Talk:1980s

Archive 1

Redirect

80s does not redirect here, it is a page with links to the 1980s and the 1880s, so why does it say 80s redirects here? --FelixFT (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

= Wrong ending year?

The 80's not ended december, 31, 1990 as according to the calendar that states the XX century ended in 2000? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Officer Boscorelli (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Bias toward Africa? I can't see none! Why not Bias on the Moon? There's 80's in the Moon too. --Officer Boscorelli (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2010 (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)

Broken Link at External Links

The Link [3](KCLibrary (Old Site(?)) appears to send users to found-not-help (Yahoo Search)[4]. I believe the link has been moved here: [5](Newer Site(?)). 18:23, 11 Mar 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerSociopath (talk • contribs)

Casual fashion?

I think in the early 1980s casual fashion was way different than New romantic. Just see Carly Simon's Why video. 78.130.136.199 (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put

Chernobyl should be in the montage. --204.82.159.89 (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong dates for this decade

All centuries and decades begin in a year ending in one and end in a year ending in zero. There was no Year Zero, meaning that the first day of the first decade of the first century, AD, was January 1, 1. The last day of the first decade was December 31, 10 and the last day of the first century was December 31, 100, not 12/31/99. Unless you're going to write off the first century as being only 99 years long, you have to begin and end decades and centuries on one and zero.

It's counter-intuitive, I know, but use your fingers and prove it for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_century

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

[[User:Richardkeefe57

Please read WP:RY, or my longer reply at one of your duplicate posts at Talk:2000s (decade)#Wrong dates for this decade. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The selection of notable events in the montage

We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1980s 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:

• 
• 
• 
• File:Halabja1.jpg
• 
• 
• 

Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The images relating to the Iraq-Iran War, and of the Fall of the Berlin Wall are grainy and low resolution. I think we should revert it back to the previous version.

Featuring these Images:

Showing more clear and striking images of the event(s) it's referring to. These are the types of photos that can offer more to the montage, both in sight and in words.

Please let this discussion be held for a week at least before you go ahead and make changes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently viewed (and will be viewed in the future) by a tremendous amount of young users from around the world whom were born after the 1980s. Some of them never heard of these events before and are not familiar with the history behind these events. Therefore, I think we need to choose the pictures wisely in such a way that our readers would be able to understand the importance of these events in the best way possible without relying on them reading the caption for each image.

Therefore, in my opinion it would be much better to choose the picture of the aftermath of Halabja poison gas attack by Saddam Hussein committed during the Iran-Iraq war, which gives a better understanding of the millions of innocent civilians killed during the Iran-Iraq War than the picture CatJar choose of one Iranian soldier with a gas mask and a weapon (This would be like choosing an image of a Nazi soldier to represented the whole Second World War).

Also, for the same reason, I think the image of the Germans protestors standing on the Berlin Wall with the Brandenburg Gate in the background helps our readers understand the notability of this event far better than the picture CatJar choose in which an East German guard can be seen talking to a Westerner through a broken seam in the wall - people whom never heard about the fall of the Berlin Wall would not immediately understand the notability of this event just by seeing that image. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people need to read the capiton, and click on the picture in order to know about these events. Most of the people I know that where around to remeber all of the 80s don't even know about the Iran-Iraq War, much less recognize a random blurry photo. I selected the photos I selected because they are the most recognizable and most viewed in magazines, newspapers, and on the web. CatJar (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody else believe that we should choose this photo and this photo instead too? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

