This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Counterculture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ka343.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
These are posted as "examples of counterculture" but do not have any sources backing this claim up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.180.100 ( talk) 02:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned up many comma splices, pattern problems, and moved sentences within the section to make things more clear. For instance, I moved the introduction of Hippies into the overall discription of the counterculture of the 60s where people are spoken about rather than have it next to a bunch of 60s musicians. I have combined the music and pop-art paragraph with the sentence on spirituality. I've taken a couple of areas where several words were used into a single word. I have concentrated on leaving the message and tone intact, trying to only improve flow. HIPPIES ROCC
Additional opportunities for cleanup remain. The phrase "Vietnam War" seems to be overused in this section. There are weasel words that need cleanup (i.e. "they have left a lasting mark on society that continues to inspire modern-day movements." --which movements?; "These demonstrations went on to create far-reaching changes affecting many aspects of society." --which changes, which aspects?). The answers may be obvious to the original authors, but not neccessarily to every reader. Citations are needed for many of the claims in this section, much of it reads like original research.
Jamesfett (
talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The cultural impact of Surrealism persisted after its heyday. It remained attractive to leftist artists and writers who were not comfortable with the Stalinist cultural model. Among them is the Martinique poet and playwright Aimé Césaire who served on the editorial board of US surrealist journal VVV. Breton was an avid admirer of Césaire, whose 1955 "Discourse on Colonialism" was republished by Monthly Review. Along with CLR James, Césaire served as a revolutionary alternative to Stalinism for a generation of Caribbean intellectuals. Another editorial board member at VVV was Philip Lamantia, who was to become a leading figure of the new poetry of the 1940s and 50s that included the beats and the San Francisco Renaissance writers. Lamantia, in effect, represents a link between the counter-culture of the 1930s and that of the 1960s. Surrealist poetry and culture were read by young people in the 1950s and 60s, "who were searching for an alternative to the Rationalism of their time, which amounted to Cadillac tailfins, the H-Bomb, conformity and Madison Avenue for all practical purposes." [1]
This subsection was removed from Sixties and seventies counterculture. See more on this on the Surrealism Talk page. Ought it not be included here in some form? - 12.7.202.2 ( talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The following was stuck right in the middle of the '60s and '70s counterculture subsection, right in the middle of a paragraph on music, actually.
This has no references, and extraordinary claims like this need a good source. ---<fontface="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is good that you removed that - because it is wrong. In fact, the one remaining reference to pop-art should be removed too.
The whole concept of "pop-art" is something that would have been considered "establishment" by the counter-culture. They rejected the whole idea of intellectual ideas about art, including both "pop-art" and what it replaced. Pop-art was something used by successful people of the day to make themselves look "hip" and trendy. More importantly, it was used by the Media as something they could use as a substitute (or a symbol) for actual counter-culture, because they knew that Average Joe could understand that Weird Paintings were, well, weird looking.
The terms "plastic hip" and "faux hip" describe this phenomenon well. Buying a pop-art painting allowed you to feel "trendy", without actually doing anything counter-cultural - in the same way that buying a nude statue allowed you to feel "naughty" without actually having to have sex with anyone.
In reality, pop-art was still an establishment product being sold commercially. At best, pop-art was a movement in art that happened to coincide with the time period of counter-culture, and utilized the counter-culture as a marketing gimmick.
BTW, this is from first hand experience at the time.
Oh, and in the removed paragraph, the sentence that says "An entire generation's liberal views about art and drugs found prominent expression in ..." the next word should not be "Warhol", but absolutely and without any question should be BOB DYLAN. (Although that oversimplifies things, since it was the early baby-boomers who were expressed by Dylan - those born before 1953, while those who were born in 1953 and later, viewed the Beatles as their spokesmen - and that is purely a time-related distinction, since both agreed on most of the relevant issues.)
Is there no one who can add any research results about the effects of labeling trends as countercultures? Surely this is of interest to the topic, and some sort of research must have been done on the subject.
