Jump to content

Talk:1950s

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.176.49.28 (talk) at 16:16, 26 March 2010 (→‎american centrism...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconYears Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Past cotw

America-centric

From the introduction, this seems like and article solely about the fifties in America! Myself0101 (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Rights

Were civil rights issues really 'suppressed'? What about brown vs. board of education, etc?

i think that this page should show more about the distance between the young and the old and their different expectations and so on. i think this is a good idea because i have noone i know alive who was in the fifties so i want to know what it was like to be a teenager back then.- nick

Graffiti

"Along with the appearance of the sentence Kilroy was here across the United States, graffiti as an art form develops, especially among urban African Americans; graffiti eventually becomes one of the four elements of hip hop culture"

This needs a citation. It isn't clear that 'Kilroy' has any connection to later graffiti culture, or what that connection might be. Further, the 'Kilroy' had its origin in the 1940s, so if there is a connection to later graffiti culture then why date that connection to the 1950s?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drowland3550 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Suez Crisis

The Suez Crisis was a war fought on Egyptian territory in 1956. The conflict pitted Egypt against an alliance between the United Kingdom, France and Israel. The United States also played a crucial role, albeit not a military one.

I see this kind of thing too much in Wikipedia. The author expects everyone to read their minds instead of expounding upon their point. If the US played a crucial role, tell us what it was instead of telling us what it wasn't! This type of thing is infuriating.

United States in the 1950s

It's my opinion that the 1950s entry should summarize major events, and contain links to entries for specific countries as and when they are written. Accordingly I've moved the United States in the 1950s section to its own entry and placed a link to this in a new "See also" section. Many countries had a very different experience of the 1950s from the one that pertained in the USA, but there are many US events that are generally regarded as having global significance because of the growth of a largely US-led popular culture and the growing power of the USA in foreign policy. I'm sure there will be some duplication between entries and this is okay in my opinion. It's an encyclopedia and articles should try to be reasonably self-contained.--Minority Report 23:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I like this approach a lot better. The early articles (1950s) and (1950's), which were merged to form the basis of the old 1950's article, were admittedly written from a North American perspective (at least one of them, if not both, explicitly said so) because that was the only perspective that their early contriubutors and editors felt competent to give. As Wikipedia becomes more truly international and less U.S.-centric, this sort of thing will be necessitated more and more, which is a good thing.

Under "Comics," what the heck is this sentence all about: Western comics were fueled by popular television westerns. Dell Comics ate his ear, dedicated to sheep such as Roy Rogers... JimC1946 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Sydney ice is a dirty whore."

Removed "Sydney ice is a dirty whore." from "Decolonization: Algeria, Vietnam, and elsewhere.Sydney ice is a dirty whore." in war peace and politics. seams to be vandulism

Removed title "stupid stuff'

Someone had replaced the first title with 'Stupid stuff'. I got rid of that for you. Yeah.

-Guest

Removed "factually" clause"

I removed this bit from the intro:

although factually from 1951 through 1960.

Yes, yes, the Gregorian calendar starts in Year One, so all decades actually run from 10n+1 to 10n+10, not from 10n to 10n+9. However, I think this level of pedantry is extremely rare when applied to decades. Centuries perhaps; millenia sure (I myself remembering arguing that the millenium began in 2001) but not decades. --Saforrest 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COTW votes

1950s (6 votes, stays until August 5)

Nominated July 16, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by August 5, 2006
Support
  1. Davodd 05:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Green caterpillar 14:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. YankeeDoodle14 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mirage5000 09:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Avala 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. C. M. Harris 22:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Expansion

Please expand the section "National Issues", or delete the sections that are titled without any content. For example, In Japan, In the United States, etc. David P. A. Hunter, esq. III Let us to it, Pell-Mell 04:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Action has been taken on the above request and it may be fulfilled now. Please edit the section for accuracy and neutral POV. More material may need to be added. Neutralaccounting 00:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless first sentence

"The 1950s was the decade spanning from the 1st of January, 1950 to the 31st of December, 1959."

