an opposition undercurrent that does not persist for a period of time cannot acquire counterculture status. There may, of course, be a better way to say this, but the issue of duration cannot be ignored.

In your original criticism, you seem to want to limit the discussion to dictionary definitions, which I think is inappropriate. Perhaps you should read (and watch--see especialy Mary Works "Rockin' At the Red Dog") more of the cited sources.

Regarding Dandyism, to me whether or not it qualifies as a "counterculture" seems a close call. We do, for example, owe much of modern attire (especially modern trousers) to the 18th and 19th century dandies.

I agree that the differences between "fringe culture" and "subculture" are not well-covered in the article. Sourced material should be added to correct this deficit. Lots of productive work remains to be done on this article. Truncating the lede hardly seems productive in this regard, especially given the introduction of significant distortions, awkward sentence structure, and poor writing. Apostle12 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Apostle12 that the edits of this person in no way constituted improvements to the article, but seeing as he kept pushing his POV edits i decided not to challenge some portions of his edits. However, I have other issues with this editor. He just kept reverting until he got all his own edits restored. Wikipedia is if nothing else a collaborative project that requires flexibility and compromise, and so that is not a very civil way to proceed and is why I said he was edit warring. I regard such behviour as pushy, aggressive and arrogant, especially as he showed no inclination to discuss it on the talkpage or show any flexibility, which most editors are willing to do.

Added to this, having checked his other edits they are 99% about nit-picky lede changes and are almost entirely deletions and reverts of other editor's work. I therefore decided he is one of those pushy drive-by deletionists who create a lot of frustration for normal editors. They are arrogant and aggressive and show no respect or tolerance of other editors. Added to that I have not seen this editor come to this article before, which I have edited several times over the last four years, and he seemed not to show extensive knowledge of the subject matter. For all the above reasons I do not agree with his edits or his manner of editing. I trust that explains my position clearly. Peter morrell 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, you guys clearly have some issues with letting newcomers edit. You might want to take a close look at WP:OWN. To be explicit:

Apostle12, reverting an editor's changes and then telling them that you don't have time to justify your reversion is owny.

Peter, opposing another editor's changes based, even in part, on the fact that they've never been here before, is owny.

I took the initiative of bringing the issue to the talk page because I thought discussion would help iron out the editing disagreements between us. Now that I see how untowardly petty and arrogant you two feel like acting, I think I'll go back to being bold in editing the article. I won't ignore the talk page, but I'm not interested in any more of this gatekeeper business from either of you. Some notes:

• I chose deviate to more explicitly include fringe culture (which redirects here); as I understand it, a fringe culture doesn't quite have the aspect of opposition.
• I see that critical mass can work, but right now (and I'm telling you this as a pair of fresh eyes) it doesn't. I just don't get it.
• Peter, you seem to have some trouble with Wikipedia practices. For example, please read WP:POVPUSH; since my edits don't even reflect a particular point of view, characterizing my edits as POV pushing is as nonsensical as it is uncivil. I would rather put this sort of comment on your talk page, instead of here, though I see you are in the practice of deleting comments you don't like from your talk page and acting like they don't exist.

Really, guys, you can do better. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You have purposefully distorted what I said. I took the time to explain in detail why an obviously defective sentence was in fact defective. I also took the time to justify several of my reverts and explain in detail why I objected to your approach. What I said I didn't have time for was a detailed analysis of your commentary here on talk. My time is limited; so what? Nothing "owney" about it. Nor have I been a gatekeeper; I have always welcomed newcomers and will continue to do so. Peter and I are separate people, yet you seem to confuse us; my objections had nothing to do with the fact that you have not edited the article before; as I understand it, even Peter's objection was based primarily on his perception that you pretend more familiarity with the subject than you possess. I objected to your edits because they displayed major problems, not the least of which is that they were poorly written. If your edits continue to be poorly written, I will continue to object. It is you, sir, who are displaying arrogance--perhaps you confuse it with boldness?

