Talk:1960s

Music

Major event lists are rarely any good, but the one on music featured in this article is more of a list of album releases, and 60% of the events take place in 1967-69. Anyone cares if I rewrite the part? Sjoerdboersma 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Be Bold DOR (HK) (talk) 05:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

1963 to 1971?

First sentence second paragraph it says the 1960's lasted from 1963 to 1971 in the U.S. but it doesnt explain it nor is it sourced... ?--12.54.215.166 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I'm pretty sure the 1960's lasted from 1960 - 1969 but I could be wrong. Maybe they meant the cultural movement often referred to as "the sixties?" Steve Jobs once said "the sixties happened in the early 70's." KenFehling (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Needs a Controversy Section

A section that describes how the main political and cultural trends described in the 60's are often still controversial in their perceived merit and impact should also be included. Room should be made to survey some of the common positive and also common negative perceptions of the 1960s era in the West.

Controversy was the very essence of many of these trends and to leave such a section out is to short-change the subject. Neutrality would be key however, in making such a section work-- any bias in either direction would undermine the trust of many readers in the article.

Lastly, some 60s movements are no longer as controversial as they once were (the Civil Rights movement, for example) whereas others remain very controversial (neo-marxism for example). In any case, controversy was the very fabric of those times-- and some of the political and cultural controversies born during that era still persist in the West today.

66.227.84.101 (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article is among the worst I've read here on Wikipedia. It reads almost as if it had been written by John Buckner (Kiefer Sutherland's character in Flashback). It needs expansion, citations, and a neutral and accurate point of view. It needs, as others note below, less focus on US events and trends. It needs a complete overhaul.

I made a few modest changes this afternoon, but these are not even good enough for the sections I worked on. JStripes 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Revolution

It says in the article that it ended in the 1950's, unless its wrong it needs to be taken out - Annonymous

Non-Western countries

I deleted the reference to the South-East Asian countries (many of) "that gained independence their independence" during this period. Certainly some created new associations (Singapore, Sabah and Sarawak with Malaya) but no others needed to, except Vietnam.

This article leaves out the most important issue: When will the 1960's generation be mostly retired?

This will depend mostly on the age curve of the sixities generation-- agreeing on when it started and when it really significantly tapered off. Many of us-- who appreciate the contributions of that generation, but are now sick of their intolerant and almost complete control of academia and most of the mass media-- which have become venues for hyper-critical America-hating, paranoid dogmatism and all-around obstructionism-- really want to know.

Sean7phil 20:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

-If we would answer that, we certainly would do it in a way that doesn't reflect the biased neo-conservative paranoia you just expressed.

Needs content outside of pop culture

There is much outside of pop culture needed to be included, things such as fighting for or against communism by proxy (Cuba missile crisis, Vietnam, Indonesia's anti-communist/anti-Chinese actions, and elsewhere). The rise of business computers from IBM, great expansion of science education at all levels in the USA, mass media expansion through television, and the transister).

It would be nice to see comment about cultural things in other countries than the US too!

Needs much more content

I have grown fascinated with The Sixties as a cultural revolution and all the turmoil and societal change the occured during this period of time. I came here to get a more encyclopedic look at this fascinating era, and found the article remarkably lacking. Perhaps a seperate article, The Sixties, needs to be created to allow both a rough and dirty approach (this page) of the decade as a span of time, and also another page to show the impressive and cultural changes that took place during this time.

I was not alive during the sixties, so I therefore cannot do the writing myself, but I'm certain someone could do this.

Resurgence of the sixties in pop culture

During the late 1980's and early 1990's there were many movies made about the sixties and that had references to the sixties. Elements of the sixties could also be seen in the popularity of certain clothes and other retail items (e.g. bell bottoms, peace signs, smiley faces). Someone once told me that pop culture goes in 20 year cycles. The end of the sixties era was actually around 1974. In 1994 another pop culture era was coming to an end, one that borrowed a lot of styles from the sixties. Does anyone know of an article that describes this phenomenon?

