Talk:Counterculture of the 1960s/Archive 1

Archive 1

Issues

Wikipedia as journalism? Is Wikipedia journalism? It should be in terms of only using corroborated and referenced facts. This Wikipedia article fails on all counts. Is this how the bible came about? A bunch of lunatics who successively let their phantasies fly? This piece is an embarrassing rewrite of easily accessible and corroborated history, and typically there are no citations because the wild claims are simply not true. Anyone truly concerned about the future of Wikipedia should be ashamed of this article.

Can you please state what exactly this book says. What I am uncomfortable with is the idea that counterculture beganin sixties America which the article implies and I suspect isnt true, eg Rastafarians in Jamaica or pop bands in Liverpool, SqueakBox 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The film "Rockin' at the Red Dog" is quite long (2 hours) and presents the history in tremendous detail. It is available through Netflix. I took extensive notes just yesterday evening and added a section to the "Hippie" article. Apostle12 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is clearly a complex issue but I feel better for having slightly altered the place of the US in the first sentence. Clearly the US was a major centre for 60's counterculture but then so was the UK, beginning with the Beatles but then hitting hard in the later part of the decade. And while Jamaica didnt really become a known centre of counterculturalism till the seventies clearly what was going on there was countercultural and has had a huge impact on society since, smoking bongs while waiting for Haile Selassie I to arrive in Jamaica was, IMO, pure counterculturalism and was the seed for Bob Marly and a hundred other Rastafari reggae artists, SqueakBox 00:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Kept your addition of the UK, provided a specific quote from Hirsh, cleaned things up a bit. Apostle12 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Acceleration of the counterculture due to cannabis?

This was accelerated after 1964, when the Beatles were introduced to cannabis in a New York hotel room by Bob Dylan[4], another youth culture icon.

This is a bit over the top. It's one thing to note this in a section about music or drugs, but to claim that the counterculture of the 1960s was accelerated merely because Dylan got the Beatles stoned is a tenuous historical footnote to an otherwise larger phenomenon. The beats had been using cannabis and spreading it around more than a decade earlier. This should be removed from the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 02:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to post 1 and 2

Yes but the Beatles were a revolutionary icon, people saw them as extreemely influential and had a much larger following than the Beats. Noone said it created the counterculture but there is no denying that the Beatles smoking pot had a huge impact, getting more people to join what they were doing and creating a boost in the counterculture population.

Utter rubbish. Sophomoric. Pretentious. Absolutely revolting. Myopic. Self-important. Frivolous. Downright stupid.

And to the first point, you are right the movement started in Europe with America tagging on after it had been created long before. Not that America was just stealing from European culture, since the counterculture is based on new beliefs that anyone no matter where they are from can have,they just didn't start it and joined in when seeing something happening in the world that was truly important. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.96.67 (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC) :I removed the following from the lead: This was accelerated after 1964, when the Beatles were introduced to cannabis in a New York hotel room by Bob Dylan, another youth culture icon. There is no evidence for the assertion that the counterculture was "accelerated" from this incident. -Viriditas | Talk 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. One wouldn't believe people were capable of this if one didn't see it in black and white.

New section

Can someone put in a section about the violence of the counterculture movement? Tlatelolco, May 1968, Days of Rage; this is powerful, closely-related stuff, and we need to convey that. And by "we", I mean someone else who knows more about the subject than me. VolatileChemical (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that it is already in the article? —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Days of Rage are a number of 'freako' off-shoots in the culture. PT Barnum said there's one in every crowd. These people - the Ayers and Dohrns and other 'friends' of Obama (if you believe Fox) were and remain an oddity and not indicative of the general spirit of the era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.167.254 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Rework Per Editor Suggestions

I will attempt to bring this very difficult subject matter into proper wiki form. I'll need help. All advice and conscientious editing welcome! Personal experiences are even more critical! It is my hope that a good editor will watch over this article.Learner001 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem (as I discussed on your talk page) is still ongoing. If it isn't fixed in several days, I'm going to cleanup the article. This will mean removing most of your changes. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD. I think I've been really patient, and the layout has not improved. My editing finger is getting itchy... Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What are your specific suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor attempts to touch the lead have been deleted/reverted. Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This needs to end. I've been very patient. I'm going to restore the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

good, and thanks! other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "Background" section needs references. Look at the references in the hippie article for some pointers. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is written with a completely USA slant on the 1960s. It is therefore erroneous to call this page Counterculture of the 1960s. It more likely should be called Counterculture of the United States in the 1960s.