Regarding the specific point you raised about "deviate," this word fails to communicate what distinguishes a counterculture. A counterculture involves not just deviation, but opposition. Perhaps "fringe culture" should not redirect to this article, since countercultures are much more than just "fringe." Certainly the fact that fringe culture redirects here should not govern our primary task of defining "counterculture" for our readers.

I still think the "critical mass" metaphor is apt since it is quite common in contemporary American settings and most people understand that when fissionable material reaches critical mass, something dramatic happens. As I mentioned previously, there may be even better ways to communicate that something fairly dramatic needs to be happening for the values and norms of behavior that define an opposition group to be called a "counterculture." Duration was the other matter I discussed; that's important too--if something dramatic were to last for only a short time, it would not qualify as a "counterculture."

I notice you added tags to this sentence: "It is important to distinguish between "counterculture," "subculture," and "fringe culture"." Good idea. Suggestion: Could you perhaps leave the lede alone for just a bit and concentrate on writing a section that distinguishes these three terms? I believe researching the differences, finding appropriate sourcing and clearly delineating the differences bewteen these terms would represent a big step forward for the article. Apostle12 (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take another look at my previous post. I clearly said "Peter" before making the point about the problems of Peter's rationale. I know you two are separate people and I'm not confusing your arguments.

I didn't add the fact tag (technically, Peter did, though another user has re-added it); I'm fine with keeping a tagged sentence for a reasonable amount of time, but that's different from leaving the rest of the lede alone. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's got nothing to do with any alleged 'ownership of the article' or about you being a rookie editor to it; it's got everything to do with your wonky, poorly written edits, a lack of nuanced knowledge of the subject and a very pushy 'get out of my way, I know best' attitude that won't back down, that refuses to compromise and that hates not getting his own way. Talking about me not understanding WP procedures is a complete red herring: hey, there's a big one out there you really haven't grasped, it's called collaboration and consensus. That's the top and bottom of it I'm afraid, like it or lump it. Yes, it's a good suggestion to source and differentiate between fringe and subculture, that would be a helpful contribution, if you can do it. Peter morrell 12:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, my comments about you would normally be better placed in your talk page but I felt it was more likely that you would actually read/respond to it here.

Anyway, let's put this whole personality issue behind us. I've put up a new draft in the article and await comment. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be better employed posting your proposed revisions here first so you can begin to gain a consensus, rather than going and changing the article. Or are you determined to learned nothing from the comments made here? Peter morrell 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Working with what you wrote, I would like to explain the changes I made:

A counterculture (also written counter-culture) or fringe culture is a subculture with values and norms of behavior that deviate from those of mainstream society, often to the point of opposing mainstream cultural mores.[1][2] While countercultural undercurrents are nothing new, a counterculture is more visible, persists for a significant period of time, and can trigger a critical mass of dramatic cultural changes. A countercultural movement often expresses the ethos, aspirations, and dreams of a specific population[vague] during an era. It is important[citation needed] to distinguish between "counterculture," "subculture," and "fringe culture".[specify]

A counterculture (also written counter-culture) is a subculture with values and norms of behavior that deviate from those of mainstream society, often to the point of opposing mainstream cultural mores.[1][2] While countercultural undercurrents are common, a counterculture is more visible and persists for a significant period of time; when oppositional forces reach critical mass they can trigger dramatic cultural changes. A countercultural movement often expresses the ethos, aspirations, and dreams of a population during a specific era.

-I eliminated fringe culture from the first sentence, because placing it here implies that a "fringe culture" is equivalent to a counterculture. It is not; a fringe culture is just what it sounds like--something on the fringe. Perhaps a good example might be Goth culture. A "fringe culture" does not rise to the level of a "counterculture."

-The phrase, "While countercultural elements are nothing new....," is much too casual to be encyclopedic. It also means very little, because "newness" is beside the point. I substituted "While countercultural undercurrents are common..."