== ''' In 1994 another pop culture era was coming to an end, one that borrowed a lot of styles from the sixties. Does anyone know of an article that describes this phenomenon? ' Of course, in 1994 another pop culture era was coming to an end: it was the end of the "Generation-X-era". The "Generation-X-era" was marked by what was called the "grunge movement" (in music, and in the way the youngsters and adolescents dressed); which was represented by the American pop band Nirvana. This era finished whwn the leader of Nirvana, Kurt Cobain, killed himself on April 5 1994. So, that's right: in 1994, another pop culture was coming to an end. And the "grunge" movement was a repetition, in some way -or in most of the ways- of the philosophy and way of living -thinking, music forms, etc- of the sixties. Yes, it was a repetition: as you've said, pop culture goes in 20 year cycles. 20, or maybe 15, or... whatever year cycles. So, it was a repetition of a cycle. ==

Name change: "The Sixties" vs. "1960s"

It strikes me that the article originally titled "The Sixties" and now renamed here is quite a bit different from a straightforward summary of a decade (as many of the other 1xx0's articles are). Lots of things -- biographical, scientific, historical, etc. -- happened in the "1960s"; a particular subset of cultural change was addressed in "The Sixties", making this article instantly both wildly incomplete and difficult to effectively expand into a more general article. I wonder if we don't need both types of article rather than a simple renaming. Jgm 8 July 2005 22:36 (UTC)

The only reason I combined the two articles (1960s and The Sixties) was because a merge was called for via the Community Portal. I too noticed a distinct difference between the articles. Revert both articles if you choose. joturner 8 July 2005 22:42 (UTC)

There remains an article on The Seventies that's distinct from the one on the 1970s; consistency suggests that either those should be merged as well, or the '60s ones re-separated. *Dan T.* 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

These mergers (years ago) strike me as wrong-headed. My first impulse is to tag all of 1920s, 1930s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s with a question as to their notability. The Twenties, Thirties, Fifties, Sixties, Seventies, and Eighties each possess a significance that cannot be contained within the mathematical definitions of each decade. But, then I see that Wikipedia also has an article 1590s, though it needs expansion (after all that was the decade when a Spanish priest invented the Bering Strait Migration Hypothesis that would dominate the elementary school archaeology curriculum in the twentieth century). The change improves consistency, even though it helps prevent Wikipedia from becoming the web's authority on everything. JStripes 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

US centric?

A fascinating page, but it should be renamed somehow; I'd rather not do it myself, but perhaps 1960s in the United States. Of course, many of the same events were occurring in Europe at the same time. Would be interesting to learn what the European experience at that time was.

Perhaps the different continents should just have subpages off of each decade's page. Then have the main page highlight the more global events such as the Vietnam war, the sexual revolution etc..

---

On the same page is the way to go. Many history books attempt to give a disjoint history along geographic/regional boundaries. This does little to encourage a worldwide view of each timeframe. These pages for each decade are meant to be a jumping off point/summary of major events/trends and also to facilitate a continuous timeline of all events/things/people mentioned in wiki. We should avoid anything but short one liners for each trend/topic/event to keep the decade list page readable.

Obviously the comment was ironic, but a lot of the decade pages are very U.S.-centric - the 'Sports figures' sections ludicrously so. I've been going through them decade by decade, adding major sporting figures from other countries. I'm tempted to remove several of the baseball/basketball/ice hockey/American football figures; if other sports had so many entries the lists would be unbearably long, and most of these figures will be unknown outside the U.S./Canada. I'm trying to restrict my additions to world-renowned figures, although I have added a few cricketers who will no doubt be unknown to most people outside the U.K./Commonwealth. On this page, I'm removing Dick Butkus, Ray Nitschke and Gale Sayers as they are not well known enough to have Wikipedia articles. Someone else can always add them back if they feel the need. --Lancevortex 10:31, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They probably deserve articles. They are each Hall of Famers and have been listed in requested articles. --Rj 01:25, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

other pages that link to Dick Butkus: Dick Butkus Award Chicago Bears December 9 1942 List of people by name: Bu List of American football players University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

other pages that pages link to Ray Nitschke: List of athletes in movies Green Bay Packers December 29 March 8 1998 1998 in sports List of people by name: Ni User talk:Maveric149/archive 10

other pages that pages link to Gale Sayers: Chicago Bears Running Back May 30 List of people by name: Sa-Sb List of people by name: Sav-Saz#Saye List of famous left-handed people