As I recall it, the expression rapidly became a self-identifying phrase by those it referred to. (Unlike "hippie" which was imposed from externally and only used ironically as self-identification.) There was a sharp drop-off of the term's use in mass media in the U.S. at some point in the '70s. As I recall at least one newspaper chain wrote an article (A bit Orwellian, I found it when I read it) stating they would thenceforth refuse to employ the expression "counterculture". Unfortunately it would be difficult (but possible) to track this down. The thinking behind this would make an outstanding addition to this article. talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"...use of explicit language, graphical description of sex, violence and illicit activities and uncopyrighted use of "safe" characters involved in everything mentioned." Wha?? 81.107.31.178 ( talk) 10:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that this page emphasizes it's distinction from "Fringe Culture," but "Fringe Culture" redirects to here, and this page makes no mention of fringe culture beyond the one sentence. Some clarification would be appreciated.
70.173.70.232 ( talk) 06:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Could this article be combined with others that are similar? It seems that there is a lot of overlap. -- RichardMills65 ( talk) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the "Please check ISBN" tag to outside the citation tag (immediately after it); there seems to be a problem with nesting brace tags. This way, the link brackets around the ISBN # (which might confuse casual readers) don't appear. RobertGustafson ( talk) 08:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems as though both Peter morrell and Apostle12 disagree with how I have gone about improving the lead section to this article. As such, I find it necessary to justify my edits.
First, I should say that I am in the process of eliminating unnecessary use of the phrase “term used to describe” in Wikipedia articles, Very often, the articles that use this phrase in their lead sections are also otherwise problematic, prompting me to go further in fixing the introductory prose. This was the case at this article, where I edited the lead section on August 9:
Subsequently, Peter blanket reverted my changes, with the thin, vague claim that my edits were not an improvement. Since this would hardly be true for all of my edits, I figured that Peter was focusing on the more arguable content removals, I restored my changes but with one modification: the additional, unsourced aspect of countercultures that they persist for a significant period of time. Note that this is an improvement on the wording originally present, which I presume is closer to what was intended. In case Peter really failed to see how my edits were improvements I briefly justified them in my edit summary.
Peter must have been partially convinced; he only restored #3d and #4 with a citation tag to the latter. Since a citation would not alleviate the concern I'd already alluded to with #4, I removed it while retaining the fact tag for #3d (which a citation would have adequately addressed), and a more explicit edit summary.
Peter then restored the deleted, inappropriate, vague sentence and removed the fact tag that he himself added. His edit summary pointed out that one term, subculture was a separate article. The other, he said, was a redirect. I quickly realized that, not only was the statement vague and inappropriate for the lede, it was also false as a "fringe culture" is a synonym of "counterculture." With that in mind, I removed the sentence again, this time attempting to address Peter's expressed concern by putting “fringe culture” in bold as a synonym, per WP:BOLDTITLE. I didn’t link to it, since WP:REDIRECT says to avoid self-redirects. I also moved the link to subculture to the See also section (which I also alphabetized, per WP:ALSO) justifying my edits in the summary. Peter then blanket reverted my edit.
On top of this, Apostle12 reverted back to the version before I'd edited, which is hardly an improvement.
While not too contentious of a dispute, I think it's time to talk these edits over. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it's got nothing to do with any alleged 'ownership of the article' or about you being a rookie editor to it; it's got everything to do with your wonky, poorly written edits, a lack of nuanced knowledge of the subject and a very pushy 'get out of my way, I know best' attitude that won't back down, that refuses to compromise and that hates not getting his own way. Talking about me not understanding WP procedures is a complete red herring: hey, there's a big one out there you really haven't grasped, it's called collaboration and consensus. That's the top and bottom of it I'm afraid, like it or lump it. Yes, it's a good suggestion to source and differentiate between fringe and subculture, that would be a helpful contribution, if you can do it. Peter morrell 12:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you might be better employed posting your proposed revisions here first so you can begin to gain a consensus, rather than going and changing the article. Or are you determined to learned nothing from the comments made here? Peter morrell 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Working with what you wrote, I would like to explain the changes I made:
-I eliminated fringe culture from the first sentence, because placing it here implies that a "fringe culture" is equivalent to a counterculture. It is not; a fringe culture is just what it sounds like--something on the fringe. Perhaps a good example might be Goth culture. A "fringe culture" does not rise to the level of a "counterculture."
-The phrase, "While countercultural elements are nothing new....," is much too casual to be encyclopedic. It also means very little, because "newness" is beside the point. I substituted "While countercultural undercurrents are common..."
