Talk:Timeline of 1960s counterculture

Editorial tone, criteria for inclusion, abundance of quoted material inside citations

@Learner001: re this change of yours, why is it relevant to mention Tommy Allsup and Waylon Jennings having missed the flight on which Holly, Valens and Bopper died in 1959? How is that detail relevant to the counterculture of the 1960s? You say that my removal of those details was "capriciously deleting long standing material based on personal view" – well, if the content's of long standing, one could say it appears to have been based on your personal view as a major contributor here.

Wikipedia's article on 1960s counterculture introduces the subject with description such as an anti-establishment cultural phenomenon that ... gained momentum as the Civil Rights Movement continued to grow, and would later become revolutionary with the expansion of the U.S. government's extensive military intervention in Vietnam ... As the 1960s progressed, widespread social tensions also developed concerning other issues, and tended to flow along generational lines regarding human sexuality, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychoactive drugs, and differing interpretations of the American Dream. Many key movements related to these issues were born or advanced within the counterculture of the 1960s. Given that, there's a case for saying that the relevance of the entire 3 Feb 1959 tragedy is questionable. I'm not saying the whole entry should be removed, but it's indicative of an article-wide issue: who or what determines whether these events belong in the timeline? The criteria should be acknowledgment by sources covering 1960s counterculture, in the same way as, say, an album or song is discussed in a music genre article if sources dedicated to the genre recognise and discuss the album or song. Instead, there appear to be entries here that are essentially self-sourced, in that the source supports that the event took place but not its relevance to the subject.

Also, and again it recurs throughout the timeline from what I've seen: why do we need to include long quoted portions within some citations, as two of those references do on Holly's death? I can understand it when a point might be contentious, but otherwise, it's unnecessary quoting. There's an extraordinary number of long quotes under References, as a result.

Another issue that appears in this Feb '59 entry and later on is the inclusion of a headline, "The Day the Music Died". "Prelude to Vietnam" and "TV on trial" are other examples in the 1950s section. This strikes me as more journalistic than encyclopaedic in tone. Not only that but in some cases the headline violates WP:EASTEREGG in that the link takes the reader to an article that doesn't correspond at all with the phrasing here. "Prelude to Vietnam" links to Korean War, for instance. Similarly, as a non-headline example, under April 1966, mention of the Beatles' song "Doctor Robert" carries a link from the word "appears" to the album Yesterday and Today.

There are other, obvious examples of non-encyclopaedic tone. For instance, under February 13, 1967, the sentence "Cranberry sauce" is heard after the song fades-out. Or is it "I buried Paul"? Words such as "revolutionary", "legendary", "tour de force", "groundbreaking", "classic" all appear (well, until very recently in some cases), in place of description that's informative or reflective of the event's significance to the subject.

I concede that I'm possibly overstating the level of problems, I don't mean to – because a lot of the information listed here is just great. But the February '59 item does highlight a couple of article-wide issues I noticed when coming here for the first time. As a comparison, on the three issues I'm addressing here and have been trying to correct in the article – namely, level of detail on each event being relevant to the subject of the timeline (not to the event itself); inclusion based on quality sources recognising that an item is relevant to the subject, preferably sources dedicated to the subject; adherence to a more encyclopaedic tone (no headlines, quoted portions in refs only used for clarification, etc) – look at Timeline of music in the United States (1950–69). That one's not perfect but it's certainly more in keeping with Wikipedia's principles than this one.

Pinging Randy Kryn also, as I see he contributed to a discussion above on the timeline's scope, and might have some thoughts on this. JG66 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey JG, your points are mostly all well taken, and, as a principal contributor on this page, I highly value your participation in improvements. I am currently on the road, so I would appreciate it greatly if you might give me more time to address your concerns in depth. I'm sure we can reach quick informal consensus on those, and glad to here Randy is aware. One quick note: if you are referring to the fact that quotation marks appear around text excerpts from citations, that's just the way the citation tool presents the supportive excerpt. More soon, and best wishes! Learner001 (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Learner001, no rush. Regarding my point about the quotes that appear in many of the individual citations, it's not about the inclusion of quotation marks/inverted commas, no. I'm asking why it is (and making a comparison with, say, Timeline of music in the United States (1950–69), where there are hardly any such examples) we have to include so many, and such long, quoted portions that don't really add anything. As mentioned, this sort of treatment would normally be used only if the point is in some way contentious, yet it's become a standard feature in this timeline. I think most of it ends up as trivial, if not gratuitous quoting – and I've never seen anything like it in a references/citations section on Wikipedia, at least nowhere the extent it's used here. JG66 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