-You wrote "a counterculture...can trigger a critical mass of dramatic cultural changes." You seem not to understand what "critical mass" means in the scientific sense. When one reaches a certain mass of a fissionable material, this triggers a spontaneous chain reaction; thus "critical mass." The heat that is produced by a spontaneious chain reaction can produce an explosion, or, with careful control mechanisms, it can be harnessed to boil water and produce electricity using a steam turbine. To say that something (in this case a counterculture) "triggers a critical mass" reveals a lack of understanding of the metaphor you are attempting to employ.

-The last sentence says "It is important to distinguish between "counterculture," "subculture," and "fringe culture." Yes, true. But to say this in the lede is entirely inappropriate. This sentence needs to be eliminated. In my first comment, I began to define "fringe culture," and gave an example of what I think one is. That's original research, of course; an appropriate task for this article would be to do the necessary research and find reliable sources that distinguish between the three. This sort of thing constitutes the heavy lifting of writing, or contributing to, a Wikipedia article.

Peter noted that you seem to concentrate on lede revision. I agree with his observation that it might be better, and more collaborative, to propose lede changes on talk before massively changing them. Massively changing a lede when you haven't participated at all in writing the article, particularly when your changes are poorly written and introduce significant distortions, can be perceived as arrogance. Apostle12 (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"But to say this in the lede is entirely inappropriate." Yes, I made this case myself and this was something that Peter and I were beginning to edit war over. I'm a little confused because you just said today that leaving that sentence with that fact tag was a "good idea." I'm fine with removing it; I had only kept it in out of the spirit of compromise.

You're right about critical mass. It didn't look right and I would've changed it when I added the new link if you hadn't already. Nice job.

Per this edit, the sentence "A countercultural movement often expresses the ethos, aspirations, and dreams of a population during a specific era" is unclear. Which population? Does such a movement differ from other kinds of movements that don't express ethos/aspirations/dreams? I'm assuming the era in question is the one the countercultural movement exists in. Does a countercultural movement express these things but not a counterculture? I'd removed it earlier because it just seems like one of those things people say that could mean lots of things. Or nothing at all. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede: Arbitrary break

Regarding your last comments and questions, the concept of zeitgiest somehow got dropped. The German "Zeitgeist," meaning something like "spirit of the times," is important here because it communicates the urgency of what happens in societies from time to time. Which population?--the population that feels the Zeitgeist. I reinstated the former sentence.

What happened during the countercultural movement of the 1960s was that some people, primarily young people, felt "the spirit of the times" and the counterculture they created defined them as a group. So, first comes "Zeitgeist," which some people feel; then, based on their feelings, the people who feel the "Zeitgeist" start to act on their feelings to create change, and pretty soon (if enough people feel the "Zeitgeist") you have a countercultural movement. Countercultural movements are always a mixed bag of constructive and destructive change; the balance between constructive and destructive changes depending on which countercultural movement one is talking about. Naziism in Germany was a countercultural movement that most people feel was mainly destructive. The countercultural movement of the 1960s remains controversial--without it, one can argue that we would not have experienced the personal computer revolution, nor would we have developed the concept of "freeware," nor would the freedom of information flow on the Internet have come about. Wiki enterprises in general can legitimatley be viewed as by-products of the the 1960s counterculture. Some of the other by-products of 1960s counterculture have been less desirable...but I wax philosophic here. Apostle12 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist is relevant, but the way it's currently worded does more to be repetitive than to clarify anything. Really, the way it's structured makes it seem more like someone is trying to show off their vocabulary than a seamless way of introducing the concept. The way I had done it, linking to the Zeitgeist article through piping the phrase "ethos, aspirations, and dreams" still introduces the concept without seeming so pompous. Both versions still have the vagueness that I have a problem with. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Using a foreign word, like zeitgeist which has gained currency among English speakers, is not "pompous" if there is no English equivalent. Repetitive?...hardly. I don't know a way to make this aspect of the lede less vague; to understand more, readers will need to read the article. Apostle12 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not just using the word, it's how it's used. I've reinserted the vague tag. Maybe someone else will come up with better wording. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have placed a few additions to the lede which I will flesh out soon with a few citations from reliable published sources. I have some good sources, but it takes time to select some good citations to back up the points made. I hope to complete this process today, and hope therefore that these changes are not reverted in the meantime, many thanks Peter morrell 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't really delete anything, Peter, though it may appear so. There was a lot of unnecessary verbiage, some redundancy, and a general need for tightening things up; my intent was to respect your work. Made many small changes and did some reorganizing. Look forward to seeing your sources, which are still needed. Apostle12 (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks no probs, cheers Peter morrell 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice job, guys.