There were many global movements developing at the same time (but none are discussed until the end). Although in the case of this article, it would seem that the USA, because it has the most widely-known history on the subject within the English-speaking world, seems to have taken the counterculture "high ground".

Counter culture was a global phenomena, beginnings can be traced back to the immediate post-war era. The old established order, within the first decade's end of WWII, saw events like the collapse of French Indo-China, the Malay crisis, the failure at Suez, the Hungarian uprisings and the disintegrations of former colonial empires (Sic Algeria). All the time , young people around the world, from Australia to France were beginning to rebel against established authorities, counterculture was not just in the United States. (French counterculture was greatly influenced by the writings of Sartre and Albert Camus). Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse, a German author, was another popular example of literary work influencing global counterculture

The editors of this article have a problem with cause and effect. I am just pointing out that were a wider number of factors that provoked the rise of the counterculture in the 1960s. But reading this article, suggests that it was the US that codified these causes and created the 60s counterculture, which is patently untrue.

For instance, within (West) Germany, France and Belgium the jazz club culture was growing since the 50s paralleling the beatniks in the US.

Points, points and more more points. Until they are addressed this article is incorrect in tone, scope and accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.73.140 (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The article was originally intended to describe the global counterculture movement in the 1960s. Recent edits have changed the scope considerably without attention to this topic. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Original intentions? I'm curious as to that. More important: perhaps someone might put and document it (international counterculture of the 1960s) in better writing by making meaningful written contributions to the article in support of these contentions, rather than simply stating dissatisfaction. Nothing against editing, but when it comes to judgment calls on partiality I believe it can be easily resolved by additional contribution. In this case, nothing relevant outside of the US detracts from what did occur in the States. There ARE international sections. The history in the US speaks for itself, irrespective of anyone's search for a revisionist "worldview" beyond what is already there. Additions to the international sections should be wholeheartedly welcomed. The lead is a perfect place to start. An easy reorganization as to geography is also possible. Go for it! Isn't that the whole point of this enterprise? BTW, thanks folks!Learner001

Let's start here, not the lead section. Where and when did the counterculture of the 1960s officially start? Hint: The peace sign Start there. Viriditas (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

send me a email to s t o l l m a i l AT y a h o o DOT com. I really want to chat on this. I can delete my address later, if allowed.

I'm going offline for now, but I spam-proofed your e-mail above. Viriditas (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks. whenever you get the chance.

Maybe mention that it cut across class lines

I'm glad this article does not, as so many other discussions do, identify the counterculture as a middle class rebellion, a rebellion of privilege. But maybe it should be mentioned that participation was among people from all social classes and very many ethnic and social backgrounds.

I was in San Francisco for about half a year in 1967/68. In Haight-Ashbury, the young people who came there were from the Ozarks, Appalachia, New England, New York, Texas, the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, besides California. They were not just white, but also black, Chicano, Asian, native indian, and other. Some had college or university educations, some had not finished highschool. A lot came there with very little or no money in their pockets or purses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.59.54 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Original Research tag

I removed the original research tag, because I could only find one citation needed. This is a well-cited article. Air (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled that you see this article as well-cited. I see a lot of statements that need citations, particularly in the later part of the article. However, I don't think this is OR, so that was probably the wrong template.--SabreBD (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've gone and specified which sections particularly need more references. Some sections are lacking in references, and many are written a bit like an editorial with POV included in the sentence constructions. They'll need to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic in style/tone. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Pruning the chronology