-You wrote "a counterculture...can trigger a critical mass of dramatic cultural changes." You seem not to understand what "critical mass" means in the scientific sense. When one reaches a certain mass of a fissionable material, this triggers a spontaneous chain reaction; thus "critical mass." The heat that is produced by a spontaneious chain reaction can produce an explosion, or, with careful control mechanisms, it can be harnessed to boil water and produce electricity using a steam turbine. To say that something (in this case a counterculture) "triggers a critical mass" reveals a lack of understanding of the metaphor you are attempting to employ.
-The last sentence says "It is important to distinguish between "counterculture," "subculture," and "fringe culture." Yes, true. But to say this in the lede is entirely inappropriate. This sentence needs to be eliminated. In my first comment, I began to define "fringe culture," and gave an example of what I think one is. That's original research, of course; an appropriate task for this article would be to do the necessary research and find reliable sources that distinguish between the three. This sort of thing constitutes the heavy lifting of writing, or contributing to, a Wikipedia article.
Peter noted that you seem to concentrate on lede revision. I agree with his observation that it might be better, and more collaborative, to propose lede changes on talk before massively changing them. Massively changing a lede when you haven't participated at all in writing the article, particularly when your changes are poorly written and introduce significant distortions, can be perceived as arrogance. Apostle12 ( talk) 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a few additions to the lede which I will flesh out soon with a few citations from reliable published sources. I have some good sources, but it takes time to select some good citations to back up the points made. I hope to complete this process today, and hope therefore that these changes are not reverted in the meantime, many thanks Peter morrell 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks no probs, cheers Peter morrell 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's we three work together and make it a good article. I don't see why not. I'm not sure if I can get all the citations done today and I might just dump loads of them on here so we can pick and choose which ones are best...that would also be more collaborative. thanks Peter morrell 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As promised sometime back, here are some quotes pulled from reputable sources that people might wish to pick up and use to embellish the article. Please feel free to do that. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
OXOXO groupuscule ( talk) 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Is hipsterism really a counterculture (as recently added by User:Gregorik)? It's an interesting notion, but I think there's also an argument to be made that hipsters are not sufficiently "counter" to the "mainstream" culture. I would also guess that the 1973 source at the end of that sentence in the lede doesn't mention "hipsters". Maybe there are sources on the topic? This (instantly) classic article on Hipsters does seem to argue that hipsterism is not a true counterculture.
Also I would continue to suggest that hip-hop, especially in its heyday, represents a very real counterculture. (Hoping to add something about that when time permits...) groupuscule ( talk) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW I would say yes to both if they can be furnished with good sources. Otherwise then no. Peter morrell 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
These recent edits seem to only add weasel words, with edit summaries saying things like "this is unreferencable." If no reference can be found, it has to be removed. Uncited "it has been argued that" or "some say" aren't ok. Assuming good faith, I'm posting here instead of reverting because it's possible the sources that are cited don't actually make the claims that were in the article -- but I haven't checked them. -- Rhododendrites ( talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Going through this article, I was struck by statements such as this: "The counterculture in the United States has been interpreted as lasting roughly from 1964 to 1972" This statement strikes me as offensively incorrect. This should definitely be altered because it takes a hugely restrictive definition of "the counterculture in the United States". "The counterculture in the United States" is not this particular collection of movements in the 60s and 70s. It is much broader and to define it otherwise is, I think, obviously a big error. I think it would be good to make a more comprehensive list of counterculture movements and include some of that on this page. I think this page currently is focusing too much on a few "counterculture" movements and not mentioning too many other ones. It's still a quite short page, so it would work to add more sections on more diverse examples of "counterculture" movements. macscam ( talk) 01:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the FLQ reference as a “counter-cultural” movement be removed.
As they defined themselves in their manifesto, “The Liberation Front of Quebec is neither the messiah nor the Robin Hood of modern times, it is a gathering of Québécois workers who decided to do everything possible in order that the people of Québec take charge of their future once and for all."