Anyone with a shred of common sense can figure that bit out. Is this necessary? Zyr shnikashnu 14:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

civil rights

urm...could someone expand the civil rights section, its like 3 lines long. thanks, 69.171.51.14 01:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Introduction?

This article does not have an introduction. Someone who is familiar with this subject should create one. YaanchSpeak! 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture

Umm, yeah just wondering why theres nothing under architecture & if there ever was. --Samhed (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea...I took it out since there was nothing under it, and added Art Movements. Marsattack (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of People (entertainers and world leaders)

If there is actually a necessity for such a list, wouldn't it be better to put it on a separate list page, perhaps, instead of making the main page so crowded with lists? Marsattack (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western point of view

I can imagine this article hard to do, hard to know what to omit, and what to enter. Also the scope of the title is quite huge.(Perhaps the scope should be limited in the title.) This is blatently American centered: "The war continued until a cease-fire was agreed to by both sides on July 27, 1953. The war left 33,742 American soldiers dead and 92,134 wounded." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.240.67 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to make a comment of the same thought. I don't know what it is about making everything 'American-centered', a cultural bias will obviously occur but this is a world encyclopaedia... apparently the American education system is similarly focused. Very inward style; they know their country inside-out and the outside world is a little unclear. No don't put my IP up thanks.

Wow, pretty much no mention of Australia whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.193.240 (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article to address these concerns. Realistically, it's impossible to include the existing level of detail and to cover the entire world! I think the best we can hope for is an extremely broad coverage in very shallow detail. I'd propose the following:

  • The culture section is 99% about the USA, and would be better split off into a new article called something like 1950s USA culture.
  • Rewrite the current article to talk only about global events and trends in major subjects of human activity including arts, science and technology, society and politics. Major environmental and geographical events with global repercussions could also possibly be mentioned
  • Discussion of topics and events contained within individual countries should be avoided. They can go in country specific articles.

Any opinions/suggestions? Papa November (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:I Was A Teenage Werewolf.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo montage

No mention of decolonialisation? Hungarian uprising? Kransky (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find fair use photos for it. ZenCopain (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The montage's are terrific, nice idea and good job...Modernist (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use these images:

Article Issues

  • In addition to the other comments below and the pre-existings issues (re: non-world view, insufficient references, and unverifiable claims): There are other issues I have noted in the "articleissues" template on the main page:
  1. The neutrality of several areas in this article seems to be inconsistent with NPOV values, and include biased phrases like, "The Cold War era seemed to encourage witch hunts". This should be rectified to bring the article in line with encyclopedic standards.
  2. Copy-editing is needed on this article: The tone appears to slip in and out of an essay-like tone (read: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
  3. Although I haven't gone as far as to suggest a complete re-write (although it bears serious consideration): The whole thing needs to be "wikified". The layout needs improving (sections could be merged with other relevant articles, trivial content deleted, and better image placement is necessary).

List Issues

  • There are also a number of lists in this article that need to be sorted out (I've placed the appropriate templates on them for the time being):
  1. The "Comics trivia" subsection should be moved to related articles or deleted entirely, as its presence on this article is entirely trivial (read: Wikipedia:Listcruft.
  2. The "Literature" section has a similar issue to the above, but it actually has a related article that the content can be merged to from this article. I have placed a section in the related talk page. I propose merging the content from this section with the more-relevant article.
  3. The "Sports" section of this article is just a list of famous names with no actual explanation or justification for its presence on this article. This content should be dispersed to relevant articles, or a separate page can be created if need be. Its current state is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to the main article.
  4. The above applies to the "People" and "World Leaders" sections of this article as well.

bwmcmaste (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

I really think this (and all of the similar 1900s, 1910s,…) article should be renamed "The American 1950s". This may take care of the problems with this article being written from a highly American POV. Otherwise, these types of articles need to be completely rewritten to reassess notability, sending certain content to its own (or another already established) article, while bringing in more content relevant to the entire world. Basically, this article covers the 1950s from a deeply American perspective and I think renaming it might resolve some of the huge issues.

