Talk:Counterculture of the 1960s/Archive 1

Issues
Wikipedia as journalism? Is Wikipedia journalism? It should be in terms of only using corroborated and referenced facts. This Wikipedia article fails on all counts. Is this how the bible came about? A bunch of lunatics who successively let their phantasies fly? This piece is an embarrassing rewrite of easily accessible and corroborated history, and typically there are no citations because the wild claims are simply not true. Anyone truly concerned about the future of Wikipedia should be ashamed of this article.

Can you please state what exactly this book says. What I am uncomfortable with is the idea that counterculture beganin sixties America which the article implies and I suspect isnt true, eg Rastafarians in Jamaica or pop bands in Liverpool, SqueakBox 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The film "Rockin' at the Red Dog" is quite long (2 hours) and presents the history in tremendous detail. It is available through Netflix. I took extensive notes just yesterday evening and added a section to the "Hippie" article. Apostle12 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is clearly a complex issue but I feel better for having slightly altered the place of the US in the first sentence. Clearly the US was a major centre for 60's counterculture but then so was the UK, beginning with the Beatles but then hitting hard in the later part of the decade. And while Jamaica didnt really become a known centre of counterculturalism till the seventies clearly what was going on there was countercultural and has had a huge impact on society since, smoking bongs while waiting for Haile Selassie I to arrive in Jamaica was, IMO, pure counterculturalism and was the seed for Bob Marly and a hundred other Rastafari reggae artists, SqueakBox 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Kept your addition of the UK, provided a specific quote from Hirsh, cleaned things up a bit. Apostle12 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Acceleration of the counterculture due to cannabis?
This was accelerated after 1964, when the Beatles were introduced to cannabis in a New York hotel room by Bob Dylan[4], another youth culture icon.
 * This is a bit over the top. It's one thing to note this in a section about music or drugs, but to claim that the counterculture of the 1960s was accelerated merely because Dylan got the Beatles stoned is a tenuous historical footnote to an otherwise larger phenomenon. The beats had been using cannabis and spreading it around more than a decade earlier.  This should be removed from the lead section. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to post 1 and 2
Yes but the Beatles were a revolutionary icon, people saw them as extreemely influential and had a much larger following than the Beats. Noone said it created the counterculture but there is no denying that the Beatles smoking pot had a huge impact, getting more people to join what they were doing and creating a boost in the counterculture population.
 * Utter rubbish. Sophomoric. Pretentious. Absolutely revolting. Myopic. Self-important. Frivolous. Downright stupid.

And to the first point, you are right the movement started in Europe with America tagging on after it had been created long before. Not that America was just stealing from European culture, since the counterculture is based on new beliefs that anyone no matter where they are from can have,they just didn't start it and joined in when seeing something happening in the world that was truly important. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.96.67 (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :I removed the following from the lead: This was accelerated after 1964, when the Beatles were introduced to cannabis in a New York hotel room by Bob Dylan, another youth culture icon. There is no evidence for the assertion that the counterculture was "accelerated" from this incident. -Viriditas | Talk 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. One wouldn't believe people were capable of this if one didn't see it in black and white.

New section
Can someone put in a section about the violence of the counterculture movement? Tlatelolco, May 1968, Days of Rage; this is powerful, closely-related stuff, and we need to convey that. And by "we", I mean someone else who knows more about the subject than me. VolatileChemical (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that it is already in the article? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Days of Rage are a number of 'freako' off-shoots in the culture. PT Barnum said there's one in every crowd. These people - the Ayers and Dohrns and other 'friends' of Obama (if you believe Fox) were and remain an oddity and not indicative of the general spirit of the era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.167.254 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rework Per Editor Suggestions
I will attempt to bring this very difficult subject matter into proper wiki form. I'll need help. All advice and conscientious editing welcome! Personal experiences are even more critical! It is my hope that a good editor will watch over this article.Learner001 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem (as I discussed on your talk page) is still ongoing. If it isn't fixed in several days, I'm going to cleanup the article.  This will mean removing most of your changes. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello, please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD. I think I've been really patient, and the layout has not improved.  My editing finger is getting itchy... Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are your specific suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Minor attempts to touch the lead have been deleted/reverted. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to end. I've been very patient. I'm going to restore the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * good, and thanks! other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Background" section needs references. Look at the references in the hippie article for some pointers. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

POV
This article is written with a completely USA slant on the 1960s. It is therefore erroneous to call this page Counterculture of the 1960s. It more likely should be called Counterculture of the United States in the 1960s.