Even though the passage mention that they wished Quebec to secede from Canada, it portrays them in a paragraph about Countercultural lifestyle. Maybe I misunderstand the extent of the political engagement of North-American coutner-culture, but the people from the FLQ where not just "integrating many ideas in a countercultural lifestyle", they killed a bunch of people, freaked the rest of the country and their actions provoked the government into declaring martial law in Quebec. In other words, I think that the comparison is a gross misunderstanding of what actually happened.
Check this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxhbzCRLVVo
I don't see the validity of mentioning Charles Manson. There are countless murderers who weren't part of any "counterculture". Should the page on conservatism mention a random list of conservative murderers???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Counterculture. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please share comments! Learner001 ( talk) 00:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Counterculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Founder-radical-bookshop-dies/article-1254803-detail/article.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a Wikipedia person, so apologies about the likely terrible formatting. But what about the current anti-sjw movement? It umbrella's things like men's rights, nationalism, traditionalism, the so called alt-right, libertarianism, "classic liberalism", centrism, in a general, and very obviously rising opposition to societies currently accepted moral mores grounded in intersectional feminism and the counterculture of the 60s. It's also gotten to the point of affecting culture, it's language, values and ideas even though, its not quite mainstream at least with older demographics. It could also be termed reactionary, but then what countercultural movement isn't? In terms of era, I think it could be quite specifically be defined in terms of the men's rights movement to some time in the late 70s, or if you are talking about the mass rise of loose set of values, perhaps some time in the rise emergence of the men's rights movement in the electronic age, or some moment like gamergate, which is around the time things really started to grow. If someone had the time, to me, it would be worth an add. I kind of expected to see it here already. Although perhaps these things are only labelled in retrospect? Again, apologies if I haven't edited this right! And no offense if you want to remove it. 119.224.85.183 ( talk) 13:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
On LGBT movement as part of the counterculture see the reliable sources 1) for USA Gina Misiroglu (2015). American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in U.S. History. Routledge. p. 311.. 2) for Europe "Early forms of lesbian and gay activism the began during the 1980s in Yugoslavia...are part of larger new social movements/countercultures that consisted of informal groups and consciousness-raising meetings of limited visibility. Gay and lesbian activism that emerged in the late 1990s and later self-proclaimed LGBTIQ3 organisations that appeared throughout the 2000s, however, have been shaped by contact with widespread professionalised activism and a larger network of NGOs in Europe and internationally" [Bojan Bilić - 2016 pp 25-26]; 3) "Robert McRuer, in his article "Gay Gatherings," emphasizes the importance of disco music and the disco scene throughout the 1970s in the emergence of an openly gay counterculture." [ James E. Perone - 2004 p 89]. 4) "Robert McRuer in his essay “Gay Gatherings: Reimagining the Counterculture,” makes it apparent that the declaration of independence at Stonewall in 1969 was only the opening gong in a protracted process of gay identity formation." Braunstein and Doyle; Michael William Doyle (2013). Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960's and 70's. Routledge. p. 157. etc etc
Per the opening sentence of Counterculture,
Per the last sentence in the lede of Subculture,
The only support for the latter sweeping claim is
with little explanation of that final term.
Is it possible to get both articles on the same metaphoric page?
Weeb Dingle (
talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know any nonwestern examples, but heres my list of possible topics present day examples 1. hacker culture 2. goth culture 3. chan culture historical examples 4. hermeticism 5. earlyprotestantism 6. christianity before constantine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthefrank ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence is a definition for the subject:
" A counterculture is a subculture whose values and norms of behavior differ substantially from those of mainstream society, often in opposition to mainstream cultural mores."
To me counterculture is the culture that develops around another culture. But what's this about mainstream society? "A subculture whose norms and behaviours differ substantially from those of mainstream society" that could just be any culture. Say Birdwayching.
How about
"Counterculture are subcultures whose common values among their members are a rejection towards those of a wider culture they belong to."