Recently there have been a lot of additions to the 'Chronology of events and milestones' yearly subsections - I've been at it too! There is no problem with this, and I, for one, have been trying to broaden the scope and dilute the US centricity. However, I do think that the time will come when we have to review those subsections and do some pruning. We'll have to set some kind of worldwide notability hurdle, some kind of counterculture relevance benchmark, and then agree to remove some entries that don't really meet them. Any thoughts for how to approach this are welcome. In the meantime, the more we have to choose from, the better, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree on a full global scope, but (as you say) notability is most important. Let's see if the entries build up a bit, and what direction they are going in. Format could be improved, too. No more than one line per entry(?) The whole article needs a complete re-do, but... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Learner001 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on recent entries, the time for signifcant redaction is nearly at hand. Learner001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's a plan. First, the topic of the article is Counterculture of the 1960s, so the entries for before and after this decade should be limited to those that lead directly up to, or follow directly from, the items in the main listing 1960-69.

Here, I think, with duplication removed are the main topics from the decade.

1960

beatnik; long hair; Timothy Leary; hallucinogens; protests against segregation (US); sit-ins; nuclear arms race; John F. Kennedy; birth control pill; The Sexual Revolution.

1961

Bay of Pigs; Vietnam.

1962

Bob Dylan; The Beatles; Cuban Missile Crisis

1963

feminism; Newport Folk Festival; Martin Luther King; Communism.

1964

psychedelic; "underground" and counterculture; draft-card burning; Civil Rights Act; Riots; Free Speech Movement; Lenny Bruce.

1965

Malcolm X; LSD; Joan Baez; Hell's Angels; hippies; protest songs; The Mamas and the Papas; communes.

1966

Resurgence magazine; The Byrds; marijuana; the Rolling Stones; Frank Zappa; Donovan; The Monkees; The Beach Boys; Black Panther Party.

1967

The “Human Be-In”; Jefferson Airplane; Noam Chomsky; Muhammad Ali; student protests; "Summer of Love"; race riots; Monterey Pop Festival; Jimi Hendrix; Che Guevara; The rock musical Hair; US Magazine Rolling Stone. “Yippie”; The Moody Blues.

1968

Progressive Rock; Maharishi Mahesh Yogi; reggae; "Love-In"s; Andy Warhol; Isle of Wight Festival; The Whole Earth Catalog; Earthrise.

1969

President Nixon; Yoko Ono; flower children; gay rights; Easy Rider; Woodstock festival; Penthouse Magazine; Friends of the Earth.

