Talk:Counterculture

Regarding

Regarding the edit by 66.72.23.227 (deletion of incorrect assumption that monotheistic religions such as Christianity believe that man is inherently good): I didn't write that those religions believe that; I wrote that the idea is rooted in those religions, for example, imago viva dei, man in the image of God. I won't tamper with your edit, but I think that this is a point worth discussing. Where did the idea come from originally, that man is not just a Hobbesian beast? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche

The article previously at this page was a mess of Lyndon LaRouche propaganda and totally irrelevant and specious nonsense. No article at all is much preferable. A new article needs to be written by someone familiar with the cultural history of the 1960s, the writings of Theodore Roszak, Herbert Marcuse etc. If no-one else does something about it, I will do so when I get time. Adam 08:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note

Note that User:AndyL's edits [1] replaced a grammatically correct formulation, with a grammatically incorrect one. The use of the subjunctive is appropriate here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The current, protected version of this article is vapid and semi-literate, and part of the ongoing campaign of vandalism carried out by Adam Carr, User:AndyL, and some anonymous person from the University of Houston (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). I am posting the deleted version of the article below. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Krusty

Krusty's version of the article can be accessed in History pages, or it can be linked from this page. It does not need to be posted here in full.
The current article is of course far from complete or satisfactory, subjunctives notwithstanding. It is however an honest attempt to write a truthful article, unlike the pack of LaRouch fabrications and fantasies which Krusty is defending. Adam 02:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Far from being an honest attempt to write a truthful article, it is part of an organized vendetta by Adam and Andy, that is presently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A vendetta? What did Lyndon LaRouche ever do to me?AndyL 12:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's what I'd like to know. Other than advocating the American system, of course. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer the "American System" to 19th century British liberalism. In any case, the point is there is no vendetta since there's no motive on my part for revenge. Please contain your hyperbole. AndyL 16:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

unprotection

I have unprotected the page. Any edit war that was going on did not appear serious. Be good. UninvitedCompany 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 30 neutrality notice

User 4.168.90.122, which part of the article do you think is non-neutral? --Gary D 20:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Having not heard back from the anon poster, I have reverted the neutrality notice. Still very willing to discuss it, though. --Gary D 01:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware J. Rubin had become a stockbroker. My understanding was that he had at one point become a "connections broker," which is to say a facilitator of that distasteful necessity networking.

Question

cultural equivalent of a political Opposition. -- POV? ~ 67.42.203.155 07:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major new section

Would it be alright if a new section were added on 2000s counterculture movements, and the rebeliion agaisnt what apparently a lot of skin heads feel, is an overly "liberal" society, as there is clearly an obedience-movment in this country, that almost seems like the opposite of 60s counterculture, which would make it counter-counter-culture, which is a tounge twister, to say the least, and seeing as how this all seems based on the idea that there is a great "liberal" force controlling their government, they would probably classify themselves as being counter to some force they think controls the government, so would it be fair to classify this new ultra-loyal-unquestioning group as a type of counter culture? --172.155.226.167 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be very confusing in this article. Perhaps that belongs in an article on "skin heads"? I vote against any such new addition to this article, which describes the '60s counterculture. BTfromLA 18:13, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback of the contra-culture into the pro-culture

I began to describe this phenomenon in the last paragraph of the “Russian section”. The phenomenon is that the developments in the contra-culture are absorbed by the “pro-culture” and become popularized. I provided as an example Russian band “Leningrad”. Surely there are also a lot of other examples in music, literature etc. Please extend the paragraph with your examples. Thanx for spelling-check in advance!