There were many global movements developing at the same time (but none are discussed until the end). Although in the case of this article, it would seem that the USA, because it has the most widely-known history on the subject within the English-speaking world, seems to have taken the  counterculture "high ground".

Counter culture was a global phenomena, beginnings can be traced back to the immediate post-war era. The old established order, within the first decade's end of WWII, saw events like the collapse of French Indo-China, the Malay crisis, the failure at Suez, the Hungarian uprisings and the disintegrations of former colonial empires (Sic Algeria). All the time, young people around the world, from Australia to France were beginning to rebel against established authorities, counterculture was not just in the United States. (French counterculture was greatly influenced by the writings of Sartre and Albert Camus). Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse, a German author, was another popular example of literary work influencing global counterculture

The editors of this article have a problem with cause and effect. I am just pointing out that were a wider number of factors that provoked the rise of the counterculture in the 1960s. But reading this article, suggests that it was the US that codified these causes and created the 60s counterculture, which is patently untrue.

For instance, within (West) Germany, France and Belgium the jazz club culture was growing since the 50s paralleling the beatniks in the US.

Points, points and more more points. Until they are addressed this article is incorrect in tone, scope and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.140 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was originally intended to describe the global counterculture movement in the 1960s. Recent edits have changed the scope considerably without attention to this topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Original intentions? I'm curious as to that. More important: perhaps someone might put and document it (international counterculture of the 1960s) in better writing by making meaningful written contributions to the article in support of these contentions, rather than simply stating dissatisfaction. Nothing against editing, but when it comes to judgment calls on partiality I believe it can be easily resolved by additional contribution. In this case, nothing relevant outside of the US detracts from what did occur in the States. There ARE international sections. The history in the US speaks for itself, irrespective of anyone's search for a revisionist "worldview" beyond what is already there. Additions to the international sections should be wholeheartedly welcomed. The lead is a perfect place to start. An easy reorganization as to geography is also possible. Go for it! Isn't that the whole point of this enterprise? BTW, thanks folks!Learner001
 * Let's start here, not the lead section. Where and when did the counterculture of the 1960s officially start?  Hint: The peace sign  Start there. Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * send me a email to s t o l l m a i l AT y a h o o DOT com. I really want to chat on this. I can delete my address later, if allowed.
 * I'm going offline for now, but I spam-proofed your e-mail above. Viriditas (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks. whenever you get the chance.

Maybe mention that it cut across class lines
I'm glad this article does not, as so many other discussions do, identify the counterculture as a middle class rebellion, a rebellion of privilege. But maybe it should be mentioned that participation was among people from all social classes and very many ethnic and social backgrounds.

I was in San Francisco for about half a year in 1967/68. In Haight-Ashbury, the young people who came there were from the Ozarks, Appalachia, New England, New York, Texas, the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, besides California. They were not just white, but also black, Chicano, Asian, native indian, and other. Some had college or university educations, some had not finished highschool. A lot came there with very little or no money in their pockets or purses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.59.54 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Research tag
I removed the original research tag, because I could only find one citation needed. This is a well-cited article. Air (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit puzzled that you see this article as well-cited. I see a lot of statements that need citations, particularly in the later part of the article. However, I don't think this is OR, so that was probably the wrong template.-- SabreBD  (talk)  00:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone and specified which sections particularly need more references. Some sections are lacking in references, and many are written a bit like an editorial with POV included in the sentence constructions. They'll need to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic in style/tone. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pruning the chronology
Recently there have been a lot of additions to the 'Chronology of events and milestones' yearly subsections - I've been at it too! There is no problem with this, and I, for one, have been trying to broaden the scope and dilute the US centricity. However, I do think that the time will come when we have to review those subsections and do some pruning. We'll have to set some kind of worldwide notability hurdle, some kind of counterculture relevance benchmark, and then agree to remove some entries that don't really meet them. Any thoughts for how to approach this are welcome. In the meantime, the more we have to choose from, the better, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on a full global scope, but (as you say) notability is most important. Let's see if the entries build up a bit, and what direction they are going in. Format could be improved, too. No more than one line per entry(?) The whole article needs a complete re-do, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on recent entries, the time for signifcant redaction is nearly at hand. Learner001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's a plan. First, the topic of the article is Counterculture of the 1960s, so the entries for before and after this decade should be limited to those that lead directly up to, or follow directly from, the items in the main listing 1960-69.