Or more simply: " A counter culture is one whose identity is based around the rejection of another culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't write anything here often, and I usually just use this site for personal research purposes, but seeing lately how the quality has dwindled and objectivity has become a thing of the past. The era of being able to find unbiased information on the internet is past us, and I weep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.108.71 ( talk) 03:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Counterculture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ka343.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
These are posted as "examples of counterculture" but do not have any sources backing this claim up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.180.100 ( talk) 02:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I've cleaned up many comma splices, pattern problems, and moved sentences within the section to make things more clear. For instance, I moved the introduction of Hippies into the overall discription of the counterculture of the 60s where people are spoken about rather than have it next to a bunch of 60s musicians. I have combined the music and pop-art paragraph with the sentence on spirituality. I've taken a couple of areas where several words were used into a single word. I have concentrated on leaving the message and tone intact, trying to only improve flow. HIPPIES ROCC
Additional opportunities for cleanup remain. The phrase "Vietnam War" seems to be overused in this section. There are weasel words that need cleanup (i.e. "they have left a lasting mark on society that continues to inspire modern-day movements." --which movements?; "These demonstrations went on to create far-reaching changes affecting many aspects of society." --which changes, which aspects?). The answers may be obvious to the original authors, but not neccessarily to every reader. Citations are needed for many of the claims in this section, much of it reads like original research.
Jamesfett (
talk) 13:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
The cultural impact of Surrealism persisted after its heyday. It remained attractive to leftist artists and writers who were not comfortable with the Stalinist cultural model. Among them is the Martinique poet and playwright Aimé Césaire who served on the editorial board of US surrealist journal VVV. Breton was an avid admirer of Césaire, whose 1955 "Discourse on Colonialism" was republished by Monthly Review. Along with CLR James, Césaire served as a revolutionary alternative to Stalinism for a generation of Caribbean intellectuals. Another editorial board member at VVV was Philip Lamantia, who was to become a leading figure of the new poetry of the 1940s and 50s that included the beats and the San Francisco Renaissance writers. Lamantia, in effect, represents a link between the counter-culture of the 1930s and that of the 1960s. Surrealist poetry and culture were read by young people in the 1950s and 60s, "who were searching for an alternative to the Rationalism of their time, which amounted to Cadillac tailfins, the H-Bomb, conformity and Madison Avenue for all practical purposes." [1]
This subsection was removed from Sixties and seventies counterculture. See more on this on the Surrealism Talk page. Ought it not be included here in some form? - 12.7.202.2 ( talk) 21:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The following was stuck right in the middle of the '60s and '70s counterculture subsection, right in the middle of a paragraph on music, actually.
This has no references, and extraordinary claims like this need a good source. ---<fontface="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 17:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It is good that you removed that - because it is wrong. In fact, the one remaining reference to pop-art should be removed too.
The whole concept of "pop-art" is something that would have been considered "establishment" by the counter-culture. They rejected the whole idea of intellectual ideas about art, including both "pop-art" and what it replaced. Pop-art was something used by successful people of the day to make themselves look "hip" and trendy. More importantly, it was used by the Media as something they could use as a substitute (or a symbol) for actual counter-culture, because they knew that Average Joe could understand that Weird Paintings were, well, weird looking.
The terms "plastic hip" and "faux hip" describe this phenomenon well. Buying a pop-art painting allowed you to feel "trendy", without actually doing anything counter-cultural - in the same way that buying a nude statue allowed you to feel "naughty" without actually having to have sex with anyone.
In reality, pop-art was still an establishment product being sold commercially. At best, pop-art was a movement in art that happened to coincide with the time period of counter-culture, and utilized the counter-culture as a marketing gimmick.
BTW, this is from first hand experience at the time.
Oh, and in the removed paragraph, the sentence that says "An entire generation's liberal views about art and drugs found prominent expression in ..." the next word should not be "Warhol", but absolutely and without any question should be BOB DYLAN. (Although that oversimplifies things, since it was the early baby-boomers who were expressed by Dylan - those born before 1953, while those who were born in 1953 and later, viewed the Beatles as their spokesmen - and that is purely a time-related distinction, since both agreed on most of the relevant issues.)
Is there no one who can add any research results about the effects of labeling trends as countercultures? Surely this is of interest to the topic, and some sort of research must have been done on the subject.
