Talk:1980s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Archive 1

Joke?....[edit]

"Yo, imma let you finish, but the 1950's was the best decade of all time, of all time!".... Is this a joke or a relevant piece of historical jargon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.66.33 (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 12:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) A Decade ends because of the number it ends because of an events like for example 1990 is considered an epilogue of the 80s as 80s music and fashions were still used as of 1991 the eighties officialy ended with the Gulf War ,2000 the same and as of september 11 2001 the 2000s enters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.36.116 (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A decade, century or millennium does not begin or end with any specific event like a terrorist attack, a revolution, a war, the birth of new fashions, etc. An old year ends at the stroke of midnight on December 31 and a new one begins, that is the same with centuries, millenniums, and decades when they begin and end, but they only do that on certain years.Bjoh249 (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

But if we count all decades as having ten years, starting from 1 CE, the '80s decade begins on January 1, 1981 and ends December 31, 1990. I've brought this up at the Manual of Style. The consensus was that since the incorrect way of counting decades (1980-89) is far more common, it should be used. I see their point, kind of. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The preceding comment is correct that the 1980s began Jan. 1, 1981 and ended Dec. 31, 1990. There is no year 0, so the first decade began year 1 and ended year 10. I generally defend wikipedia, but it is stupid things like this that make it harder to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.130.5 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Page is far too US-centric[edit]

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)
This is false; for one thing there are more Indian English-speakers than Americans period. Second, it has a lower rate of Internet penetration than the UK, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand (see List of countries by number of Internet users). Finally, the web was invented by Tim Berners-Lee in the _UK_. Your US-centric myopia is precisely the problem with this article. Rahul Mereand-Sinha (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2013 (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 (talkcontribs) 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)
The "automobile" section is another one that is purely US-centric. It mentions the "decline of brands like Renault, Citroën and Peugeot, who stopped importing". Importing where? Yes, I know the US is meant, but there were (and still are) quite a few cars of those brands running around in, for example, France. SeverityOne (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (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.[edit]

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)
It actually started in 1981, but most people refuse to believe it. The first decade didn't start with 0, and if they all are ten years long, no following decade did either. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Section on Asia not representative[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Putting inaccuracies in the article[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

Casual fashion?[edit]

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[edit]

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

Wrong dates for this decade[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) - 01:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Amen, Keefe! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


The above reply isn't clear, though I sense a long and frustrating debate somewhere. The references to decades of 20th century are erroneous, for the various decades of the 1900s, and I was planning to delete them. The 1980s are, it seems, 1980 to 1989, while the ninth decade of the the 20th century, confusingly, is 1981 to 1990. Various pages on Wikipedia deal with this matter.

See, for example, the "1900s"

1900s may refer to:

  • The period from 1900 to 1909, known as the 1900s decade
  • The period from 1900 to 1999, almost synonymous with the 20th century (1901–2000)

Rwood128 (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I have referred this to WP:RY. The consensus seems to support me. Rwood128 (talk) 11:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The selection of notable events in the montage[edit]

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:

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:
Berlin fallofwall emerson.jpg
Chemical weapon1.jpg
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. Avicennasis @ 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[edit]

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[edit]

Berlin 1989, Fall der Mauer, Chute du mur 20.jpg
Instead of
Thefalloftheberlinwall1989.JPG
Chemical weapon1.jpg
Instead of
IBM PC 5150.jpg
Instead of
Challenger explosion.jpg

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.
I agree with CatJar. Swarm(Talk) 06:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I think that there's no reason to have two pictures of the shuttle. The footage of Challenger went around the world, and is definitely one of the images of the 80s, so ditch the other shuttle picture. The PC changed human society and the economy as never before, and all within a mere decade or two. MS-DOS and the IBM PC were definitely an 80s thing. It's the decade when normal offices could afford computers and when home computing began (although it admittedly caught on much quicker in parts of Europe than elsewhere). A definite vote for the PC here - it changed the world (the argument that home computing only went mainstream in the 90s is to argue that Ford's model T is a historical irrelevance because back then only a few people had cars).
Regarding the second image, the one on the right is better, the one on the left is too non-descript. I agree with TheCuriousGnome on this.
As for the first image, well the one in the left is not a bad image per se, but at that resolution as part of the montage I don't think you'll see much more than darkness. The one in daylight is probably better suited simply because it's immediately clear what the picture is, even when the image is shrunk. 84.114.214.144 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


I think that the writer was basing the facts on things they heard. I needed the artile to write paper. Please fix this because i need to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.137.133 (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of information, and not cited source. Unaccounted[edit]

  • Bulleted list item

I think that the writer was basing the facts on things they heard. I needed the artile to write paper. Please fix this because i need to use it.

  • Bulleted list item

--69.117.137.133 (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Missing information and data[edit]

For the fact of a "tremendous population growth" in the section "Society" are statistics missing. It seems though not to be fully correct, looking at these statistics, or just put into wrong words? http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_pop_totl&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&tdim=true&tstart=-315619200000&tunit=Y&tlen=48&hl=en&dl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.35.4.36 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

convert to index page?[edit]

just skimming 2008 comments, i see very valid points about the wp page being usa-centric, etc, etc. trying to create even just a "summary" of "the 80's" is similar to trying to create 1 page to summarize all of wp (or "just" all of en.wp).

and just 1 page to index the 80's is challenging.... an index-to-80's-indexes, instead? :-) 2z2z (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Automobiles: heavy bias on the U.S.[edit]

The Automobiles section is almost entirely on American car manufactors. European brands only mentioned in their capacity as US imports. Asian not at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.37.93 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Halabja1.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Halabja1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Western? western?[edit]

Isn't there's an inconsistency in the use of capital and lower case letters here? Rwood128 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Art of the 1980s[edit]

Not mentioned at all, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lustrax (talkcontribs) 06:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg[edit]

File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Sikh man surrounded 1984 pogroms.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1980s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Prominent political events[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Decades, the UK and Europe, and trains before creating or restoring sub-sub-sub-sub-sub headings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1980s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)