Here, I think, with duplication removed are the main topics from the decade. I have been quite ruthless in the following regards: The topic is 'counterculture', not US history in general. The topic is global, so an event involving a few thousand people that didn't have serious worldwide repercussions is not really huge. Regarding repetition above, I have also been ruthless, but the implication is that if we introduce a topic, like Vietnam, then many key Vietnam stories will appear in the actual list in the article, e.g. start of war, draft, draft avoidance, anti-war protests, notable casualties, end of the war etc. I could have left out the year headings above, they are only there to help with navigation or orientation. I'm pleasantly surprised by how short the final list above is - that's few enough that we can pretty well decide on the story line for each topic, and make sure that all the entries in the article list play a part in introducing and telling one or more of the above stories. If I have left out your favourite topic, please discuss it below, as, the way I'm thinking, maybe if it's not part of one of our agreed key story lines, it won't make the final cut in the article. What do people think? --Nigelj (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1960: beatnik; long hair; Timothy Leary; hallucinogens; protests against segregation (US); sit-ins; nuclear arms race; John F. Kennedy; birth control pill; The Sexual Revolution.
 * 1961: Bay of Pigs; Vietnam.
 * 1962: Bob Dylan; The Beatles; Cuban Missile Crisis
 * 1963: feminism; Newport Folk Festival; Martin Luther King; Communism.
 * 1964: psychedelic; "underground" and counterculture; draft-card burning; Civil Rights Act; Riots; Free Speech Movement; Lenny Bruce.
 * 1965: Malcolm X; LSD; Joan Baez; Hell's Angels; hippies; protest songs; The Mamas and the Papas; communes.
 * 1966: Resurgence magazine; The Byrds; marijuana; the Rolling Stones; Frank Zappa; Donovan; The Monkees; The Beach Boys; Black Panther Party.
 * 1967: The “Human Be-In”; Jefferson Airplane; Noam Chomsky; Muhammad Ali; student protests; "Summer of Love"; race riots; Monterey Pop Festival; Jimi Hendrix; Che Guevara; The rock musical Hair; US Magazine Rolling Stone . “Yippie”; The Moody Blues.
 * 1968: Progressive Rock; Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; reggae; "Love-In"s; Andy Warhol; Isle of Wight Festival; The Whole Earth Catalog; Earthrise.
 * 1969: President Nixon; Yoko Ono; flower children; gay rights; Easy Rider; Woodstock festival; Penthouse Magazine; Friends of the Earth.