Looking back at my post, I should have rephrased what I said about Butkus et al: I didn't mean to imply that they were not famous enough to ever have Wikipedia articles, just that they weren't famous enough for anyone to have bothered writing one yet. I fully concur with you, Rj, that they do deserve articles. That said, I'd still dispute whether they should be on this particular list of sports figures of the 1960s, perhaps with the exception of Butkus, as I assume he is considered one of the best in his field seeing as he has an award named after him. My point was that I believe that only those sporting figures considered among the greatest ever in their field (or who otherwise have achieved great fame or notoriety) should be on these lists, as otherwise they will soon become unmanageably long. It appeared to me that the U.S.-only sports were overrepresented, and so I deleted Butkus et al. The bare fact is that hardly anyone outside of the U.S./Canada will have heard of them. --Lancevortex 14:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The Beatles

In my opinion, an image of The Beatles in this article would be more relevant than a Woodstock poster. The Beatles were single-handedly the biggest and most influential force on popular music in this century, not just in the UK, but worldwide. The effects of the short duration of their recording career (from 1962 to 1969) are still being felt in almost every genre of music to this day. Does anyone disagree or object to adding an image of The Beatles to this article? --User:kevinsnow 23:49, 11 July 2005

By all means, if you can find one that isn't copyrighted. --Lancevortex 13:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits to China section

User 194.46.238.248 added the sentences bolded below to the following paragraph:

In the People's Republic of China the mid 1960s were also a time of massive upheaval, and the Red Guard rampages of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution had some superficial resemblances to the student protests in the West. This of course was not true, Mao oversaw mass murder of millions of his countrymen. The Maoist groups that briefly flourished in the West in this period saw in Chinese Communism a more revolutionary, less bureaucratic model of socialism. What they did not see of course was the ruin that Mao brought upon the country. His disastrous policies saw famine kill millions and brought the country to a standstill. Most of them were rapidly disillusioned when Mao welcomed Richard Nixon to China in 1972. People in China, however, saw the Nixon visit as a victory in that they believed the United States would concede that Mao Zedong thought was superior to capitalism (this was the Party stance on the visit in late 1971 and early 1972). The Cuban revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara also became an iconic figure for the student left, although he was in fact an orthodox Communist.

I removed those sentences as being a bit POV and non-encyclopedic, but I thought I'd copy them here in case there's any discussion. GTBacchus 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and largely irrelevent

This struck me as hilariously ridiculous. what kirson writes this?

The 1960s, or The Sexy Sixties, in its most obvious sense refers to the decade between 1960 and 1969, you may not have understood that you poor soul but the expression has taken on a wider meaning over the past twenty years.

You poor soul....???? Who writes these things? Someone should seriously revisit this article about the sixties, since apparently the article includes a lot of unencyclopedic material. For a decade as important as the 60s, this page needs improvement.

SirCollin 11:02 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Is that even a real picture of woodstock? I don't recall a stage like that...:)

Do we really need to tell people the sixties went from jan 1 to dec 31? i mean , isn't it slightly obvious? ;}

Assassinations

I've asked around and apparently a lot icons famous in the 1960s were assassinated (sometimes in the 1960s) such as JFK, Malcolm X, MLK junior and John Lennon, not to mention a lot of civil rights leaders.
Is this more notable then other time periods? Does it deserve special mention?
--ScWizard 15:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, John Lennon was actually alive and well throughout the 1960s, and the 1970s. More important, there are qualifiers and phrasing for some of the assassinations (JFK, MLK) but not others. And, one does have to question if death by firing squad should be classified as assassination. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Civil rights movement in 1950s?

Is the statement that the civil rights movement was in earnest in the 50s accurate? I would argue it didn't really gain momentum until the sit-ins in the 1960s. --Keremm 02:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the argumant is accurate. For starters, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a product of a movement for civil rights that emphasized changing the system from within by the existing rules of that system. Moreover, the organizing done by the SCLC in the 1950s helped give rise other groups in the early 1960s (SNCC, CORE, etc.) that participated in sit-ins and voting rights marches. JStripes 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1960-1969 or 1961-1970?

"The 1960s decade refers to the years from 1961 to 1970, inclusive."

"The 1980s decade refers to the years from 1980 to 1989, inclusive."

Now which version is more correct? I'd say the sixties is from 1960 to 1969. The period between 1961 and 1970 would be the 197th decade CE, not the sixties.

– Alensha 寫 词 16:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Decolonisation

Possibly something to be said about the rapid decolonisation in areas of Africa and Asia no longer under European rule?