As I recall it, the expression rapidly became a self-identifying phrase by those it referred to. (Unlike "hippie" which was imposed from externally and only used ironically as self-identification.) There was a sharp drop-off of the term's use in mass media in the U.S. at some point in the '70s. As I recall at least one newspaper chain wrote an article (A bit Orwellian, I found it when I read it) stating they would thenceforth refuse to employ the expression "counterculture". Unfortunately it would be difficult (but possible) to track this down. The thinking behind this would make an outstanding addition to this article. talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
"...use of explicit language, graphical description of sex, violence and illicit activities and uncopyrighted use of "safe" characters involved in everything mentioned." Wha?? 81.107.31.178 ( talk) 10:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that this page emphasizes it's distinction from "Fringe Culture," but "Fringe Culture" redirects to here, and this page makes no mention of fringe culture beyond the one sentence. Some clarification would be appreciated.
70.173.70.232 ( talk) 06:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Could this article be combined with others that are similar? It seems that there is a lot of overlap. -- RichardMills65 ( talk) 03:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I have moved the "Please check ISBN" tag to outside the citation tag (immediately after it); there seems to be a problem with nesting brace tags. This way, the link brackets around the ISBN # (which might confuse casual readers) don't appear. RobertGustafson ( talk) 08:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems as though both Peter morrell and Apostle12 disagree with how I have gone about improving the lead section to this article. As such, I find it necessary to justify my edits.
First, I should say that I am in the process of eliminating unnecessary use of the phrase “term used to describe” in Wikipedia articles, Very often, the articles that use this phrase in their lead sections are also otherwise problematic, prompting me to go further in fixing the introductory prose. This was the case at this article, where I edited the lead section on August 9:
Subsequently, Peter blanket reverted my changes, with the thin, vague claim that my edits were not an improvement. Since this would hardly be true for all of my edits, I figured that Peter was focusing on the more arguable content removals, I restored my changes but with one modification: the additional, unsourced aspect of countercultures that they persist for a significant period of time. Note that this is an improvement on the wording originally present, which I presume is closer to what was intended. In case Peter really failed to see how my edits were improvements I briefly justified them in my edit summary.
Peter must have been partially convinced; he only restored #3d and #4 with a citation tag to the latter. Since a citation would not alleviate the concern I'd already alluded to with #4, I removed it while retaining the fact tag for #3d (which a citation would have adequately addressed), and a more explicit edit summary.
Peter then restored the deleted, inappropriate, vague sentence and removed the fact tag that he himself added. His edit summary pointed out that one term, subculture was a separate article. The other, he said, was a redirect. I quickly realized that, not only was the statement vague and inappropriate for the lede, it was also false as a "fringe culture" is a synonym of "counterculture." With that in mind, I removed the sentence again, this time attempting to address Peter's expressed concern by putting “fringe culture” in bold as a synonym, per WP:BOLDTITLE. I didn’t link to it, since WP:REDIRECT says to avoid self-redirects. I also moved the link to subculture to the See also section (which I also alphabetized, per WP:ALSO) justifying my edits in the summary. Peter then blanket reverted my edit.
On top of this, Apostle12 reverted back to the version before I'd edited, which is hardly an improvement.
While not too contentious of a dispute, I think it's time to talk these edits over. Thoughts? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, it's got nothing to do with any alleged 'ownership of the article' or about you being a rookie editor to it; it's got everything to do with your wonky, poorly written edits, a lack of nuanced knowledge of the subject and a very pushy 'get out of my way, I know best' attitude that won't back down, that refuses to compromise and that hates not getting his own way. Talking about me not understanding WP procedures is a complete red herring: hey, there's a big one out there you really haven't grasped, it's called collaboration and consensus. That's the top and bottom of it I'm afraid, like it or lump it. Yes, it's a good suggestion to source and differentiate between fringe and subculture, that would be a helpful contribution, if you can do it. Peter morrell 12:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I think you might be better employed posting your proposed revisions here first so you can begin to gain a consensus, rather than going and changing the article. Or are you determined to learned nothing from the comments made here? Peter morrell 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Working with what you wrote, I would like to explain the changes I made:
-I eliminated fringe culture from the first sentence, because placing it here implies that a "fringe culture" is equivalent to a counterculture. It is not; a fringe culture is just what it sounds like--something on the fringe. Perhaps a good example might be Goth culture. A "fringe culture" does not rise to the level of a "counterculture."
-The phrase, "While countercultural elements are nothing new....," is much too casual to be encyclopedic. It also means very little, because "newness" is beside the point. I substituted "While countercultural undercurrents are common..."