 * It seems you have sorted out the entries you think should stay and should go, but it's too hard to tell from the above if for example you consider Hunter S. Thompson to be counterculture-related, or if Rolling Stone Magazine is covered under something else, etc. It might be clearer to list all the ones you think don't make the cut. Maybe suggest a few at a time, in case some entail more explanation or discussion. I did remove one myself because I couldn't see it having a whole lot to do with the Counterculture, namely Ralph Nader's book about the automobile industry.  Some others look kind of iffy as far as being counterculture-related, but all in all this list is one where I am particularly proud of all of our group efforts, and I can imagine it has already allowed a lot of readers to visit or revisit those times in a small way.  Also let us bear in mind that eventually (but no rush or hurry) every single thing will need a cite, and I have made sure that I had a source in front of me for every item when I added it, in preparation for this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I take what you're saying - that I left out Rolling Stone Magazine and Hunter S. Thompson. I agree instantly with the first and have added it above, but personally, I've never heard of Hunter S. Thompson, or read his book, but I heard plenty about the Hell's Angels. Now, I'm not the final arbiter, or even any kind of expert, and if others think he needs to be there, that's fine. I'm just trying to make some progress. I think the lists are too big at the moment, but even on that score I'm only expressing one opinion. Let's see what others think. Once we've had a few comments here, to gauge the water, I'm happy to produce a draft listing of what would be left by my reckoning and post it here for further comment. I'm only trying to facilitate, not even to lead, let alone dictate :-) --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the safest way to proceed would be to name one, or at most a few specific entries at a time to see if everyone concurs on axing them. I don't see anything wrong with a thorough and detailed outline, but the relevance to the counterculture should certainly be obvious for all items.  If you think it is making this article overly long, we could certainly split it to Timeline of the 1960s Counterculture and expand it even more. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start by nominating this one: 1968 December 24: Earthrise, a photograph of the Earth, is taken from Moon orbit. "The most influential environmental photograph ever taken." I don't mean to burn whoever added it, but is it really important to the counterculture? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's one I would dispute, and I included it as a keeper in my list above. The reasons are mainly in this video: http://vimeo.com/55073825 --Nigelj (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My flash player is messed up and unfortunately, I can't see vimeo. I wasn't sure if that pic was really that iconic as counterculture symbolism. But sources like this showed me otherwise, so I guess that one is a keeper. Anyway, what do you say about splitting the timeline as a separate article? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that is certainly a thought. The current article length is 123 KB and WP:LENGTH recommends 30 to 50 KB of 'readable prose'. But User:Dr_pda/prosesize comes up with "Prose size (text only): 39 kB (6136 words) "readable prose size"", so actually it's OK on length grounds, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great to see discussion on this! I like the idea of a timeline because it walks you through an era with short bullets. Relevance should go without saying. It should not be a history of the '60s, or every acid party or music fest that occurred, simply because of the # of events. Global takes a backseat to notability, but lets dig out global things of note that have been over-looked. KEEP ENTRIES TO ONE LINE, I suggest, unless impossible. Split is fine with me. We have format, tense, and hyperlink issues as well. Maybe we should call a moratorium on new entries until there is some consensus, and we have footnoted every existing entry. No entries w/o a ref in article? open to all ideas here, but I think we need a process before anything else is added. Veriditas had to delete some photos as not PD. Maybe we can find some new image sources, too. Learner001 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New Photos in Whitespace at Top
I put a couple of new images to fill the new whitespace created by the longer contents. Thoughts? I'm not sure I like this look, or image sizes?, but I hate the waste of space w/o images there. Anyone with good graphic skills following? Thoughts? ThanksLearner001 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline Criteria? (Pruning Part II)
Criteria for Timeline (my proposal):

First, I think the timeline is a potentially valuable resource. A lot of work has been put into it. Thoughts on this?

Each entry (Event, Milestone, or otherwise) must be:


 * Of significance specifically to the cc era, or be significantly valuable to framing the context. E.g., JFK was not a cc figure per se', but his election, larger policies, and murder are highly relevant.
 * In reference to, or dealing directly with a subject matter or person discussed in prose in the article.
 * Footnoted from at least one reliable outside source. (No one is questioning the occurrence of the entries, but let's simply document them as best we can.)
 * Notable: quirkier things which may not be instantly remembered by some may be quite notable to others here. This is the cc, after all. The 89th (e.g.) anti-war rally or riot may or may not be notable, particularly if there are better pages for such entries. Again, the timeline should walk someone who "was there," or who wants to know what it was like, down memory lane, in some sense. I have no problem with the large quantity of entries, as long as they are of quality. A lot happened in a short period of time. We should probably err on the side of inclusion for things already listed, and then prune according to agreed criteria.
 * Subject to edit/undo from others - without edit wars - for some agreed period of time. This has not been an issue yet.
 * One Line, in the proper tense, with care for over-hyper-linking etc. (if entries are already mentioned in the article, there should be virtually no links in the timeline).
 * Global should speak for itself. If it's global, and notable, there should be no need for forced inclusion.

