Talk:Psychedelic era

So what does this have to do with psychedelia?
Lots of this article talks about social trends of the 60s that coincided with the rise of psychedelia, and I would argue that

A: the mentioning of such trends is rather POV... conservatives advocated blind faith?

B: many of these trends really didnt have much to do with psychedelia

I think that the linking of these trends with psychedelia is really only meant to provoke the hardliner anti-60s types who will inevitably react by saying "i hate psychedelia! and wait, it turns out that psychedelia is behind all the liberalism i that i hate as well! so it turns out its all the same beast!" come on, psychedelia is a matter of art and drugs and really nothing else. psychedelia doesnt sum up the "spirit" of the 60s, as this article implies.

--- I think it has everything to do with it. Art and music does not exist in isolation from politics, and the sixties saw a significant amount of work that was politically motivated. Furthermore, the psychedelic experiences brought on by LSD and other substances do enduce a kind temporary of dissolution of the ego which can be condusive to social thinking rather than individual self-interest. While perhaps many of the people leading the civil rights movement were not users or psychedelic drugs, others who may not have ordinarily participated in the socio-political movement of the time were influenced by both drug use and the political music and art which resulted.

71.204.133.1 23:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Debatable Article
This article is a mental construction, nothing more. There are very few facts. And what exactly is an era anyway ? Bububu Dec 22 2005
 * An "era" is a period in time identified by a characteristic feature. The "psychedelic era" is a significant enough period in recent history to be worthy of an encyclopedic article.  --Thoric 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This so-called " Psychedelic era " refers to a late 60s fad. Cenozoic, now that's an era! This article badly lacks perspective. Bububu Dec 26 2005
 * there's really no quantifiable span of time or significant legacy that defines what an "era" is. The psychedelic trends of the 1960s have had a significant and undeniable impact on American culture. 71.204.133.1 23:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss and justify changes before making them. The term "intellectual retrenchment" is not equatable with a strong shift to conservatism. Political leaning should have absolutely nothing to do with intellect -- and if you want to get picky, the higher someone's IQ is, the more liberal and "free thinking" they tend to be. --Thoric 19:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thoric, I shouldn't have to discuss and justify stating the obvious, that there are two sides to the issue. You have presented a very one-sided view of the social movement inspired by psychedelic drugs, and the conditions which caused it and might continue to cause a resurgence. You present your own unsupported opinion about politics and sociology (citing no studies) as if it were fact. Your descriptions also contain the hyperbole of a political activist pursuing the shaping of other people's opinions, rather than an objective presentation of the opposing viewpoints. I am restoring my mild corrections to the article.

Since you did specifically mention a "backlash of extreme conservatism" after the psychedelic era, how is it possible that the careers of Madonna, Prince and gangsta rappers flourished in the 1980s? Were they conservative? Or were they rather pushing the envelope against conservative social norms year after year? How is it that the U.S. House of Representives remained in the control of the Democratic Party? Was there welfare reform in the 1980s?


 * BTW, Madonna, Prince and gangsta rappers strongly support the American capitalist consumerism agenda -- Material Girl, glamour, high society, bling, over-indulgence, all drive the economy up.

And how did only conservatism "advocate ignorance and blind faith in the powers that be"? Wasn't there an equal amount of materialism among liberals? And wasn't there blind faith in powerful government welfare programs, the powers of unrestrained sexuality, etc. among liberals? 216.119.143.52 08:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My view may seem one sided to you, but I've been quite careful to word it accordingly. "Intellectual retrenchment" is a little used complex term that doesn't paint a clear enough picture. I'd be fine with it if you care to create an entry (maybe in Wiktionary.org) properly defining it. The "backlash of extreme conservatism" makes it obvious that the powers that be did their best to sweep the social and intellectual aspects of the psychedelic era under the rug. I'd also like to see references George Harrison becoming disillusioned with psychedelics in regards to their promotion of poverty.