This Russian culture discussion seems to be a completely different topic than the counterculture that is the focus of this article. Perhaps it needs its own article? I don't think it belongs here. BTfromLA 17:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think so. I’m not an expert in other areas of the counterculture in other regions. But I think there are enough “feedbacks” of the counterculture into the every-day life in other countries. May be you can provide some American, European etc. examples, so it will be possible to extract this topic from Russian section into the separate section. (Mike)

Sorry, I really don't understand your reply. I don't know what you mean by "feedbacks" or what sort of examples you are talking about. Can you say that again? My point is that this term has a specific meaning, relating to youth-oriented movemebnts of the 60s and 70s. If the term is used to describe a different cultural trend, in a differnt time and place, then it should get it's own artcile. Otherwise, any cultural movement anywhere at any time that in any way can be described as "counter-" to some cultural establishment would fit here. That's way too broad for a short encyclopedia article. BTfromLA 17:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope, that we don’t discus that “en.wiki” is not US/GB wikipedia, but English written wikipedia.

I understand your point, but the term „counterculture” does not describe only the 60s in USA. (I guess, that why the article consists of different sections:” 1960s counterculture, Russian counterculture etc.) The term describes a social phenomenon in general. One of the occurrences of this phenomenon was in USA in 60s and 70s. The other one is now in Russia. And I’m sure that there a lot of other developments all over the world, which are described with this “term”. That why I offer two different solutions. First solution is to create a short head article about generalized term “counterculture” and two different subarticles with “60s in USA” and “Russian” topic. The second one is to try to structure the current article so, that it will be enough space to add information about “counterculture” in Mozambique, Honduras and other lands. And I agree with you that on this way the article will be too long!

To the topic feedback or reverse influence. I don’t know, if there were such reverse influence of counterculture in 60s in USA on the mass-culture! In Russia it is the case! That means that developments formed in the subculture becomes a part of the general culture. The French example for such feedback is the development of the language. In the beginning of 90s some young people began to use the language with reverted sentence structure (it was a small group of 40-50 people), now it is a standard in usage in some cases, and nobody wondering about “strange language”. The same thing happens know in Russia. It was a small posting in Russian part of live journal, where some guy from USA asked: “what is that for language you use here?”, and somebody replayed “Go and learn Albanian!” – This was adopted by counterculture movement, and now it is a standard phrase not only in cc-movement, which is equivalent to the RTFM in English!

I hope it will help you to understand my previous posting!

The russian section is strange. udaff and similar russian sites are overtly and exclusively obscene, not counter-cultural. There are far more proper things to be mentioned here (punk\DIY scene or anything else). Commercially made B-movies about bandits are also by no means counter-cultural

Mexico

I'd like to add a section about the counterculture in México. Eric Zolov wrote a book on the subject, and it is one of my favorite books of all time. If I forget, would someone remind me?--Rockero 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some extolling words disguised as info - POV

"American conservatives describe the Netherlands as a “Soddom and Gomorra” — something America should not become. Their arguments are based on a misinterpretation of Dutch liberalism, because humanism is one of the basic values of Dutch society. Dutch society has legalized suicide, prostitution, abortion. Gay marriage and euthanasia are accepted, though euthanasia is only to be applied to stop people from suffering physically. Using words as fuck, asshole or cunt are accepted on television and the radio, even to insult people. Some tourists complain about the rudeness of Dutch people. Rudeness has been identified as a problem in traffic. This rudeness is not something restricted to the low classes, the upper classes are rude as well. The Dutch prefer to call it honesty. Dutch people do as they feel."

This sounds quite triumphalist and I suspect it was written by a proud dutchman or perhaps by a Netherlands enthusiast; but that excerpt is definitely both unencyclopedic in its wording AND POV! Justice III 20:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many facts in this text, so it should be adapted instead of deleted.--Daanschr 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested it be totally deleted. I think the text is good and would be a nice reading IF it were on a blog or something similar. However, there's too much POV-pushing and the wording is generally improper for an encyclopedia. I agree it should be adapted. Justice III 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could be more specific, otherwise it can't be changed.--Daanschr 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits in the chapter about the Netherlands' counterculture. It was indeed quite POV and contained many generalizations and misinterpretations. The importance of counterculture for the Netherlands was somewhat exaggerated. I've been quite lenient in editing, there are still questionable parts in the chapter (i.e. the part about Belgium). User:Daaf 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]