Talk:The Sixties

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bad light

You have painted 1960's in a very harsh light. It was a period that needed to take place and wasnt all bad AdenJ 06:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

No. The Sixties have been painted as a fount of all that is good, and it is important to redress this. Most of what is bad in modern society either originated in, or became much worse as a result of, the idiocies and moral vacuities of that decade. Bugler 06:17, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

the pent-up feeling couldnt be contained, particulary considering the events surrounding the 60's. And whats wrong with adding info on the great music and writing of the time? AdenJ 06:18, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Why do take away the fact that the beatles, one of the greatest and most popular bands of all time (also the stones) out of the article but mention great music was produced in the era? THEY produced the music you speak of! AdenJ 06:21, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a clean, conservative encyclopaedia. It is completely inappropriate to laud the contributions made by the Beatles and Rolling Stones, and authors such as Hunter S Thompson. Whatever their musical and literary qualities, their social and moral effects were pernicious in the extreme. By all means talk about these qualities elsewhere, but they do not belong in this article. And there were doubtless other people making great music. Bugler 06:23, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

My block and this article

I was blocked for adding info to this article. Blocked for "Lauding apologists of illegal drugs". Which is a ideological block. Conservapedia has articles on The Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, The Doors, Led Zeppelin, Hunter S. Thompson, Ken Kesey, Tom Wolfe (who is actually a conservative). So, if this article mentions the greats of sixties music and literature and also has pages about these artists, why are they unable to be linked here? AdenJ 08:42, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Your lunch break clearly hasn't helped your observational abilities, as there is a link to The Beatles in the article. Bugler 08:45, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes but you mention music greats but wont link to them? How about pink floyd and the stones? AdenJ 08:46, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Describing The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Hunter S Thompson as 'great' and 'successes' is clearly at odds with the article, not least because they are part of the problem with their promotion of hedonistic and drug-fuelled lifestyles. By all means write a separate section on music and the arts, but do not let it be filled with the sort of hippy, summer-of-love, pink-tinted-spectacles view of the sixties that urgently needs to be debunked. And I am removing it from the 'successes' para; please do not replace it, or I will block. Bugler 08:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
This is clearly a content dispute, one editor wants a phrase in whereas another wants it removed. There should be no blocks unless there is an edit war, in which both editors should be blocked. StatsMsn 08:53, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

the Beatles are one of the greatest bands of all time. Ditto the rolling stones. Hunter Thompsons began a whole new form of journalism which is yet to be matched. Not great you say? AdenJ 08:52, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, and their popularity was used to promote drugs, promote irreligion, promote decadance and depravity leading to the moral and physical harm of a generation. Do you really see Hunter S Thompson as a role model? If so, the Conservapedia is scarcely the place for you. Bugler 08:56, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I dont see thompson a role model, I didnt suggest that once, but he is a great writer and started a form of writing that changed the face of journalism, regardless of his personal habits. AdenJ 09:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler, ideally an encyclopedia doesn't decide which information it wants its readers to have by basis of ideology.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 11:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I think both parties are at fault here. AdenJ and Bugler both engaged in a short edit war. And it's debateable that AdenJ was "lauding" the people that he mentioned in his edits. To some extent, it depends on what one means by "greats". Also, it depends on whether one should acknowledge any good points about people with bad points. Regardless, I think more (or earlier) talk and less reversion on both sides should have been done.

A couple of other comments:

  • Yes, an encyclopaedia shouldn't decide what gets included on the basis of ideology, but it's probably not possible to avoid, given that every encyclopaedia does.
  • Prominent people in particular are role models whether they want to be or not. In fact almost everyone is a role model to someone.

Philip J. Rayment 23:57, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

This is a great article but...

This is a very good conservative commentary on the sixties, but a commentary doesn't make a good encyclopedia article. Perhaps this should be moved to the Essay space? HelpJazz 21:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is an outline portrait of the decade; it would give a useful context to history students, which might not be so apparent were it consigned to the desert of 'op-ed' articles. Bugler 07:08, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
Dare I mention that this article doesn't cite a single source?CraigC 23:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)