As for Madonna, Prince and gangsta rappers, I don't see the relevance... in fact, only in a conservative setting would their antics appeal to the young and repressed. The 80s were ripe with aggressive hard rock music that was either angry, depressed or lustful. Twisted Sister's "We're Not Going to Take It" captured the mentality quite well. The gen-X youth of the 80s was feeling the pressure quite strongly and were rebelling against it. By the time the 90s came along, the next generation of youth (gen-Y) are the most complicated yet. In some ways they've been given more freedoms, but they've also been nailed with things like zero-tolerance in schools where they get suspended for sharing candy, or giving an aspirin to a friend with a headache. Their path is less clear.

I've never claimed that the liberals or democrats have been in the right... maybe a lesser of two evils at best. Serious change is in order. We have to get rid of capitalism before it gets rid of us. The future is uncertain, but the likely eventual goal would be something along the lines of Libertarian Socialism. --Thoric 23:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)  (PS - set up an account)

I am sorry Thoric, but reconsider your practice of reverting not only other POVs but also neutralizing edits. That goes directly against Wikiquette. BTW why do you require references while you're pushing your POV which is unreferenced in the same manner. What we can do at least is to neutralize the context.

Emotional terms like "unfortunatelly" are not to be used in connection with social events and processes whose assesment is far from being consensually agreed upon.

What you do is that you require discussion, results of which you in turn completelly ignore and you keep reverting the edits.

Bottomline : I don't have time to race with you so now on I abstain from any modifications. I just don't understand your motivation.--Rachotilko 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article is just as bad as the last time I visited it 6 months ago. But I do admire your perseverance Thoric. Frankly, I don't think there's ANYTHING objective or neutral about it. Sorry Bububu 22:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed
Article is written from a single point-of-view, as fact, and makes numerous unreferenced assertions regarding social trends which are again one person's opinion 119 02:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can cite references to other POVs, then go ahead and add them. --Thoric 19:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do YOU not cite references to YOUR POV ?

Neutrality resolved-
Hi, folks. Michael 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC) here. I removed "unfortunately", and changed "gay" marriage to "same sex" marriage. Hope that resolves the neutrality... Now to the factual content... Michael 15:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole article is still just original research and supposition - terrible 207.6.31.119 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on what? How about a specific complaint?  --Thoric 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the article asserts as fact things which cannot be proven and are inherently pov. For instance:


 * Psychedelic drug use encouraged unity, oneness, the breaking down of boundaries, the heightening of political awareness, empathy with others, and the questioning of authority.


 * The above is opinion, unattributed and unsourced opinion to boot. It needs to be worded much more neutrally. The heightening of political awareness?? On what planet? What did the hippies do to confront the sectors of power in society that they couldn't have done better without being stoned. Most people who use psychedelics ARE NOT very engaged in politics. What do you think the term "tune in, turn on, drop out" meant? Drug use was a rejection of the need to directly deal with material and social reality. It was a turning inward. All of what I've just said is my own pov, of course, but at least I admit it.