This change still doesn't address my concerns about that sentence (are my concerns clear? I could try to break it down less flippantly than above). That kind of tag removal can be construed as disruptive (plus, it's getting kind of tiresome having to continually reinsert it), but I know you're acting in good faith, Apostle. As long as we're thinking about it (which is the point of tags anyway), not having the tag is fine. I'd just hoped the tag might prompt other editors to think about it as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's we three work together and make it a good article. I don't see why not. I'm not sure if I can get all the citations done today and I might just dump loads of them on here so we can pick and choose which ones are best...that would also be more collaborative. thanks Peter morrell 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As promised sometime back, here are some quotes pulled from reputable sources that people might wish to pick up and use to embellish the article. Please feel free to do that. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"They make articulate their opposition to dominant values and institutions—even when, as frequently occurred, this does not take the form of an overtly political response." (Hall & Jefferson, p.61)

"Two things occur if subcultures flourish. An informal grapevine recruits outsiders from other areas into the subcultures...or they may be assimilated and absorbed into mainstream culture." (Brake, p.10)

"these young people were cultural innovators and social critics...(offering) defiance or rejection of conventional society. (Hazlehurst, p.53)

"there does seem to be some general commitment towards antiauthoritarianism, a rejection of the traditional party political system which is considered irrelevant," (Hazlehurst, p.59)

"signifying their rejection of the values and standards of a society they feel has failed them." (Hazlehurst, p.247)

"the group that offers solidarity, support, security, and respect." (Hazlehurst, p.260)

"The counterculture was defined as a rejection of the modernist establishment, and it encompassed most of the baby boomers to some degree. Some of these rebels were political activists, most were simply trying to “do their own thing,” to find themselves." (Shires, p.209)

"their opposition to the hegemony of economic neoliberalism in Western democracies," (Muggleton, p.16) "to the banalities of mass cultural forms," (Gelder, p.4) "opposition to respectable occupations," (Gelder, p.119) "they are construed as oppositional and subversive by the larger mainstream." (Hodkinson, p.134) "youth cultures define themselves in opposition to the wider culture, while making little effort to constructively engage with it," (Hodkinson, p.174) :"opposition to, the middle-class establishment of adults." (Hodkinson, p.205) :"and a rejection of some form of respectability." (Brake, p.27) "opposition to the values of the wider society" (Hall & Jefferson, p.177) "their opposition to dominant values and institutions." (Hebdige, p.116)

"criminals, bohemians, drop-outs, hobos, delinquents, deviants" (Hall & Jefferson, p.246)

"the growth of social protest movements—often related to social problems and deviancy—in the 1960’s, the rise of the student movements and the ‘counter-culture'..." (Hall & Jefferson, p.250)

"reaction against conventional society and its norms." (Hazlehurst, p.259)

"alternative values and dreams of a better life" (Hebdige, p.32) "reject society’s dominant norms and goals," (Gelder, p.42)

"defining themselves against the parent culture." (Hebdige, p.127)

"hippies made a lasting impact on the ethos of America," (Gelder, p.22)

"rejection of dominant values" (Hodkinson, p.3)