JG66, not sure what harm is done by the deeper excerpt quotes. I can understand that you have not seen it elsewhere. I also understand the issue of "Easter Eggs," but I believe perhaps there could be some room for timelines. The issue of whether a WP article might be printed, and whether highlighted links will be relevant to someone desiring to print an article is a bit silly to me, as I see this as an entirely digital environment. Feel free to educate me, but the only "printed" versions of these articles I've ever seen are people selling content they did not create or contribute to, in jack-ass "book" form. Learner001 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

More: MOS: Not sure on WP MOS on punctuation and quotation marks, but in the real writing world punctuation always occurs inside quotation marks.

Inclusion of items not "relevant" to counterculture: in the main article, the "roots" of youthful disillusion are discussed, if only briefly. They can be better fleshed out a bit in the timeline. I'm thinking the 1955-1963 material. The counterculture arose for reasons. Some affluent young people chose a different course. Why? You noted "Wikipedia's article on 1960s counterculture introduces the subject with description such as {{xt|an anti-establishment cultural phenomenon that ... gained momentum as the Civil Rights Movement continued to grow, and would later become revolutionary with the expansion of the U.S. government's extensive military intervention in Vietnam ... As the 1960s progressed, widespread social tensions also developed concerning other issues, and tended to flow along generational lines regarding human sexuality, women's rights, traditional modes of authority, experimentation with psychoactive drugs, and differing interpretations of the American Dream. Many key movements related to these issues were born or advanced within the counterculture of the 1960s."

JG, I wrote those words, verbatim. Let me provide some additional background. Before the timeline article was split from the main article, Counterculture of the 1960s was the longest non-data article on English WP. So I know I have a huge tendency to be verbose.

Let's please continue to discuss ways to improve the article.

More soon! Learner001 (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I can only reiterate what I've written above. For example, WP:EASTEREGG with regard to ensuring that wikilinks adhere to wording of the target article. Also, a timeline such as Timeline of music in the United States (1950–69) for an example of an encyclopaedic approach, non-"headline"-type editorial tone, and the quality of sources used. The 1960s counterculture has been the subject of intense study for decades, in academic circles such as sociology, psychology, civil law, and endlessly in pop culture mediums such as music, film, fashion, literature, art. For that reason, there's an abundance of high-quality sources dedicated to the subject, and they should be used extensively here – more than anything to determine what items and events should be included.

You seem to be taking this timeline in a personally determined direction on matters of style and criteria for inclusion, when it's just not necessary. You're advocating, or trying to justify, lazy editing and poor source-hunting, when in fact following the best editorial standards and giving preference to the most authoritative sources on 1960s counterculture would improve this timeline no end. I don't see how that can be disputed; I'm confident that an RfC into any of the issues I've raised would say the same.

Re your comment "Not sure on WP MOS on punctuation and quotation marks, but in the real writing world punctuation always occurs inside quotation marks." In "the real writing world" ...? The MoS is quite clear that logical quotation should be used throughout Wikipedia (MOS:LQ), after RfCs determined as much. So, we can consider that issue fully resolved.

You often sign off saying "Happy to discuss!" but I don't find anything's being achieved here. I want to see the timeline improved and made "more Wikipedia", so to speak. You seem to want to take it in the opposite direction. I don't think there's anything left to say. JG66 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Article too long

Is anybody against removing all the non-60s content from the article? Any other suggestions to decrease the size? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. It's actually not too long, as length on Wikipedia does not count references, external links, and other non-text sections. Much of the viewable page consists of the references. The pre-1960 things might use a few tweaks and further explanation of how they fit into the topic, but the length of the page is fine and a long way from being a ldeterminative consideration of further content. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Discounting references, external links and non-text sections, the article is still clearly too large. That is to be expected when a 1960s timeline goes from 1909 to 1977. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Size is fine, it really isn't very long. But yes, the 1960s started on Montmartre in the mid-1880s and is still going strong (joking, but not by much). I haven't read this page in a couple years or more, thanks for calling it back to my attention, will take a look sometime soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's true that there are too many references on this article as well, and that is a technical problem. The size of articles actually does include references and other things, but there are different measurements of how an article can be too long. The problem isn't only the years it spans. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is most certainly too long, because it is made up of 451,776 bytes of wiki-code; no matter what type of code that is, or what heading it sits under, it's too much. The useful Pingdom tool reports the page size as 535.7 KB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The topic doesn't cover only the 1960s, but the counter-culture events which then emerged into what people call the 1960s counter-culture. It's effect is, of course, long last lasting, and people from that era who were involved in the counter-culture went on to create, for example, much of the computer technology and innovation. My apologies for missing the major moving edits in April, which seem premature. And actually, as I say above, a mention of the Montmartre culture of the late 1880s-mid 1900s might be a good place to lead off the timeline. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Split