People of the 1960s

Removed vandalism and false names.

Should criteria be developed for the listing of individuals on this page? Pending some formula, I've removed all but the most obviously notable figures (using a copy of the Who's Who from 1972). Names can be added back on an individual basis if their notability is assured. Homagetocatalonia 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and make sure that their notable acts are from the 1960s, as to preserve the relevance of the page to the culture of the decade. Homagetocatalonia 18:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Several notable writers and intellectuals were unnecessarily removed by Homagetocatalonia: Michel Foucault and Louis Althusser come to mind. These two post-structuralist writers had major works published in the 1960s and had influence well beyond that time.

One criteriafor inclusion should be to follow the person's Wikipedia link. A 1972 Who's Who is a poor source for the 1960s and is hardly authoritative because it would likely leave out most of the people involved in the art, political activists and intellectual communities. If they are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia, and they were active in the 1960s, then that should be enough as a working criteria.

I didn't add the sports figures, but Muhamed Ali was more than just a sports figure in the 1960s. He was very much a political figure as well. i would suggest expanding the section to include political figures, and use sub-categories to place people into them: e.g., writers, political figures, artists (filmmakers, painters, sculptors, etc...),etc.--Abebenjoe 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Ali involved in politics during the 60s? It doesn't mention anything regarding politics in the 1960s section of his article.Homagetocatalonia 16:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously Ali was a sports figure, but he became a political figure in 1966 when he refused to be drafted, and became an anti-war leader through his actions. He did not seek political office, but his refusal to serve in the American armed forces, prompted the professional boxing authorities to strip him of his championships for not serving, and his subsequent jail-time for his political beliefs, makes him a political figure.--Abebenjoe 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammed Ali in 1964. That, in itself, is an important political act, and one that was consistent with significant aspects of the leading trends of the Sixties. JStripes 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

1960s template

FYI...a 1960s template is in the works which will incorporate the people section. —Viriditas | Talk 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

i think this site should be seen by everyone!!!

i think this site should be seen by everyone!!!

what are you on about? ;}

Australian Prime Ministers

How come Jack McEwen is here? He barely lasted one week!

This page kisses the 60's butt

This page talks mainly of a positive view of the 1960's. It talks nothing of the drug problems and the terrible disgusting things that generation did. The 60's ruined the social cohesion and universal pop culture we had, as well as weakening the west and allowing the communists to go out and invade other countries in the next decade. Also, the price inflation started under LBJ not Nixon. RomanYankee(24.75.194.50 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

if you don't like it, change it! ;}

Point about the link between communist parties and student movements in the 1960s Italy and France

The claim that the student movements in Italy and France could forge a connection with the communist parties there is untrue. The PCF strongly looked down on the students, George Marchais labeling Cohn-Bendit disparagingly, and in Italy, the number of young people joining the PCI in fact declined in this period - it is widely acknowledged that the PCI failed to assimilate with the students' demands.

bot is a fat cunt

Added the famous quote by Paul Kantner

I have added the following quote that is evocative of the prevalent recreational drug use during the decade:

If you can remember anything about the sixties, you weren't really there.

— Paul Kantner

I recently confirmed its authenticity with a Google search, because for many years I had mistakenly thought that it originated from a monologue by George Carlin, but apparently he was just in the habit of repeating it, so many people (myself included) said that they heard him say it first … if Some Other Editor feels that it is in the wrong place, or that it is an inappropriate contribution to begin with, then by all means either move or delete it, but please have the courtesy to leave a comment here, and not just a non-informative Edit summary … Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to Frank Zappa. JStripes 22:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the formatting of the quote and added some context for it. It's original highlighting seemed to me one aspect of the distortions proffered by the introductory section: reductionism of the Sixties as a time of rampant drug use, African American civil rights, feminism, and the gay rights movement. All these are important, but they sum up the era poorly. JStripes 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Doors

Though the page states that the Doors helped to kick start heavy metal music, the Doors are actually known as a part of the proto-punk movement and are rarely, if ever, mentioned in connection with heavy metal. I recommend that 'heavy metal' in the article be changed to 'punk' to be more accurate.

I agree that the Doors are proto-punk, but they also were considered proto-heavy metal by Rolling Stone Magazine, and, if I remember correctly, Danny Sugarman (one of their biographers). Both genres have many progenitors, it could be more convincingly argued that the 1967 band that most influenced punk was The Velvet Underground. All I am saying is that many different music genres can find some relationship back to the Doors, and Heavy Metal and Punk are just two of many. So keep both in that section.