Sources

• Chris Barker, The Sage Dictionary of Cultural Studies, London: Sage, 2004
• Michael Brake, Comparative Youth Culture: The Sociology of Youth Cultures and Youth Subcultures in America, Britain and Canada, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985
• Ken Gelder, Subcultures: Cultural Histories and Social Practice, London: Routledge, 2007
• Stuart Hall and Tony Jefferson, Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war Britain, London: Routledge, 1991
• Cameron Hazlehurst, Kayleen M. Hazlehurst, Gangs and Youth Subcultures: International Explorations, New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers, 1998
• Dick Hebdige, Subculture: the Meaning of Style, London & New York: Routledge, 1979
• Paul Hodkinson and Wolfgang Deicke, Youth Cultures Scenes, Subcultures and Tribes, New York: Routledge, 2007
• Chris Jenks, Subculture: The Fragmentation of the Social, London: Sage Publications, 2005
• David Muggleton and Rupert Weinzierl, The Post-subcultures Reader, Oxford: Berg, 2003
• Preston Shires, Hippies of the Religious Right, Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 200

Some big questions

• How big or cohesive do you have to be to be a counterculture? How big or cohesive do you have to be to be covered by the Wikipedia page on counterculture? (The existing definition isn't doing all that much for me. It says there's a size/duration threshold but I have no idea how to determine what that is.)
• Did Western counterculture really end in the mid 1970s, never to return? Is hip-hop a counterculture? Is Antiglobalization a global counterculture?
• Why no images on a page so well suited for them? (Difficulty of choosing?) I particularly think we can do better at the top than a sociology graph—sociology might study this topic, but it's not even a subset.
• Can we say more about the general properties of counterculture in a first section that would flesh out the lead?

OXOXO groupuscule (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas. I agree the article could do with widening out somewhat to include other concepts of counterculture, but we need to get some consensus for any changes. Post up here any ideas and let's see what folks make of them. thanks Peter morrell 13:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hipsterism?

Is hipsterism really a counterculture (as recently added by User:Gregorik)? It's an interesting notion, but I think there's also an argument to be made that hipsters are not sufficiently "counter" to the "mainstream" culture. I would also guess that the 1973 source at the end of that sentence in the lede doesn't mention "hipsters". Maybe there are sources on the topic? This (instantly) classic article on Hipsters does seem to argue that hipsterism is not a true counterculture.

Also I would continue to suggest that hip-hop, especially in its heyday, represents a very real counterculture. (Hoping to add something about that when time permits...) groupuscule (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I would say yes to both if they can be furnished with good sources. Otherwise then no. Peter morrell 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes both Hip hop culture in its "heyday" as you saysay did encounter alot of criticism and without a doubt challenged the mainstream. Hipster culture does as well. There should also be more details about Punk/DIY Culture, at least as an overview. For now I will add them in the see also. ErdoS (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Addition of weasel words

These recent edits seem to only add weasel words, with edit summaries saying things like "this is unreferencable." If no reference can be found, it has to be removed. Uncited "it has been argued that" or "some say" aren't ok. Assuming good faith, I'm posting here instead of reverting because it's possible the sources that are cited don't actually make the claims that were in the article -- but I haven't checked them. --Rhododendrites (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on too few movements - especially the 60s

Going through this article, I was struck by statements such as this: "The counterculture in the United States has been interpreted as lasting roughly from 1964 to 1972" This statement strikes me as offensively incorrect. This should definitely be altered because it takes a hugely restrictive definition of "the counterculture in the United States". "The counterculture in the United States" is not this particular collection of movements in the 60s and 70s. It is much broader and to define it otherwise is, I think, obviously a big error. I think it would be good to make a more comprehensive list of counterculture movements and include some of that on this page. I think this page currently is focusing too much on a few "counterculture" movements and not mentioning too many other ones. It's still a quite short page, so it would work to add more sections on more diverse examples of "counterculture" movements. macscam (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)