This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
please review for accuracy of placement of what might be "et al." but expressed as "etal" is correct:
Under 1947,
* Hollywood writers, directors, and performers suspected of communist sympathies become subject to "[[Hollywood blacklist|blacklisting]]" by the US [[House Un-American Activities Committee]] (HUAC).<ref>{{cite web|title=HUAC (Text & Multi-Media Resources)|url=http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/huac|website=history.com|publisher=A&E Networks|accessdate=June 23, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Ceplair|first1=Larry|last2=Englund|first2=Steven|title=The Inquisiton in Hollywood: Politics in the Film Community 1930-1960|date=1979|publisher=University of California Press|location=Berkeley, CA, etal ......"
and
Under 1953,
* April 13: Project [[MKULTRA]], the CIA's mind control research program which grew to include testing LSD on both volunteer and unsuspecting subjects into the 1960s, commences.<ref>{{cite book|last1=US Senate|title=Project MKULTRA, The CIA's Program of Research in Behavioral Modification|date=August 3, 1977|publisher=US Senate|location=Washington, DC|page=70|quote=Joint Hearing before the Select Committee on Intelligence, etal ........
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.176.59 ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The section on 1957 references an article labelled "Southern Christian Leadership Council" while the article is called Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In the referenced article the organization is never called a council.-- 178.201.239.132 ( talk) 12:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all who have improved this article. Your ongoing help is very much appreciated! Learner001 ( talk) 16:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out there are a large number of citation errors that have accumulated in this article. I might fix them if and when I have the available time, but if someone wants to beat me to it, have at it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
There were actually 2 Jackson State incidents, one in 1967 and one in 1970. It was best to remove the 1967 entry for now, though, as it had wrong info, cites, wrong date, etc. I will try to clarify them and put it back if warranted. Learner001 ( talk) 15:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There have been many recent additions by new editors, and most are high-quality, however finding credible cites for the older lot of uncited entries from before the split is difficult without need of attempting to keep up with new non-referenced and OR-type material, however "good faith" such entries may be.
So, can active editors on this page please discuss/reach consensus on the following? 1. No new entries or additions to existing entries w/o credible sources. 2. No new references to music or album releases w/o very specific era relevance/context, and sourcing to reputable music critics or other qualified professional reporting or commentary. 3. No generalized claims as to significance or notability w/o credible sources. Even if true, "well known facts" must be cited as best as possible. 4. Should any unsourced entries or additions by unregistered editors be summarily undone? I say yes.
PLEASE share thoughts! Thanks and best wishes... Learner001 ( talk) 15:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
So, instead of adding new, unsourced material, PLEASE work on finding high-quality sources for existing uncited events! :) Learner001 ( talk) 16:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Please discuss! Learner001 ( talk) 15:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In case the edit I made after seeing the tag, which echoed my own thoughts about this page, sticks, maybe follow-ups in the later years can be incorporated into the listing. The final item now is Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". Adding further information about Nixon within that sentence would both add to the page and distract from the poetry (maybe not, if worded right). Randy Kryn 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll make this simple. You need to follow WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RS when you write things. This cannot be an indiscriminate list of events vaguely related (or sometimes completely unrelated) to 1960s counterculture. For example nothing from the Breitbart source has any bearing whatsoever on this article. In lieu of understanding these policies I agree with the wholesale removal of anything dubious in this article for now. You're going to need very strong sources to include anything that didn't happen during the 1960's, not shitty Breitbart articles that don't even mention counterculture. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Fwiw I think everything here from 1959 to 1977 is part of the topic timeline, certainly the reports that came out in congress in the 70s about covert activities against the counterculture. Some things before 1959 are also relevant such as the development of the slang terms beatnik and hipster. 172.56.37.208 ( talk) 20:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
— The undue sections have been removed by several editors, and this topic has been raised on the user in question's talk page. It is a central issue about using sources for things they do not at all support, and clear violation of at least 3 core policies. Randy Kryn was the one who made the major removal of text, and I agree fully with his rationale. The sources used here do not indicate any relation to 1960s counterculture. It's all WP:OR Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Timeline of 1960s counterculture. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why, but of all the extremely controversial works of art, music, and both non-fiction and fiction produced during the 20th century, this book seems to generate the most heated intellectual discussion. Is it fear that we may work for, and therefore support, the machinations prophesied by Orwell?
Is it that we need such machinery in order to impose our systems of thought on others, or is it simply different interpretations of the same book? The most ironic part is that the year 1984 passed and people thought the predictions were bad. That may have been a premature conclusion.
The book is about repression by government, and is, therefore, highly relevant to the birth of the protest movement of the CC era. This was "must-reading" for students coming of age during the era, however distasteful the book may be to some today. Learner001 ( talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)