Talk:Counterculture of the 1960s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Counterculture of the 1960s:

Orphaned references in Counterculture of the 1960s[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Counterculture of the 1960s's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 12:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Origins and early development[edit]

I find it hard to believe the Counterculture of the 1960s is an US phenomenon that developed first and spread from the US and the UK. The article cites this source:

  • Hirsch, E.D. (1993). The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0-395-65597-9. p 419. "Members of a cultural protest that began in the U.S. in the 1960s and affected Europe before fading in the 1970s ... fundamentally a cultural rather than a political protest."

as to back the statment of an US-first development. I find that this is not not enough. A more full discussion on the origins and first developments are needed. This is not to say the US and UK branches of the counterculture are not very important but to examine the early development and give due weight to other branches. Dentren | Talk 18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for your participation here, which is clearly Good Faith. However, instead of tainting the article with a "dubious" note in the first sentence, it might have been more appropriate (although admittedly difficult) to actually document your contention and make any necessary changes. Yes, the origins of this movement should certainly be more deeply explored, as should every aspect of the article. Beyond that, your participation in the article would be greatly appreciated, as there are few active editors! If you fully explore the raft of refs on this page, I think you'll then agree that there is consensus among historians, journalists, and others as to 1960s counterculture being borne of activities in the the US and UK. Efforts have been made in the article to document counterculture activities elsewhere throughout the world, but that's not where the heart of the history resides. So, I propose that you re-write the lead with cites documenting your alternative hypothesis, whatever that may be. Barring that, I will remove your note at some point soon, and provide additional cites to the prevailing opinion, as I do agree that there should be stronger documentation. Likewise, no one can prove a negative, such as "the counterculture DID NOT emanate as discussed and documented." There have been 100s of thousands of views of this page and no one has ever proposed an alternative geographic locus for the counterculture. Sincerely interested in your reply, and best wishes! Learner001 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
More: to your point, obviously a lot of things were going on elsewhere simultaneously. The trouble is that it's extremely difficult to document such activities under RS, especially on an English language page. Perhaps review the timeline and consider inclusion of other relevant international counterculture events, etc. Please be active on this page! Learner001 (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Carve out a new timeline article due to this article's immense length[edit]