B.T.W., I liked the reworking of the opening section. I agree this article is in real need of a real re-write. I'm too busy on other projects, but I occasionally add to the lists. My biggest problem with this article is that obviously, the person that wrote most of the prose was an American, and the article really reads as a history of 1960s America, rather than the world. My second problem with this article is that it is not really written as prose, but is mostly composed of lists. As much as I love adding to the lists in this article, they probably should be articles on there own, with this article linking to them as per Wikipedia's manual of style suggests. Edit away. P.S., sign your messages --Abebenjoe 03:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and suggestions. I'll do what I can. BTW, I did not write the above statement arguing about The Doors and genres, and have removed my name. As a rule, I do sign my messages. JStripes 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sport Section & Government

Does anybody feel the sports section is heavily stacked towards American related sports? It seems to be written in a very non-global manner. For example, "The National Hockey League" "The National Basketball Association" "The National Football League". These all refer to American-only sporting events.

The Government section also seems to be written in a non-global manner. It comes across as centered more on American events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KennedyBaird (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

I wonder why was Johnny Cash listed among intellectuals and not under artist. Don't get me wrong that I doubt his intelligence, but him being a singer and songwriter, artist is a better category. Intellectual, in my opinion, is to list people working in the feild of science, technology, literature etc. for which specific category is not made as yet. I am moving him to Artists for the time being, in case of dispute please discuss. Vivek^Talk!! 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Choice of words? Assassinations

"The 1960's were marked by several almost notable assassinations."

ALMOST notable assassinations? What's the ALMOST doing there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.218.63.71 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Style

Who knows MLA style on decades, i.e. "the '60s"? I've written it here in AP style. All too often, one sees "the 60's," which is clearly mistaken as the apostrophe does not take the place of anything omitted. In AP style, it takes the place of "19," but it could also be correct to write it as "the 60s." Who's a style wonk? Sca (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Blatant bias

The entire intro relates to the Western world. Did nothing happen in Africa or the Middle East during the 60's? And I think the Cultural Revolution had a greater impact than hippies did. EamonnPKeane (talk) 11:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Prejudice in the 1960s

I have been using this page to help me with a school project on which I was writing about prejudice in the 1960s. This article didn't help me very much with that, I got a few slides and found some more information somewhere else but I think that more information on this topic would be useful to others doing similar projects (for example the black man that the whites objected to joining their university). I would add some information myself but I do not know that much about the matter, I wasn't alive in the sixties. Please could someone add something on this matter for other's benefit? Lowri (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Nowadays we associate the sixties with the ending of prejudice, but forget that there was an awful lot still around. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

op art references

There are some references of 60's artists, optical art, optical illusion, kinectic art, interactivity and related subjects at http://opartreferences.multiply.com (blog by kiki jaguaribe)

Kiki jaguaribe (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1960s began on January 1st, 1961, not 1/1/1960

The article claims "The 1960s decade was the years from the start of 1960 to the end of 1969," however, isn't 1960 the tenth years of the 1950s? Wasn't this already definitively hashed out at the time of Y2K ie., even though most people celebrated the transition from 1999 to the year 2000, they were technically incorrect to do so.

Doubtless there is a better place for me to raise this issue, rather than on the individual Talk page for the decade of the 1960s; if someone knows where I would more effectively bring this up, please post a link here. Thanks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been rejected on the individual talk page for the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s, but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years may be the best discussion section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Green Revolution?

Seems like an obvious omission, even though we have an article on the Green Revolution in India. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Image

I'm curious to why this image is so American-centric. I can see a reason for all those images being impotant. But I also think there should be something relating to the Decolonization of Africa during this period. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Marxist Revolution

Wow, an entire article about the hippies and the 60's and hardly anything about what it was, the Marxist Revolution. Especially considering we have a man in office who is associates with one of the terrorist drugged-out "anti-war" hippies, Bill Ayers, who wrote a Marxist Manifesto and is buddies with both Wright and Obama who are members of a church of Black Liberation Theology which is based in Marxism, and that the current president also had as a childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, an infamous Communist from that period who was investigated by the government for planning to overthrow the government.

Imagine that, unbiased Wiki. NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.198.163 (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)