BTW, I'm only posting this in the 1950s article because it was recently hit hard by templates requesting vast improvements, so I thought the discussion should start here. But keep in mind, if there is support for this change I suggest we do it for all of the articles about decades of the 20th century.

DKqwerty (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above suggestion is a pretty good one, but I recommend going a step further: Since the 1950s in America was a pretty notable time (likely notable enough for its own separate article) another article could be created just for that, and all of the American (things that aren't as notable in a world-perspective) items could be merged into that. This could be part of a rewrite and would at least resolve the issue of the "american-centric" problem on the main page. bwmcmaste (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction to the above post: There does appear to be an article with the aforementioned subject matter, and I will be moving all of the American-centric items over to that article (as well as attempting a cleanup on both pages). The article can be found here. bwmcmaste (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page Overhaul

  • In the interests of making the subject article more encyclopedic and providing a "world view" of the topic: I have moved almost all of the "American-centric" (content that deals explicitly with subjects involving the United States) material over to the article United States in the 1950s. However the 1950s article still requires more content and cleanup for it to attain a proper "world view" of the subject. I have also added a listcruft template to the "Popular music" section, and have proposed a merger of the content from the "Film" section to the more relevant article 1950s in film. The latter two changes are a concern for the layout of the page (read: WP:DIRECTORY): As they can be safely integrated into other more relevant articles, while helping to cleanup the main page.

American-centric content move to United States in the 1950s

  • Consumerism
  • US domestic policy (and subsection on cold war)
  • Civil rights
  • Culture
  • Television
  • Comics
  • Toys
  • Vehicles
  • First portion of "Art Movements" section moved (entirely American-centric)

bwmcmaste (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blank catagorys

yeah... the caagorys echonomics, science and technology, and popular culture are all blank. just letting you know.Boom12345 (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The selection of notable events in the montage

We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1950s montage on the top of the page through a discussion (and not through edit wars) which would include (hopefully) many Wikipedians.

The current montage is composed of the following images:

Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these images:

Most are basically the same, yet they all list very important events and people/things associated with the 1950s. CatJar (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated before in the discussion about the 2000s montage, it would be much wiser to pick only images of prominent world events and refrain from choosing the decade's influential celebrities for the montages (unless the image is of a prominent world event in which the person took part in). If we chose Elvis and Marilyn for the 1950s, other users might insist that we choose Osama Bin Laden and Bush for the 2000s or Britney Spears for the 2000s (you get my point).
My problem with the stained glass window of the molecular structure of the DNA is that it is not an image taken during the 1950s of an event which happened then but it is a 2006 image of a stained glass window in a dining hall which commemorates Francis Crick whom co-discovered the molecular structure of DNA during the 1950s.
I feel that the image of the combat in the streets of Seoul represents the Korean War better than an image of the United Nations forces trucks.
Does anyone else feel that we should remove the image of the North Sea flood of 1953? I myself thought it was a good idea to add an image of the decade's biggest natural disaster. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley are not just considered celebrities, they are considered international icons, a part of Americana. I picked a stain-glass because it was the only image that was taken the closest to 1953, plus it is an artful depiction, but I would have put a better image if I could. I put the troops crossing the the border to go with the saying "Crossing the 38th parallel". CatJar (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone else besides CatJar believe the image of the United Nations forces withdrawing from Pyongyang represents the Korean War better than this image of the warfare itself?
  • I still insist that the images in the montage should be of the most influential events of each decade and not of the most influential celebrities/international icons. For example - the image of the Beatles in the 1960s montage is justifiable because it is of their arrival to the U.S. in 1964 right before their appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show which marked the start of the British Invasion and contributed to the band's phenomenal success. Does anyone else besides CatJar believe we should add the images of Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley to the montage anyway? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone else besides CatJar believe that we should add this image of a stained glass window in a dining hall which commemorates Francis Crickto the montage?

TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

american centrism...

might be good for an american encyclopedia and despite the fact many significant things have happened in the 50s in the united states the world is a bigger place so for one I suggest not to refer to US events generically. 79.176.49.28 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1950s&oldid=352175007"