Would anyone object to creating a new Timeline of the 1960s counterculture period article, moving that content from this article to that one? This article is so very long, probably obvious to all. Also, separate 'timeline' articles are quite the norm in the Wikipedia. By the way, I'm open to better names for the new article. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is getting very long, especially with each new citation added for undocumented material. I'm open to discussing a split/move or whatever the lingo is. We could sure use more contributors/editors to work on this subject. Not sure what you mean by "better names" (more clarity?) for the new article, but excited to hear any ideas you might have, Stevie Learner001 (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. As far as the name for a new timeline article is concerned, I was just wondering if it is concise enough, or if there was a better name I wasn't considering. As far as getting a wider discussion, I'll look into doing a formal split discussion and will make sure all the associated projects are alerted. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked to just learn that this is the longest non-data, non-list (although it does contain the very long timeline in question) article on English WP. Is that possible? I am not sure whether to wear that as a badge of honor, or throw up:) Learner001 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It shocked me before I knew that factoid. It's just plain looooooong. I imagine that even after the timeline is split off, there might be considerations for editorial cropping or additional splits. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've tagged the article with {{split2}} and notified the associated wikiprojects to formalize this discussion. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that something needs to be done and the proposed title seems to work. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested to see other input, but the split is needed based on size. I believe Timeline of the 1960s counterculture era might be a slightly better title, but it's not that big a deal. I would like to do the actual split when the time comes. What's next? Thanks to those with input! Learner001 (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Your name may work better. I wasn't sure whether using 'era' was precise, but if nobody objects, go ahead and use that (it can always be changed with a 'move' later). As for who does the split, by all means, please proceed if you wish. It may be a good idea to wait and see if there are no reasonable objections within a week or so of me formalizing the discussion (yesterday). This is simply because it's such a massive piece of content with a lot of involved editors, and therefore any potential conflict should be avoided. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 00:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The split is definitely needed to control the current humongous size, and would be consistent with the way size problems are handled throughout Wikipedia. Trimming the factual content of the list would not be advantageous if the list were separate, and therefore did not interfere with other information. Any attempt at such trimming would probably fail anyway, because decisions on what to trim would be irreducibly subjective, and would therefore give rise to torrential unresolvable debates. Ornithikos (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an appropriate amount of time is to allow input, but there have been no objections, so I say let's split it sooner rather than later and move on. What are the mechanics and other issues, if any? Learner001 (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I say wait for a week like I said above. Also, if you don't how to split, it's best to let someone who does do it. Like me (but it doesn't have to be me). But if you want to do research on how to do it, look at WP:PROPERSPLIT. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that you do the split, Stevie. I want it done right and I've never done one. I made virtually all the contributions on the editorial side of the timeline, and it would be nice to be credited with the article, but it's far more important that it be done right. One request: check back here and let me know just before you do it just in case I have any questions or input. Thanks! Learner001 (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the split, but may I suggest Timeline of 1960s counterculture, considering that '1960s' is already a period, and an era? I know that the timeline will start on 1909, and not end until 1980, and that's why I also took out the 'the'. I fear that otherwise it's a bit like 'PIN Number' and 'ATM Machine', i.e. redundant redundant. Also, 'less is more.' --Nigelj (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nigel makes very good points. Also, I'm assuming that the vast majority of people will find the timeline page via the main page. Am I wrong to believe that? And, how are proper redirects best determined? Thanks again, everyone!Learner001 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nigel as well -- so I will use that suggestion. As for readers finding the timeline, the timeline will be the highest "See also" link. That's the pattern I'm acquainted with. We have to trust that readers will find it like they find other similar timeline articles. Also note that the timeline article will be properly categorized. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: credit, I'm not sure that we normally give credit as such when creating the new article, but I would certainly say in the creation edit summary where the content is coming from -- from there, the reader can look into the history of the original article to see who did what. Also, I will certainly give a head's up before doing the split. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 02:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to see the split in a sandbox situation? I'm concerned about how the refs will transfer and how that will affect both articles. Other than that, can we get quick final informal consensus that we split it by Stevie at Stevie's convenience, and call it Timeline of 1960s counterculture per Nigel? Best Wishes Always! Learner001 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking this split (even though large) is too simple to sandbox. I know how to fix references, and will do so as part of the split work. Of course, I'm only human and may make mistakes -- that's what continued editing by various editors fixes. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Timeline of 1960s counterculture is created. There were only two named references to fix. I also copied over the sources and external links to the new article, although I had to delete one external link that was on the site block list. There may be more applicable categories for the timeline, so please add more as necessary. Also, please add links to the timeline from other articles that make sense. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Good work! Well done! --Nigelj (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Another Well Done here! I'll try to work on sorting or adding/dropping the "Sources" list that was transfered to the timeline as appropriate for each article. Learner001 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Freak scene[edit]

There is an article on the freak scene I cannot easily see what the difference is between this counter culture and that freak scene. Should they be merged or some disambig be written. Some people describe them as the same e.g. Andrea Dworkin in her book #Man Hating chapter 5 pg 75-79

The current article has one dubious ref, and that one ref does not mention the word "freak." I'd flag it for deletion before merging. But that's just my take. Learner001 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Flat references that don't refer to anything[edit]

I looked through the article history, and for years, these references don't seem to refer to anything. They need to be corrected.