Hi. I would like to have this article split into Timeline of 1960s counterculture (pre-1960s); Timeline of 1960s counterculture (1960s); and Timeline of 1960s counterculture (post-1960s). FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that makes sense. I'm actually going to move the non-60s stuff onto my user page and then maybe the remaining article can be split, but it wouldn't be as urgent as it seems now. Anyone is free to revert what I'm about to do but I hope they would instead reconfigure the information much better instead of simply restoring the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, I agree the proposal makes no sense, but neither does your removing of everything pre- and post-1960s, imo. In the case of some events preceding the 1960s, they're key to what unfolds over the decade, surely. What is needed here is a drastic culling of extraneous detail and, most importantly, some sort of criteria for inclusion based on reliable sources that cover the 1960s counterculture. There are no end of decent sources in this regard, but instead facts and events have been added on the whim of individual editors; most of the sources used support the fact that the event in question took place, but not that the event was necessarily significant to 1960s counterculture – each entry in the timeline is self-sourced, in other words.

I'd welcome any changes you make that fine-tune the timeline. But I can't see how removing all information on the decades before and after the 1960s achieves that. JG66 (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we can't have anything before or after the 1960s on this article, but I think it would be best if we started the post- and pre-sections from new, though we can use and refactor that content. This is why I haven't completely removed that content. I think prose would be much better than a timeline for that. We definitely should have information regarding before and after the 1960s, but I don't think that content comes close to what should be there, and that removal is by no means the end of improving this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, you have completely removed the non-'60s content – nothing currently appears before Jan 1960 and after December '69, right? I appreciate you (or anyone) reworking the content and giving this issue some attention, though.

When I have some time, I'll start compiling a list of possible sources that should be favoured to determine what events are listed. As I wrote here in a previous thread, I think we should follow the same approach as at Timeline of music in the United States (1950–69), where general and more specialised reference works are the main sources, rather than sources dedicated to a particular moment. There are some high-quality sources used there and, given their scope, they provide an anchoring element that's lacking in this timeline. JG66 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• No split needed, and including the pre- and post- 1960s material seems fine for context. The timeline seeks to explain and define, which works for an era-related encyclopedic page. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The issue still remains that there is far too much information on before 1960 and after 1969. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion about size wasn't completed when this April discussion began. No, the size of a pages not include references and many other things. The present size of this page, with pre-and-post 1960s material, seems fine and an interesting way to present the subject. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many references, but there is also too much content in the 1960s sections as well. Some of these events are really not cultural events, while some have not established any notability at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

On a quick read that seems accurate, and many items will probably not make a final cut of culture flow. But the start of the '60s counter-culture was formed in the 1950s and before, and did flow into the 1970s though the end of the Vietnam War. A large question, how to define that expanded decade through its events. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that all of history has either influenced or been influenced by the 1960s as with any other period, and this article has not done a good job at determining where to draw the line in presenting what is significantly so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Article mentions LSD 46 times

Lead is a psychoactive substance too.

• Reuben A, Schaefer JD, Moffitt TE, et al. Association of Childhood Lead Exposure With Adult Personality Traits and Lifelong Mental Health. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(4):418–425. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.4192
• Neuwirth, L. S., Lopez, O. E., Schneider, J. S., & Markowitz, M. E. (2020). Low-level lead exposure impairs fronto-executive functions: A call to update the DSM–5 with lead poisoning as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Psychology & Neuroscience, 13(3), 299–325. 10.1037/pne0000225

Lead levels in blood peaked in the 1970s

• Brown MJ, Margolis S. Lead in drinking water and human blood lead levels in the United States. MMWR Suppl. 2012;61(4):1–9.
• The concurrent decline of soil lead and children’s blood lead in New Orleans, Howard W. Mielke, Christopher R. Gonzales, Eric T. Powell, Mark A. S. Laidlaw, Kenneth J. Berry, Paul W. Mielke, Sara Perl Egendorf, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Oct 2019, 116 (44) 22058-22064; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1906092116

I think it would be only fair to point out that counter culture was concurrent with blood lead levels. How about you? Jamplevia (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Today I put my first contribution in regarding this. Jamplevia (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you should add this, as it violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. 70.124.147.243 (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)