：：OK, you've made your point。Ｉthink　that　CatＪａｒ＇ｓ　images　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｂｅ　ｕｓｅｄ　ｆｏｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｍｏｎｔａｇｅ。142.167.99.61 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll revert the decade montage to it's original format. I believe the image's are more clearer and better associated and visually striking. CatJar (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would support the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a historic event around the world, and the image we have is of good resolution and quickly shows a good deal of people at some event, so even those not familiar with it could see it was something a lot of people cared about. (Kind of like the awe of seeing tons of people at a concert, like Woodstock.} While [:File:Berlin fallofwall emerson.jpg|this]] is a great photo, it doesn't leap out the importance of the event to those who may not know the history. ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo TheCuriousGnome has is okay, yet it does not show the exact disestablishment of the actual wall. It just shows the revoke of the ban to cross the border, the wall still stands in that photo. The photo I picked has a tear in the wall and shows a east berliner and west berlin meeting each other and talking casually, something that could not be done for 38 years. It's a great photo for showing the unification of germany at a personal level, and also the actual destruction of the wall. CatJar (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion of the File:Chemical weapon1.jpg, Avicennasis? CatJar (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the Edit wars won't resolve a thing

Dear catjar - please refrain from continuing the edit wars until we reach consensus on the selected images. If you have any new ideas for image to be added - please discuss them here before adding them. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

	Instead of
	Instead of	File:Halabja1.jpg
	Instead of

This is the montage I would like to see on this page. I feel it best represents the 1980s in the best light, and is also informative. CatJar (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Berlin 1989, Fall der Mauer, Chute du mur 20.jpg instead of Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG

In my opinion the image of the Germans protestors standing on the Berlin Wall with the Brandenburg Gate in the background helps our readers understand the notability of this event far better because it was taken during day time and the wall, the protesters and the Brandenburg Gate can clearly be seen in it. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason I picked this photo is because it shows the actual efforts of dismantling the wall, and it shows a larger crowd of people. Granted, it is at nightime, yet it can also give a notable impression of the viewer, just as well as one in the day. CatJar (talk) 01:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Chemical weapon1.jpg instead of Halabja1.jpg

As I have said before, in my opinion it would be much better to choose the picture of the aftermath of Halabja poison gas attack by Saddam Hussein committed during the Iran-Iraq war – it gives a much better understanding of the millions of innocent civilians killed during the Iran-Iraq War than the picture CatJar choose of one Iranian soldier with a gas mask and a weapon (This would be like choosing an image of a Nazi soldier to represented the whole Second World War). TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The Halabja1.jpg is not as clear as the photo Chemical weapon1.jpg. Plus, if you go to the article Iraq-Iran War, it shows the photo Chemical weapon1.jpg, with front billing, implying some significance as to the photo itself. A soldier with a weapon instantly says war, whereas a Halabja1.jpg photo could say massarce, genocide, or what have you, it does not specifical say War. There is only room for one photo, even though one Nazi soldier cannot really represent the entire WWII, the scale of the Second World War greatly surpasses the scale of the Iraq-Iran War, not to say that War is about the numbers or the magnitude. War is War. CatJar (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

IBM PC 5150.jpg instead of Challenger explosion.jpg

In my opinion, we should keep an image of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster because it is widely considered the biggest disaster of the decade.

I'm not sure if the Challenger Disaster was the biggest disaster of the decade. Whereas the disaster was tragic and a blow to America's beliefs in it's space program, over 4,000 people died from the radioation from the Chernobyl disaster. Besides, there is already an image of the space shuttle taking off, its sort of a bad way of puting them together in the same montage, sort of gives the wrong impression. The reason I picked the image of the IBM PC is that it shows the a major leap in the evolution of computers. The personal computer was a landmark in computer progress, and the 80s was the first main decade to see computers at home, and more frequently at workplaces. CatJar (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else besides CatJar think we should add the image of the IBM PC (Model 5150) to the montage? I myself am not sure about this choice mainly because it doesn't represent any specific notable event and because many people would actually consider the 1990s to be the decade in which PCs became a mainstream phenomenon. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as you yourself have noted in one of the montages you designed, the Internet was a more mainstream phenomenon, not PCs. For the Internet to even become largely popular in such short time, there would have had to have been a large number of PCs already at home. 142.167.127.9 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Vote

Which design, and who's design, do you feel better suits this article:

• In my opinion, I feel that the montage I have designed best shows the events of the 1980s. Does anyone else argee? CatJar (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes much more sense to vote for each image individually. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then. I vote for all the three of the photos on the left side.142.167.114.76 (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)I'm catjar, by the way.