I have been quite ruthless in the following regards: The topic is 'counterculture', not US history in general. The topic is global, so an event involving a few thousand people that didn't have serious worldwide repercussions is not really huge. Regarding repetition above, I have also been ruthless, but the implication is that if we introduce a topic, like Vietnam, then many key Vietnam stories will appear in the actual list in the article, e.g. start of war, draft, draft avoidance, anti-war protests, notable casualties, end of the war etc. I could have left out the year headings above, they are only there to help with navigation or orientation. I'm pleasantly surprised by how short the final list above is - that's few enough that we can pretty well decide on the story line for each topic, and make sure that all the entries in the article list play a part in introducing and telling one or more of the above stories. If I have left out your favourite topic, please discuss it below, as, the way I'm thinking, maybe if it's not part of one of our agreed key story lines, it won't make the final cut in the article. What do people think? --Nigelj (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems you have sorted out the entries you think should stay and should go, but it's too hard to tell from the above if for example you consider Hunter S. Thompson to be counterculture-related, or if Rolling Stone Magazine is covered under something else, etc. It might be clearer to list all the ones you think don't make the cut. Maybe suggest a few at a time, in case some entail more explanation or discussion. I did remove one myself because I couldn't see it having a whole lot to do with the Counterculture, namely Ralph Nader's book about the automobile industry. Some others look kind of iffy as far as being counterculture-related, but all in all this list is one where I am particularly proud of all of our group efforts, and I can imagine it has already allowed a lot of readers to visit or revisit those times in a small way. Also let us bear in mind that eventually (but no rush or hurry) every single thing will need a cite, and I have made sure that I had a source in front of me for every item when I added it, in preparation for this. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I take what you're saying - that I left out Rolling Stone Magazine and Hunter S. Thompson. I agree instantly with the first and have added it above, but personally, I've never heard of Hunter S. Thompson, or read his book, but I heard plenty about the Hell's Angels. Now, I'm not the final arbiter, or even any kind of expert, and if others think he needs to be there, that's fine. I'm just trying to make some progress. I think the lists are too big at the moment, but even on that score I'm only expressing one opinion. Let's see what others think. Once we've had a few comments here, to gauge the water, I'm happy to produce a draft listing of what would be left by my reckoning and post it here for further comment. I'm only trying to facilitate, not even to lead, let alone dictate :-) --Nigelj (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the safest way to proceed would be to name one, or at most a few specific entries at a time to see if everyone concurs on axing them. I don't see anything wrong with a thorough and detailed outline, but the relevance to the counterculture should certainly be obvious for all items. If you think it is making this article overly long, we could certainly split it to Timeline of the 1960s Counterculture and expand it even more. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll start by nominating this one: 1968 December 24: Earthrise, a photograph of the Earth, is taken from Moon orbit. "The most influential environmental photograph ever taken." I don't mean to burn whoever added it, but is it really important to the counterculture? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's one I would dispute, and I included it as a keeper in my list above. The reasons are mainly in this video: http://vimeo.com/55073825 --Nigelj (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My flash player is messed up and unfortunately, I can't see vimeo. I wasn't sure if that pic was really that iconic as counterculture symbolism. But sources like this showed me otherwise, so I guess that one is a keeper. Anyway, what do you say about splitting the timeline as a separate article? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is certainly a thought. The current article length is 123 KB[1] and WP:LENGTH recommends 30 to 50 KB of 'readable prose'. But User:Dr_pda/prosesize comes up with "Prose size (text only): 39 kB (6136 words) "readable prose size"", so actually it's OK on length grounds, I think. --Nigelj (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Great to see discussion on this! I like the idea of a timeline because it walks you through an era with short bullets. Relevance should go without saying. It should not be a history of the '60s, or every acid party or music fest that occurred, simply because of the # of events. Global takes a backseat to notability, but lets dig out global things of note that have been over-looked. KEEP ENTRIES TO ONE LINE, I suggest, unless impossible. Split is fine with me. We have format, tense, and hyperlink issues as well. Maybe we should call a moratorium on new entries until there is some consensus, and we have footnoted every existing entry. No entries w/o a ref in article? open to all ideas here, but I think we need a process before anything else is added. Veriditas had to delete some photos as not PD. Maybe we can find some new image sources, too. Learner001 (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

New Photos in Whitespace at Top

I put a couple of new images to fill the new whitespace created by the longer contents. Thoughts? I'm not sure I like this look, or image sizes?, but I hate the waste of space w/o images there. Anyone with good graphic skills following? Thoughts? ThanksLearner001 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline Criteria? (Pruning Part II)

Criteria for Timeline (my proposal):

First, I think the timeline is a potentially valuable resource. A lot of work has been put into it. Thoughts on this?

Each entry (Event, Milestone, or otherwise) must be:

• Of significance specifically to the cc era, or be significantly valuable to framing the context. E.g., JFK was not a cc figure per se', but his election, larger policies, and murder are highly relevant.
• In reference to, or dealing directly with a subject matter or person discussed in prose in the article.
• Footnoted from at least one reliable outside source. (No one is questioning the occurrence of the entries, but let's simply document them as best we can.)
• Notable: quirkier things which may not be instantly remembered by some may be quite notable to others here. This is the cc, after all. The 89th (e.g.) anti-war rally or riot may or may not be notable, particularly if there are better pages for such entries. Again, the timeline should walk someone who "was there," or who wants to know what it was like, down memory lane, in some sense. I have no problem with the large quantity of entries, as long as they are of quality. A lot happened in a short period of time. We should probably err on the side of inclusion for things already listed, and then prune according to agreed criteria.
• Subject to edit/undo from others - without edit wars - for some agreed period of time. This has not been an issue yet.
• One Line, in the proper tense, with care for over-hyper-linking etc. (if entries are already mentioned in the article, there should be virtually no links in the timeline).
• Global should speak for itself. If it's global, and notable, there should be no need for forced inclusion.