Alternative: a prose chronology, with a short paragraph on the events of that month, or day, as needed.

All input welcomed!Learner001 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * One line - sounds like a good principle, but in a few cases there seems to be no way any meaningful information can be conveyed in one line. I'm guessing you mean "be as brief as possible" and not literally one line, since most of the entries you wrote 'one line' in the edit summaries, still take up more than one line on my screen, though they are a little shorter.
 * Not appearing in text - A few of the things in this category that I added, I stumbled across while researching this, but I think they are still formative and perhaps should be addressed in the text rather than removed from the timeline.  Example - only lately I bumped into How to Speak Hip 1959, this may not technically be in the 60s decade defined chronologically, but it is undoubtedly formative.  The article links to a great source where you can not only hear the whole recording, but read all the liner notes, and this is the nascent counterculture that it later grew out of and was widely copied.
 * Repeated similar events. Each type of repeated counterculture-related activity event seems to have its own season or phase. Here's my rough break-down.
 * 1938-1960 official work with LSD
 * 1938-1948 Jazz, hipsters in Harlem
 * 1948-1963 Beats, Greenwich Village
 * 1945-1963 Atomic bombs developed (more often called Atom bombs at the time I think)
 * 1947- HUAC and official anti-communist measures
 * 1950-1964 Early Indochina involvement
 * 1953-1960 Precursor to Sexual Revolution
 * 1957-1962 Activist groups against arms race, etc
 * 1960-1963 Civil rights movement: Sit-in phase, freedom rider phase, Dr King's ministry
 * 1962-1965 early Folk music, English Beat music (the Beatles)
 * 1963-1966 Antiwar (Vietnam) protests; Draft card burning phase
 * 1963-1964 Civil rights movement: class boycott phase
 * 1964-1973 Psychedelic music and all its offshoots
 * 1964- Underground press (newspapers, magazines etc)
 * 1964-1975 Sporadic (usually summers) city riots, often deadly response surpassing Kent State toll
 * Late 1964: Free Speech movement, Berkeley
 * 1965-1968 - First US Bombing of N. Vietnam
 * 1965-1966 - Recreational use of legal LSD among early hippie groups, Pranksters etc.
 * 1965-1971 - Semi-hip television shows, media coverage of cc (news, magazines etc)
 * November 1965 - Self Immolations phase during a spate of huge protest marches
 * 1966 - Reaction against LSD and illegalization
 * May 1966: First student takeovers and major campus protest rallies
 * Oct 1966-1967 Black Panther Party
 * 1967 - Large hippie gatherings, Summer of Love
 * April 1967: Conscientious objectors
 * May 1967: Students getting killed by police at campus protests
 * 1967-1974 Veterans protest against the war
 * 1967-197 Large rock festivals
 * Oct 1967: Protests begin at draft centers including clergy, celebrities
 * 1967-1971 - Yippies
 * 1968-1972 Official reports on unrest, cannabis etc, that usually embarrass establishment
 * 1968 - Reggae takes off
 * March-July 1968 - Another phase of campus takeovers (all over the globe in fact)
 * Apr 1968 - Dr King assassinated, day after saying he has seen the promised land from the mountaintop, + aftermath
 * 1968: May 22, June 3, June 15: Spate of FBI / Marshals invading churches in the Northeast USA and dragging out draft evaders despite angry crowds gathered outside to protect them. This was a crescendo of the anti-draft movement; I actually censored myself out of sensitivity and did not add it to the timeline, but this phase did happen.
 * May-June 1968: Resurrection City
 * August: Chicago Democratic Convention and aftermath
 * Nov. 1968 to May 1969 - Another spate of student uprisings and takeovers
 * 1968-1973 Nasa and Moon Program (it seems on the web more people today think this was all a Nixon-era fake than think Paul is dead?)
