The 'Why did the Sixties end?' section seems grossly out of place. To be honest, it appears entirely conjectural and is reminiscent of a highschool persuasive essay. There is absolutely nothing journalistic about it, nor are there any sources cited. It is little more than someone's personal opinion and that has no place in wikipedia. If the same section were to replaced with various cited perspectives on this very complex issue I believe it would meet wikipedia standards. If something is not changed, however, I recommend that it be removed. 188.8.131.52 16 Mar, 2005
- This issue has not yet been addressed and I have taken it upon myself to remove the sections entitled "Why did the sixties happen?" and "Why did the sixties end?" I attempted to simply edit the content of the respective sections, but they were so profoundly infused with bias that I found it extremel difficult. The perspective of these sections would perhaps be appropriate for an academic journal, but not an encyclopedia. Sentences such as the following clearly have no place in Wikipedia.
"A typical career path is that of Tom Hayden" "The rapid decline of the student left after Nixon's withdrawal from Vietnam is not very surprising in retrospect." and, "This was the reason why the Sixties cultural revolution proved impossible to reverse."
Furthermore, these statements were presented with loose or no factual support, making it laughable in even an academic journal. I have seen differing perspectives which much more adequate support--Chris Marker's Le Fond de l'Air Est Rouge [Eng: "Grin Without a Cat"] is an effective and extremely comprehensive exploration of the reasons underlying the rise and fall of various radical movements throughout the world at the time. The Woodstock Movie is hardly a convincing source. I am going to suggest this article be seriously cleaned up, as it hardly does justice to such a complex era.
I'd ask again: please explain your comment re googlebombing. What bombing is going on? That information seems entirely valid and interesting to me. Thanks, Meelar 07:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If anonymous people are going to make significant edits to articles, they need to explain what they are doing and not make fatuous remarks about googlebombing (whatever that is), or they will be reverted. Thanks to Meelar. Adam 08:26, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise to do this, but in the "why did the 60s happen" section, I would like to include something about why the american civil rights movement started (in the black community, not why whites identified with it later) and its interaction with the movements that came later. Also, attribution or citation don't really make sense for such a broad topic, but I'd appreciate some more 'further reading's. DanKeshet 17:13, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the origins of the civil rights movement (which would take us back at least to the 1930s and probably to the Civil War) are part of the scope of this article, which is mainly about the "white 60s." There was after all an anti-war movement going back decades as well, but this article isn't about that either. It is about how these elements overlapped and interacted in the 60s. The article came mainly out of my general knowledge and personal experience, but I will try to find some further reading. Adam 20:01, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, Adam. DanKeshet 02:45, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
I'll try to explain why I made the changes I did, change by change then:
- "shooting to death" just sounds awkward to me
- "...extreme organisations thrown up..." sounds very derogatory to me, as if we're trying to say that all their ideologies were inferior and half-baked, which is an opinion and not NPOV.
- "...overtly revolutionary or terrorist..." From my point of view, some were both revolutionary and terrorist. But the important aspect of their being revolutionary or terrorist was the violence they used, right? So why not just say "violent"?
- "socialist" vs. "wild individualism". The incompatibility you discuss is between individualism and the specific self-sublimating socialists they were backing (mao and pathet lao, in your example, also revolutionary communist party, etc.). There are many people who believe that individualism and (some form of) socialism are perfectly compatible, and it would not be NPOV to assert otherwise.
- "of course". If it's too obvious to say, don't say it. Otherwise, don't insult the reader.
DanKeshet 02:45, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
Oh well, revert back if you want. I was in a grumpy mood this morning. But please preserve the distinction between the Weathermen and the Weather Underground. Adam 02:48, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have redone some of my edits. I have left the weathermen/weather underground distinction, which I didn't have any good reason for removing. I am most unsure about the distinction I am making between the marxist groups and the student left's individualism. I hope somebody can say what I'm trying to say better than I can. DanKeshet 03:30, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
A non-attacking question about what's encoded
I was going to make thi short and General: I'm doing a cultural studies assignment on texts about the sixties, and I am analysing this site in comparasin to other texts. My questions/comments concern what's written up untill the "In other Western Countries" section. But I'm not posting this for help with my essay because it's due in 3 hrs, it's for interest and hopefully (though doubtfully) the for the site's best interests. Allthough the content is well written to be informative and appear un-emotive (and this is a fantatsic site by the way), I'm curous about how some apsects of the sixties were represented. The language employed was packed full of the strong ideological investments and encoded with some very negative statements about major topics for example the events and people who constituted poltical and social awakening; what some call a "cutlural revolution"; the power and influence of Rock and Roll on the sixties and Visa-Versa. I'd like to add that I am only a 2nd year student so I'm not criticising your work, nor do I think my enterpretation is the only right accurate, difintive reading of the text, only my subjective reading of what you wrote. And I'd like to ask a few questions about the information that is up untill the "In Western Europe" section.
Did you intend to encode so much negativity in your representations of the people of the younger generation and the events included in the sixties? For instance denying any authentic social/political awareness, ideals or altruism in the protesters and activists Representing the FSM and similar student movements as resembling violent, irrational, destructive/agresive mob, disregarding any political/culeral awarness, non-violent/destructive ideals, altruistic aims or provacation/opresion by the state. Representing the New Left as (among other things) destructive Seperating the New Left from hippies but not from anarchists and terrorists. (If it all was intentional, that's impresive becuase it reads very factually, and if not that is very interesting, and posibly requires atention. There was a big, positive shift in tone when the content went from the U.S. to Western Europe, which country are you from/living in now? Is it the U.S.? Or was it written by many people, if so what nationality is: the majority, or the person in charge?(by the way I'm NOT American, I'm from Australia and I voted for the other guy) Specifically I was interested by the representation of rock music and the sixties. It got a minor mention, like an after thought, reducing it's cultural signifigance down to a side effect drugs and Commercialism, Despite a number of things such as the conection of rock music with freedom and rebellion, its releavnce to the mentality of rebelling youth of the 60s; The signifigance of Rock & Roll in exploring resistant discoarses. Furthermore drugs and drug culture had nothing to do with Rock and Roll explosion in America that hapened after the Beatles made their first groundbreaking appearence on American TV in 1964.
And there is more where that came from. If this doesnt get put-up please atleast leave a tiny comment why not? pretty please?
A slightly more attacking question, but I'm still interested in your answer
Who wrote, or aproved, the section about why the sixties happened?
I was just wondering since when is slavery, oppresion, ineqaulity, and intolerance part of what makes any Nation in anyway "great"? Especially "The Land Of the Free"? I'm refering here to the "traditional values" concerning women, black people, homosexuality, freedom of speech, knoldge and identity that which were very much a part of pre-sixties western culture, but somehow didnt get a mention. Nor did the high percentage of non-students such as mothers at the Anti War protests. Meanwhile the students get painted as ungrateful, errant whinging children with no goals, values or positive impact whatso ever. Encyclopedias are normally about as close as you can get to an ideologically objective text, but this section is a little bit of an aberation. Again, who wrote WHY DID THE SIXTIES HAPPEN? Richard Nixon?
- Hi - your comments are clearly heartfelt and have, I think, some validity, but your questions betray a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. I suggest you sign up for a Wikipedia username check out the Wikipedia:Community portal, putter around for a bit, and then return here. Did you know that you can actually change the article to be something better and more objective? In fact, it's encouraged! The animals will love it if you do. Jgm 12:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Was this just a one-off?
I was a bit disappointed to find no article on The Seventies. I wouldn't know where to start an analysis from scratch but I'd be happy to help if someone else did the first draft. Mike H 09:09, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)