Alternative: a prose chronology, with a short paragraph on the events of that month, or day, as needed.

All input welcomed!Learner001 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• One line - sounds like a good principle, but in a few cases there seems to be no way any meaningful information can be conveyed in one line. I'm guessing you mean "be as brief as possible" and not literally one line, since most of the entries you wrote 'one line' in the edit summaries, still take up more than one line on my screen, though they are a little shorter.
• Not appearing in text - A few of the things in this category that I added, I stumbled across while researching this, but I think they are still formative and perhaps should be addressed in the text rather than removed from the timeline. Example - only lately I bumped into How to Speak Hip 1959, this may not technically be in the 60s decade defined chronologically, but it is undoubtedly formative. The article links to a great source where you can not only hear the whole recording, but read all the liner notes, and this is the nascent counterculture that it later grew out of and was widely copied.
• Repeated similar events. Each type of repeated counterculture-related activity event seems to have its own season or phase. Here's my rough break-down.

1938-1960 official work with LSD

1938-1948 Jazz, hipsters in Harlem

1948-1963 Beats, Greenwich Village

1945-1963 Atomic bombs developed (more often called Atom bombs at the time I think)

1947- HUAC and official anti-communist measures

1950-1964 Early Indochina involvement

1953-1960 Precursor to Sexual Revolution

1957-1962 Activist groups against arms race, etc

1960-1963 Civil rights movement: Sit-in phase, freedom rider phase, Dr King's ministry

1962-1965 early Folk music, English Beat music (the Beatles)

1963-1966 Antiwar (Vietnam) protests; Draft card burning phase

1963-1964 Civil rights movement: class boycott phase

1964-1973 Psychedelic music and all its offshoots

1964- Underground press (newspapers, magazines etc)

1964-1975 Sporadic (usually summers) city riots, often deadly response surpassing Kent State toll

Late 1964: Free Speech movement, Berkeley

1965-1968 - First US Bombing of N. Vietnam

1965-1966 - Recreational use of legal LSD among early hippie groups, Pranksters etc.

1965-1971 - Semi-hip television shows, media coverage of cc (news, magazines etc)

November 1965 - Self Immolations phase during a spate of huge protest marches

1966 - Reaction against LSD and illegalization

May 1966: First student takeovers and major campus protest rallies

Oct 1966-1967 Black Panther Party

1967 - Large hippie gatherings, Summer of Love

April 1967: Conscientious objectors

May 1967: Students getting killed by police at campus protests

1967-1974 Veterans protest against the war

1967-197 Large rock festivals

Oct 1967: Protests begin at draft centers including clergy, celebrities

1967-1971 - Yippies

1968-1972 Official reports on unrest, cannabis etc, that usually embarrass establishment

1968 - Reggae takes off

March-July 1968 - Another phase of campus takeovers (all over the globe in fact)

Apr 1968 - Dr King assassinated, day after saying he has seen the promised land from the mountaintop, + aftermath

1968: May 22, June 3, June 15: Spate of FBI / Marshals invading churches in the Northeast USA and dragging out draft evaders despite angry crowds gathered outside to protect them. This was a crescendo of the anti-draft movement; I actually censored myself out of sensitivity and did not add it to the timeline, but this phase did happen.

May-June 1968: Resurrection City

August: Chicago Democratic Convention and aftermath

Nov. 1968 to May 1969 - Another spate of student uprisings and takeovers

1968-1973 Nasa and Moon Program (it seems on the web more people today think this was all a Nixon-era fake than think Paul is dead?)