 * May 1969: People's Park; Greensboro uprising; Bed-In for Peace
 * Mid 1969-1975 Weatherman / Weather Underground active
 * August 1969: Woodstock, Manson
 * September 1969-Feb 1970: Chicago 8/7 trials
 * November 1969-May 1973: American Indian movements' takeovers
 * 1970-1971 - Extension of voting rights to 18 yr olds in UK and US, to end the 'Summertime Blues' argument
 * 1970 - Breakup of Beatles and development of Soft Rock
 * Feb-May 1970 - Spate of campus riots, and shutdowns after Kent State
 * May 1970 - Peak of counterprotest (pro-war) demonstrations, others occurred around this same time but are not on list
 * August 1970 - Ruben Salazar killed at Chicano Moratorium, an event later covered prominently by Hunter S Thompson in his studies of the counterculture
 * Sep-Oct 1970 - Loss of two cc icons, Jimi and Janis
 * Feb-Mar 1971 - spate of bombings at draft centers and govt bldgs
 * Apr-May 1971 - Massive protests in Washington DC, protesters stop traffic, climb statues, raise Viet Cong flag at US Capitol bldg, etc.
 * Jun 1971 - Pentagon Papers struggle, embarrassing administration
 * Jul-Oct 1971 - Loss of Jim Morrisson and Duane Allman
 * Dec 1971 - Veterans attempt takeovers at Statue of Liberty and Lincoln Memorial
 * Apr 1972-Jan 1973 Second bombing of N Vietnam
 * Apr-May 1972 - Spate of protests, demonstrations and bombings
 * Jun 1972-1974 Watergate scandal grows as President's deceit is exposed
 * Jan 1-15 1973 - Widespread international protests and criticism of US govt from several W. European allies as Vietnam bombing intensifies, then suddenly halts.
 * Jan 15-Aug 1973 US begins disengaging rapidly from Vietnam, draft is ended
 * 1974 - Cultural shifts become evident. Veterans stage one last take-over of the Statue of Liberty, prompting jokes of "Tell her the war's over, she can put her arm down now!" (Not added due to sensitivity). SLA fringe group floruit. Nixon resigns, replaced by Ford.
 * Sep.-Nov 1975 - Senate Committee on Intelligence makes a series of public revelations about the FBI and CIA's activity during the 1960s, including reading mail of prominent Americans including Dr. King and Richard Nixon, burglaries against US citizens, attempts to discredit Dr. King, and attempts to assassinate Castro and five other foreign heads of state. (Not added to timeline due to sensitivity)
 * Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Outstanding input! Many we could color-code sub-eras, or make a clickable table(?). But let's not remove anything from the timeline now without it being discussed here, I propose. We will prune back, consolidate, and look carefullly at these other, well-presented options. The one-tine thing is a format/readability/economy issue. Clean, single lines of info. Not sure how WP format works on various machines/screens. That's what that was about, but also being forced-frugal on verbiage, as it's a timeline entry, not an article. I hold fast to that. Sentences, not graphs. Generally, every topic should be discussed in the larger article, directly or otherwise. An entry or two that falls out of that "model" is trivial to the larger notability question. Not an issue. Let's allow this to set for a bit, carefully watch the page and timeline, and concentrate on DOCUMENTING/FOOTNOTING the existing prose material! That's the greatest contrib we can make now. Meanwhile, how about a list of entries demanded/suggested for deletion, if they are so objectionable? I have a few, but I'm growing more liberal after mutliple readings of the interesting timeline. I'm sure many of mine are seen as worthy of deletion, too. No prob. All good? Learner001 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't someone clean up the paragraph about cannabis use?
Someone looks to be interjecting their own personal opinions on the illegalisation of cannabis in the background section and it upsets the neutrality of the article.