-You wrote "a counterculture...can trigger a critical mass of dramatic cultural changes." You seem not to understand what "critical mass" means in the scientific sense. When one reaches a certain mass of a fissionable material, this triggers a spontaneous chain reaction; thus "critical mass." The heat that is produced by a spontaneious chain reaction can produce an explosion, or, with careful control mechanisms, it can be harnessed to boil water and produce electricity using a steam turbine. To say that something (in this case a counterculture) "triggers a critical mass" reveals a lack of understanding of the metaphor you are attempting to employ.
-The last sentence says "It is important to distinguish between "counterculture," "subculture," and "fringe culture." Yes, true. But to say this in the lede is entirely inappropriate. This sentence needs to be eliminated. In my first comment, I began to define "fringe culture," and gave an example of what I think one is. That's original research, of course; an appropriate task for this article would be to do the necessary research and find reliable sources that distinguish between the three. This sort of thing constitutes the heavy lifting of writing, or contributing to, a Wikipedia article.
Peter noted that you seem to concentrate on lede revision. I agree with his observation that it might be better, and more collaborative, to propose lede changes on talk before massively changing them. Massively changing a lede when you haven't participated at all in writing the article, particularly when your changes are poorly written and introduce significant distortions, can be perceived as arrogance. Apostle12 ( talk) 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a few additions to the lede which I will flesh out soon with a few citations from reliable published sources. I have some good sources, but it takes time to select some good citations to back up the points made. I hope to complete this process today, and hope therefore that these changes are not reverted in the meantime, many thanks Peter morrell 05:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
OK thanks no probs, cheers Peter morrell 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, let's we three work together and make it a good article. I don't see why not. I'm not sure if I can get all the citations done today and I might just dump loads of them on here so we can pick and choose which ones are best...that would also be more collaborative. thanks Peter morrell 13:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As promised sometime back, here are some quotes pulled from reputable sources that people might wish to pick up and use to embellish the article. Please feel free to do that. thanks Peter morrell 13:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
OXOXO groupuscule ( talk) 03:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Is hipsterism really a counterculture (as recently added by User:Gregorik)? It's an interesting notion, but I think there's also an argument to be made that hipsters are not sufficiently "counter" to the "mainstream" culture. I would also guess that the 1973 source at the end of that sentence in the lede doesn't mention "hipsters". Maybe there are sources on the topic? This (instantly) classic article on Hipsters does seem to argue that hipsterism is not a true counterculture.
Also I would continue to suggest that hip-hop, especially in its heyday, represents a very real counterculture. (Hoping to add something about that when time permits...) groupuscule ( talk) 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
FWIW I would say yes to both if they can be furnished with good sources. Otherwise then no. Peter morrell 20:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
These recent edits seem to only add weasel words, with edit summaries saying things like "this is unreferencable." If no reference can be found, it has to be removed. Uncited "it has been argued that" or "some say" aren't ok. Assuming good faith, I'm posting here instead of reverting because it's possible the sources that are cited don't actually make the claims that were in the article -- but I haven't checked them. -- Rhododendrites ( talk) 20:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Going through this article, I was struck by statements such as this: "The counterculture in the United States has been interpreted as lasting roughly from 1964 to 1972" This statement strikes me as offensively incorrect. This should definitely be altered because it takes a hugely restrictive definition of "the counterculture in the United States". "The counterculture in the United States" is not this particular collection of movements in the 60s and 70s. It is much broader and to define it otherwise is, I think, obviously a big error. I think it would be good to make a more comprehensive list of counterculture movements and include some of that on this page. I think this page currently is focusing too much on a few "counterculture" movements and not mentioning too many other ones. It's still a quite short page, so it would work to add more sections on more diverse examples of "counterculture" movements. macscam ( talk) 01:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the FLQ reference as a “counter-cultural” movement be removed.
As they defined themselves in their manifesto, “The Liberation Front of Quebec is neither the messiah nor the Robin Hood of modern times, it is a gathering of Québécois workers who decided to do everything possible in order that the people of Québec take charge of their future once and for all."