May 1969: People's Park; Greensboro uprising; Bed-In for Peace

Mid 1969-1975 Weatherman / Weather Underground active

August 1969: Woodstock, Manson

September 1969-Feb 1970: Chicago 8/7 trials

November 1969-May 1973: American Indian movements' takeovers

1970-1971 - Extension of voting rights to 18 yr olds in UK and US, to end the 'Summertime Blues' argument

1970 - Breakup of Beatles and development of Soft Rock

Feb-May 1970 - Spate of campus riots, and shutdowns after Kent State

May 1970 - Peak of counterprotest (pro-war) demonstrations, others occurred around this same time but are not on list

August 1970 - Ruben Salazar killed at Chicano Moratorium, an event later covered prominently by Hunter S Thompson in his studies of the counterculture

Sep-Oct 1970 - Loss of two cc icons, Jimi and Janis

Feb-Mar 1971 - spate of bombings at draft centers and govt bldgs

Apr-May 1971 - Massive protests in Washington DC, protesters stop traffic, climb statues, raise Viet Cong flag at US Capitol bldg, etc.

Jun 1971 - Pentagon Papers struggle, embarrassing administration

Jul-Oct 1971 - Loss of Jim Morrisson and Duane Allman

Dec 1971 - Veterans attempt takeovers at Statue of Liberty and Lincoln Memorial

Apr 1972-Jan 1973 Second bombing of N Vietnam

Apr-May 1972 - Spate of protests, demonstrations and bombings

Jun 1972-1974 Watergate scandal grows as President's deceit is exposed

Jan 1-15 1973 - Widespread international protests and criticism of US govt from several W. European allies as Vietnam bombing intensifies, then suddenly halts.

Jan 15-Aug 1973 US begins disengaging rapidly from Vietnam, draft is ended

1974 - Cultural shifts become evident. Veterans stage one last take-over of the Statue of Liberty, prompting jokes of "Tell her the war's over, she can put her arm down now!" (Not added due to sensitivity). SLA fringe group floruit. Nixon resigns, replaced by Ford .

Sep.-Nov 1975 - Senate Committee on Intelligence makes a series of public revelations about the FBI and CIA's activity during the 1960s, including reading mail of prominent Americans including Dr. King and Richard Nixon, burglaries against US citizens, attempts to discredit Dr. King, and attempts to assassinate Castro and five other foreign heads of state. (Not added to timeline due to sensitivity)

Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outstanding input! Many we could color-code sub-eras, or make a clickable table(?). But let's not remove anything from the timeline now without it being discussed here, I propose. We will prune back, consolidate, and look carefullly at these other, well-presented options. The one-tine thing is a format/readability/economy issue. Clean, single lines of info. Not sure how WP format works on various machines/screens. That's what that was about, but also being forced-frugal on verbiage, as it's a timeline entry, not an article. I hold fast to that. Sentences, not graphs. Generally, every topic should be discussed in the larger article, directly or otherwise. An entry or two that falls out of that "model" is trivial to the larger notability question. Not an issue. Let's allow this to set for a bit, carefully watch the page and timeline, and concentrate on DOCUMENTING/FOOTNOTING the existing prose material! That's the greatest contrib we can make now. Meanwhile, how about a list of entries demanded/suggested for deletion, if they are so objectionable? I have a few, but I'm growing more liberal after mutliple readings of the interesting timeline. I'm sure many of mine are seen as worthy of deletion, too. No prob. All good? Learner001 (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't someone clean up the paragraph about cannabis use?

Someone looks to be interjecting their own personal opinions on the illegalisation of cannabis in the background section and it upsets the neutrality of the article.

For example calling penalties for use "outrageous". I'm not sure if the classification of cannabis as a narcotic is "pharmaceutically inaccurate" or not- I am not expert on the matter. But the whole paragraph sounds like a rant and only has one citation concerning drug use.

I think someone who knows their stuff needs to take a look at that paragraph and make changes to make it seem less of a rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The lyniezian (talk • contribs) 16:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)