For example calling penalties for use "outrageous". I'm not sure if the classification of cannabis as a narcotic is "pharmaceutically inaccurate" or not- I am not expert on the matter. But the whole paragraph sounds like a rant and only has one citation concerning drug use.

I think someone who knows their stuff needs to take a look at that paragraph and make changes to make it seem less of a rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The lyniezian (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Counterculture of the 1960s
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 "public.federation-anarchiste.org": From Anarcho-pacifism:  From History of anarchism: "Pensée et action des anarchistes en France : 1950–1970" by Cédric GUÉRIN From Anarchist communism: [http://web.archive.org/web/20070930014916/http://public.federation-anarchiste.org/IMG/pdf/Cedric_Guerin_Histoire_du_mvt_libertaire_1950_1970.pdf Cédric Guerin. "Pensée et action des anarchistes en France : 1950-1970"] 

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)

Freak scene
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
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! Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 14:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Carve out a new timeline article due to this article's immense length
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! Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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:) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LongPages&redirect=no 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!  Talk • Work 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! Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 16:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ 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! Talk • Work 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)

Split Issue
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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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!  Talk • Work 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. 172.56.34.90 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Counterculture of the 1960s. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012054206/http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm to http://eljorobado.enlucha.info/bicicleta/bicicleta/ciclo/01/17.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425191200/http://www.16beavergroup.org:80/monday/archives/001031print.html to http://www.16beavergroup.org/monday/archives/001031print.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120511184303/http://www.thefarm.org:80/lifestyle/miller.html to http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/miller.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Counterculture of the 1960s. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207123630/http://www.uta.edu/english/dab/illuminations/kell12.html to http://www.uta.edu/english/dab/illuminations/kell12.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/miller.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead Youtube link for Bodies Upon The Gears
The video Bodies Upon The Gears (URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0) is no longer available on YouTube. Anybody know of a replacement link or should the box for this be removed altogether? Dataxpress (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * fixed Learner001 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Counterculture of the 1960s. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090705062937/http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html to http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/huron.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429220959/http://womenincongress.house.gov/educational/essay3.pdf to http://womenincongress.house.gov/educational/essay3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429115609/http://www.kent.edu/about/history/May4/lewihen.cfm to http://www.kent.edu/about/history/May4/lewihen.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608070447/http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/satori/index.html to http://www-sul.stanford.edu/mac/primary/docs/satori/index.html
 * Added tag to http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/pcp/14203.html
 * Added tag to http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Warhol-Pop-Politics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Should the Peace Sign be moved further lower?
Is the peace sign directly related to the main topic of the page? Because it seems to give the impression that the two are related. Chaos1618 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Origins and early development
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: 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 |  Ta lk  18:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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."
 * 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)

The first sentence is, "The counterculture of the 1960s was an anti-establishment cultural phenomenon that developed first in the United Kingdom (UK) and then the United States (US)." Yet the early history given immediately after cites almost nothing that happened outside of the United States, and ties it uniquely to the US through hippies, the assassination of Kennedy, the Vietnam war, Nixon, and other American events and issues. There is no evidence anywhere that it started in the UK, and evidence in every paragraph that it was an almost entirely American phenomenon. And every other history of it that I find on the Internet lists only American events, saying it was an entirely American phenomenon--for example, the Cliffs Notes on the counterculture (https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/history/us-history-ii/the-new-frontier-and-the-great-society/the-counterculture-of-the-1960s). I suggest removing "in the United Kingdom (UK) and then". Philgoetz (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC).

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in 'Bonnie and Clyde', 1967.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stonewall Inn 1969.jpg

Esalen Institute
On this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esalen_Institute, says that Esalen Institute was firmly positions in the nexus of the Counterculture of the 1960s and also explains why. So, I wonder, Why, on this other, they say absolutely nothing about that, nether mentiones its founders and its promoters? 2806:260:4420:E69:A965:C001:D8A2:9DB5 (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC) tauromaco@msn.com

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 12 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bvalverde101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kyledonoghue5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

John Wayne quote in Criticism and legacy section
I don’t remember ever seeing a quote as long as this one in Wikipedia. Does it really have to be that long? Boscaswell  talk  11:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC) I would say no. That quote is so unnecessary, so unusually long, so inarticulate, and is presented so uncritically that it opens the whole article up to NPOV concerns. Dgndenver (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If necessary, yes. Espngeek (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)