 * I can most certainly find references for said opinion, not to worry. You may also want to note that psychedelic drugs mean LSD and shrooms, not marijuana.  The term for using psychedelics is "tripping", not being "stoned".  The rejection of modern society was a political statement.  The 60s was ripe with grassroots political movements.  The Vietnam war protests were the first time ever that citizens questioned the validity of a war instead of pledging blind patriotism.  If that isn't hightening of political awareness and questioning authorize, I don't know what is.  Don't worry, I'll add some attributed sources.  --Thoric 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are other things wrong with the article, but fixing/deleting that paragraph would be a start. 207.6.31.119 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course there was heightened political awareness during the sixties, the problem is that you seem to attribute this awareness to the use of psychedelics. Incidentaly, Vietnam was not the first war opposed by large numbers of Americans; there was a quite large anti-war movement among the American left during the first world war. In fact, the government went so far as to throw people in jail who spoke out against conscription. 207.6.31.119 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This article sstates "The drug of choice switched from LSD (a drug that dissolves the ego) to cocaine (a drug which boosts the ego, and leads to escapism)." These are personal interpretations, not facts. At best, it's original research. Wikipedia is not the place for personal creation. U should consult the articles on LSD and Cocaine. Roger
 * Not citing references does not imply they are personal interpretations. If you consult the LSD article you will find information on ego dissolution.  Both of the above statements are common knowledge.  One could easily find thousands of references to support them.  --Thoric 20:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Thoric matey, I agree with you that psychedelics can reduce ego, whereas stimulants like cocaine can increase ego, but does cocaine really lead to escapism? I always thought it lead to people enjoying material experiences, but I guess they could be escaping from the problems of their 'real' life.  Either way its hard to say either way.  Some people would say that psychedelics are about escapism as they are about experiencing reality differently.  Maybe any drug can be used for escapism?  I generally agree with what you've written but it does seem to be POV. Mostly Zen 16:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * People may try to use psychedelics to "escape real life", but by their very nature, psychedelics force you to face issues within yourself. By the removal of emotional filters you are forced to face your inner demons.  Depressants such as alcohol and opiates (i.e. heroin) help to block out both physical and emotional pain, drowning your sorrows so to speak, blocking our your cares and worries.  Strong stimulants such as the amphetamines and cocaine stimulate your ego -- sense of self, reduce your empathy for others, and strengthen the filters between your subconscious and conscious mind.  --Thoric 18:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Original research
I added the tag to this article. Most of my objections seem to have been already brought up (and ignored) on this talk page. Looking through the history, it seems clear that there has been an unwillingness to proactively deal with any of the concerns raised. In addition to the article's unprovable assertion that "Psychedelic drug use encouraged unity, oneness, the breaking down of boundaries, the heightening of political awareness, empathy with others, and the questioning of authority.", and its broad and stereotyped characterization of various generations and what they were about, the article is also completely U.S. centric. Serpent-A 07:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The text in question is a paraphrase of several 60s documentaries specific to the psychedelic era. It's not an "unprovable assertation" as there are piles of books stating and citing evidence for this.  I can cite references for you if you like, but it seems a little strange to complain that a statement about a particular era is too broad or sterotyped.  --Thoric 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So Thoric, after years of believing you are the only one who has right to determine the contents of this article, provide the citations you claim you can provide. Provide citations BEFORE reverting the edits. BTW. 60s were about respect and tolerance. Your behaviour is in complete contrast with those values, you want to rule and to exercise power over others. Shame.--212.81.23.195 10:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The proper course of action is to add Fact tags to questionable content. So thus I shall revert, and add these tags myself, thank-you very much.  --Thoric 15:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

not objective, unproffesional description of 1980's
This was the articles description of the 1980's "A backlash of extreme conservatism advocated ignorance and blind faith in the powers that be." I took this out because it is totally biased and not proffesional at all and is simply one persons highly subjective controversial opinion.


 * Just one name to answer that... Reagan. Both Mr. and Mrs. (especially Nancy).  Here's a nice quote from Ronald: A Hippie is someone who walks like Tarzan, looks like Jane and smells like Cheetah., and another from Nancy: The Sixties, of course, was the worst time in the world to try and bring up a child. They were exposed to all these crazy things going on.  --Thoric 16:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Psychedelic era
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 Psychedelic era'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 "AllmusicPsych": From Psychedelic music: V. Bogdanov, C. Woodstra and S. T. Erlewine, All Music Guide to Rock: the Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop and Soul (Milwaukee, WI: Backbeat Books, 3rd edn., 2002), ISBN 0-87930-653-X, pp. 1322–3. From Psychedelia: V. Bogdanov, C. Woodstra and S. T. Erlewine, All Music Guide to Rock: the Definitive Guide to Rock, Pop, and Soul (Milwaukee, WI: Backbeat Books, 3rd edn., 2002), ISBN 0-87930-653-X, pp. 1322-3. 

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 ⚡ 04:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Good bot LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)