  • Thomas 1985
  • Shuker/R. Shuker (4)
  • P. Brown and S. Gaines
  • J. Cott
  • P. Dogget/Dogget (3)
  • A. J. Matusow/Matusow (3)
  • H. Sounes/Sounes (2)
  • M. C. Strong/Strong (3)
  • J. Derogatis/Derogatis, 1996 (2)
  • Allyn
  • Escoffier
  • B. Longhurst
  • D. Snowman
  • P. Biskind (2)
  • J. Pym (2)
  • J. Hoberman

Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that most of these broken citations are concentrated in the Music and Film sections. It's likely that content was copied into this article from other ones without due diligence with respect to the references. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Split Issue[edit]

I hope I can get an answer on this soon: I worked for years developing the "Timeline." I just now see that when the split was made, all contributions for the split page are now attributed to Stevie, who only did the split. Am I missing something? let me know. Soon. Thanks Learner001 (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Are such attributions important? If so, I know of no way to accomplish that. At any rate, people can look into the history of the original article to see who added what to the timeline. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For the sake of aiding in tracing content, I added {{split from}} to this talk page and {{split to}} to the talk page of Timeline of 1960s counterculture. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, all okay, but I do think the contribution attributions should move with the split. I have no issue with you, Stevie, but the wiki mechanics of splits seem to be in need of repair. If half of WP is devoted to editors giving each other so-called "barnstars" and the rest of that nonsense, then perhaps proper attribution of actual content should not seem quite so complicated. Maybe in another life. Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This sounds like a good discussion to initiate at the Village Pump. I can see the concern that the "work completed by whom" aspect gets somewhat lost with splits. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 21:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not so that no one has seen the timeline. Page view stats show it has been consulted 5360 times in the past 3 months. That's not too bad. Out of 90000 hits to this article, that is how many times people wanted more details. (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sonny Barger[edit]

I am questioning the inclusion of Sonny Barger on the list of counterculture figures. Though there are many reasons why I feel he does not belong, the most important is that Barger was a criminal figure at the time. Next, he was not just referred to as criminal by the establishment in order to persecute him. He ordered the deaths of civilians who were not part of the power establishment. His crimes were not political but motivated by greed and power. That is to say, Barger was out for himself and not out to help society. Finally, it is my position that the counterculture movement was at its core an intellectual movement. Yes, we find much that was not, but the case of Barger and the Hell's Angels I feel is sharply outside of the central tenets. I can expound on my argument if necessary. However, I humbly submit to the editors of this page to remove his name from the list. Further, if there are any other individuals listed, who I am not familiar with, who were not revolutionaries but merely exalted thugs and false heroes, I recommend that we remove them as well. If what I say is not true, or if I have missed some key piece of information, then I will gladly drop my claim. JanetWand (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Janet, I was going to let this go until I read your rationale here on the talk page. Yes, Barger was a "criminal" in the eyes of the law at the time. So were a substantial measure of the others on the list, one way or another, and that's the whole dig, isn't it? (look them up!) I would not, for a moment, discount Sonny Barger's intelligence, or his general capacity for learned thinking. Barger was there with Thompson when HS wrote his most important works. He was there all up and down the west coast during the era (when not in jail), hanging out with many of the people who are on the list. He was there at Altamont. I could go on. It's true that Mr. B. would probably not choose to be part of the list. In any event, he remains exceptionally representative of a very real aspect of the counterculture, however distasteful that aspect may be to some. Balance of viewpoints is what we should seek in all things historical. Don't you agree? Best Wishes! Learner001 (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I would only mention that he had Thompson beaten pretty badly over money, if it makes a difference. I mean, its not like he was part of the same group as Hunter if he is ordering him beaten. Even if he didn't order the beating, what was his response to it? This incident may have robbed America of an American novel and arguably one of the most important new styles to come out of the counterculture. Those aren't cheap instruments to be kicked in the skull. I'm sure Barger is intelligent, and I agree that being a criminal could not by itself impeach anyone in the group, of course. I will let him ride in the list, just to avoid the unpleasantness of crossing him, if, and only if, you agree in light of the new information. JanetWand (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I never said he was a nice guy. There are a lot of people on the list who were not nice guys, including, some might argue, Thompson. However distasteful, Barger is simply a representative figure of one aspect of the era. Manson should probably be on the list, e.g., but I'm certainly not gonna put him there. Best wishes! Learner001 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)