Talk:1970s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

this page is crap - full of bland generalizations and factual vaguries...sounds like a poorly-written narrative in one of the notoriously inaccurate high school textbooks currently in use. recommend deletion until someone with a clue gives it an overhaul.

• Well volunteered - it's great to see such energy and initiative. You are obviously brimming with fresh new ideas, so go for it and be bold. If you get yourself a proper user id, we can follow your progress. --Stephen Burnett 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1970s was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on June 19, 2005. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

I don't like all the US "world leaders", Agnew, Mondale, Rockefeller. What happens when every country adds its roster of second-rank politicians? "World leaders" itself seems a rather NPOV term, or at least vague. Hotlorp

I removed Olivia Newton-John and Gordon Lightfoot from the list of entertainers, because I don't think they're important enough. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I doubt it can be backed up. Tuf-Kat

I've added Loretta Lynn to the entertainers because she was voted "Artist of the Decade" by the Academy of Country Music. Why are there two categories for musical entertainers? Tiles 04:58 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

I just moved all the musicians that were in the 'Entertainers' section to the 'Music' section. I think the problem arose because most of the other 'decade' pages don't have a 'Music' section, and musicians were put into the Entertainers section. Later on, someone probably decided to add a 'Music' section but forgot to move the musicians that were already listed. --Lancevortex 11:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I've removed the red-linked entertainers (Shaun Cassidy, Marlo Thomas, Cheryl Tiegs, Jimmie Walker), as in my opinion, if they're not considered major enough to have a Wikipedia article, then they're not major enough to be on the list of Entertainers of the decade. Feel free to disagree and reinstate! --Lancevortex 11:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I guess somebody finds them major enough now, since Shaun Cassidy, Marlo Thomas, Cheryl Tiegs, and Jimmie Walker all have articles. *Dan* 02:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

---

Added Secretariat as a Sports Figure - as he was (and is) a major icon of the 1970s.

Contents 1 Superstars and idols 2 Saddam Hussein 3 The Seventies 4 Relevant Discussion 5 "The latter half of the decade"? American bias? 6 Confusion?

[edit] Superstars and idols

Were the 1970s really more of "an age of superstars and idols in sports, music, literature and film" than any other decade since the 1920s (see Events and Trends -- Culture)? I would vote to delete that comment. --Lancevortex 10:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Hello, I moved Saddam Hussein, who was mispelleds and in the wrong column, along with entertainers

[edit] The Seventies

I removed the redirect at The Seventies and the COTW notice. ℬastique▼^talk 03:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somebody recently merged The Sixties into the 1960s, so perhaps the same should be done with The Seventies? *Dan* 02:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly fond of the merge, as it had previously been voted down. See here, [1]Falphin 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to vote again. I can't think of a rational reason to have two separate articles. It's arbitrary and non-reinforceable by outside norms that people here consider "the Seventies" (spelled out) to refer to a sort of broader historical gestalt and "1970s" to refer to something more, I don't know, clinical. I don't see how you can support the distinction as existing in the world outside Wikipedia. Moncrief 18:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The rational is that the articles are unique from the others in that they cover different topics. The original 1970's was just a list like all the other decade articles while the current 1970's article is in prose which is different from most of the other decade articles. Falphin 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant Discussion

I thought I should post the relevant discussion assuming this remains merged considering it includeds a peer review, and discussion about the information on this article. Falphin 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the situation then and now are quite different. Back then, The Sixties was a standalone article. Now it's merged to 1960s, making the former Seventies article the only one like this. Personally, I think the decade articles should have been like Sixties/Seventies the whole time, and now changing them from simple lists to more in-depth discussion is better for the encyclopedia and the people who read it. Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thats my issue is that they aren't. I've never liked the decade articles and would much prefer them to be called, "List of topics,events, and important figures during the 320's" or something like that. I don't mind the fact that it is merged in 1970's its just that it and the 60's are stand alone for the most part. They are kind of the ugly ducklings except that they have the shiny coats. Falphin 02:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "The latter half of the decade"? American bias?

The 1970s in its most obvious sense refers to the decade between 1970 and 1979, but in a pop cultural aspect refers especially to the latter half of that decade.

I disagree with this, and it may reflect an American bias in the article. In Britain, "Glam Rock" was very popular and remains part of the "Seventies" stereotype. However, it was clearly associated with the first half of the decade (possibly 1971 or 1972 to 1975, or 1976 at latest). In fact, I'd assert that the phrase "seventies" in Britain is more likely to conjure up the image of "glam rock" than of "punk". Of course, it's been argued that (in the UK at least), the early 1970s were musically (and culturally to some extent separate) from the second half; my point is that 'the 1970s' in Britain is as much the first half of the decade (1971/72 onwards) as the second half.

Of course, disco was extremely popular here too, but not quite in the all-encompassing, decade-overshadowing manner in which it was in the US.

Whilst American cultural influence undoubtedly alters the perception of a decade, and we're discussing the *perception* of the decade here, we're not seeking to alter the perception itself (or at least we shouldn't be), and should at least reflect the current view of 'the Seventies'.

Any thoughts?

Fourohfour 13:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed that pop cultural bit. I think it was added very recently. And if there's any bias, by any means, add the information in. During the Collaboration of the Week, it was edited by mostly American editors, leading to somewhat of a bias. I tried tackling things like world history but there are still gaping holes. Mike H. That's hot 18:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion?

"Sometimes the 1970s are confounded to the 198th decade, i.e. the ten years from 1971 up to and including 1980. " Can we have a cite for this suprising statement. The next sentence is even odder "The United States, which had become an influential global power, experienced much of the transition. " looks like it's been orphaned. Rich Farmbrough 18:48 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Remove "198th." However, there is a minority editor who will no doubt re-add the "198th decade" bit. The transition bit does make sense and is described in the lead itself. Growing at a rapid pace, recession hit in the 1970s, which was not worldwide. Mike H. That's hot 23:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still confused. What transition? Farmbrough is absolutely right. Please read the section as it is now, Mike. It makes no sense; there isn't a referent for what the "transition" might be. Moncrief 14:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then add it. The transition is from bustling economic power to stagflation. Mike H. That's hot 09:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is that I'm supposed to be adding. It's the second sentence in the article, and it makes absolutely no sense. Moncrief 05:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why the onus is on me to add something for which I have no context. There's a sentence there with no referent. Why that is, I have no idea. If anything, I'll take out the entire sentence - or at least the part after "The US had become a global power" - until this strange thing can be fixed by someone who understands it. Moncrief 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed "defeat in Vietnam" to "Withdrawl from Vietnam". The US did indeed withdrawl. Calling it a defeat is a opinion. Defeat in battle? Policy Defeat? Poltical defeat? We are trying to be objective and keeping in the spirit of Wiki.--NetOps 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)