Even though the passage mention that they wished Quebec to secede from Canada, it portrays them in a paragraph about Countercultural lifestyle. Maybe I misunderstand the extent of the political engagement of North-American coutner-culture, but the people from the FLQ where not just "integrating many ideas in a countercultural lifestyle", they killed a bunch of people, freaked the rest of the country and their actions provoked the government into declaring martial law in Quebec. In other words, I think that the comparison is a gross misunderstanding of what actually happened.
Check this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxhbzCRLVVo
I don't see the validity of mentioning Charles Manson. There are countless murderers who weren't part of any "counterculture". Should the page on conservatism mention a random list of conservative murderers???-- Jack Upland ( talk) 12:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Counterculture. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Please share comments! Learner001 ( talk) 00:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Counterculture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Founder-radical-bookshop-dies/article-1254803-detail/article.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a Wikipedia person, so apologies about the likely terrible formatting. But what about the current anti-sjw movement? It umbrella's things like men's rights, nationalism, traditionalism, the so called alt-right, libertarianism, "classic liberalism", centrism, in a general, and very obviously rising opposition to societies currently accepted moral mores grounded in intersectional feminism and the counterculture of the 60s. It's also gotten to the point of affecting culture, it's language, values and ideas even though, its not quite mainstream at least with older demographics. It could also be termed reactionary, but then what countercultural movement isn't? In terms of era, I think it could be quite specifically be defined in terms of the men's rights movement to some time in the late 70s, or if you are talking about the mass rise of loose set of values, perhaps some time in the rise emergence of the men's rights movement in the electronic age, or some moment like gamergate, which is around the time things really started to grow. If someone had the time, to me, it would be worth an add. I kind of expected to see it here already. Although perhaps these things are only labelled in retrospect? Again, apologies if I haven't edited this right! And no offense if you want to remove it. 119.224.85.183 ( talk) 13:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
On LGBT movement as part of the counterculture see the reliable sources 1) for USA Gina Misiroglu (2015). American Countercultures: An Encyclopedia of Nonconformists, Alternative Lifestyles, and Radical Ideas in U.S. History. Routledge. p. 311.. 2) for Europe "Early forms of lesbian and gay activism the began during the 1980s in Yugoslavia...are part of larger new social movements/countercultures that consisted of informal groups and consciousness-raising meetings of limited visibility. Gay and lesbian activism that emerged in the late 1990s and later self-proclaimed LGBTIQ3 organisations that appeared throughout the 2000s, however, have been shaped by contact with widespread professionalised activism and a larger network of NGOs in Europe and internationally" [Bojan Bilić - 2016 pp 25-26]; 3) "Robert McRuer, in his article "Gay Gatherings," emphasizes the importance of disco music and the disco scene throughout the 1970s in the emergence of an openly gay counterculture." [ James E. Perone - 2004 p 89]. 4) "Robert McRuer in his essay “Gay Gatherings: Reimagining the Counterculture,” makes it apparent that the declaration of independence at Stonewall in 1969 was only the opening gong in a protracted process of gay identity formation." Braunstein and Doyle; Michael William Doyle (2013). Imagine Nation: The American Counterculture of the 1960's and 70's. Routledge. p. 157. etc etc
Per the opening sentence of Counterculture,
Per the last sentence in the lede of Subculture,
The only support for the latter sweeping claim is
with little explanation of that final term.
Is it possible to get both articles on the same metaphoric page?
Weeb Dingle (
talk) 22:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know any nonwestern examples, but heres my list of possible topics present day examples 1. hacker culture 2. goth culture 3. chan culture historical examples 4. hermeticism 5. earlyprotestantism 6. christianity before constantine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesthefrank ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence is a definition for the subject:
" A counterculture is a subculture whose values and norms of behavior differ substantially from those of mainstream society, often in opposition to mainstream cultural mores."
To me counterculture is the culture that develops around another culture. But what's this about mainstream society? "A subculture whose norms and behaviours differ substantially from those of mainstream society" that could just be any culture. Say Birdwayching.
How about
"Counterculture are subcultures whose common values among their members are a rejection towards those of a wider culture they belong to."
Or more simply: " A counter culture is one whose identity is based around the rejection of another culture." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't write anything here often, and I usually just use this site for personal research purposes, but seeing lately how the quality has dwindled and objectivity has become a thing of the past. The era of being able to find unbiased information on the internet is past us, and I weep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.108.71 ( talk) 03:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)