Talk:Protests of 1968/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Removed text

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I noticed that the feminist movement and the anti-immigration movement were deleted from the movements that began in 1968 section of the article. I was courious as to the rational behind their removal.DPacman (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It might have been me, but I'm not sure what you mean. Can you find the specific edit? The feminist movement most certainly did not begin in 1968, but there were feminist protests in 1968 which are included in the article. Feminism is specifically mentioned twice, and women's lib is also mentioned, and links to Second-wave feminism. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was on the 2 of March. I originaly included the feminist movement because before the protests of this year it wasn't an effective movement. With the television coverage the movement gained as a result of the pagent protest, the movment became a viable political force. Several of my sources credited the activation of the feminist movement the most profound and longterm effect of the protests in 1968.DPacman (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an important year for feminism to my recollection, I would think the late 70's were more the point for modern feminism. Feminism seems pretty much drowned out in 1968 by other events. For feminism I would say Sufferage was a much earlier success, the several early women Presidential candidates for raising further visiblity and identity, and then the Equal Rights Amendment movement of the 70's focusing on antidiscrimination. Markbassett (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Most of the first paragraph under "First World" presents speculation as facts. The idea that the root of the protests was TV or permissive parenting is definitely a right-leaning point of view. This should either be taken out, or clearly labeled as one of several points of view. In any case, the simple fact that protests were taking place world-wide debunks these theories at the outset, but that's just my opinion. Ryanfrei (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree and please feel free to revise. 172.134.65.80 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Protests were caused by "TV or permissive parenting" is definitely one (conservative) point of view. This is bias. Deleting my minor revision is typical of those wanting to believe protesters are only mindless followers of some liberal conspiracy. Leave the edit alone. This is not a private article. Why not suggest that protesters were baby irrational liberal Democrats and not mature conservative Republicans? 172.163.11.129 (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In the References the title of Kurlansky's book is missing. I tried to complete but without success. Somebody should add (Ref. 10) the first name Mark, the title "1968: The Year That Rocked The World", pub year 2003. -- 84.176.85.176 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Geographic Pattern

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Would it be useful to add a list to the article indicating the geographic pattern of the protests? Something like this?

Europe

Czechoslovakia
Denmark
France
Germany
Italy
Poland
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom (Britain, Northern Ireland)
Yugoslavia (Serbia, Bosnia, Crotatia, Slovenia)

Western Hemisphere

Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Jamaica
Mexico
United States

What do you think? Not home (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the idea is that they are connected, it might make sense to have them listed chronologically. It's questionable whether physical geography (continents) was more important in the spread than political geography (west vs. eastern bloc). Were the protests in the United Kingdom and France more connected with those in the United States (because of shared criticisms of the west, shared access to western media/news), or with those in C/E Europe? Did they have the same motivations? Some of the current content makes the East/West split seem more useful:

"In the First World, these babies were born during a time of peace and prosperity for most countries. Permissive theories of childrearing, popular in the west, taught them that their happiness was important to others."

This simply doesn't apply to Czechoslovakia or Poland.

I'm not saying it's fair to suggest that there was no connection between what happened in the East and what happened in the West, I'm just saying that there's no reason to think the Atlantic ocean disconnected these protests. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Not home's suggestion. As it is now, (in chronological order ?) one cant easily find a particular country's material.

There is a wikipage related to France's protests with the mysterious generic redirect page 1968 student riots, but otherwise WP only has this page. I am for ordering it in regions and countries. Is TheMightyQuill still opposed to this, 6 years after...?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, I'd be opposed to reordering it. I'm not sure that division by geography is inherently better than chronological. However, I'm also not sure that the current chronological order is inherently better either. As you say, you currently can't easily find a particular country's material (which is a reasonable request), but if you reorder it geographically, you won't easily be able to see how the protests unfolded on a global scale (which is, after all, the topic of the article). If there were separate articles for the events of 1968 in each county, we could simply list them at the end by continent/country? - Themightyquill (talk) 06:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a single page is not only logical but essential, since the protests of 1968 were clearly connected. I lived through these and remember them well. Sadly. while there were many pages and video devoted to protests all over the UK, especially London, they seem to be rather difficult to find now. surfingus (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I only came here to read up a bit about 1968 and all that, but couldn't help but notice that some endnotes are missing information about what book is actually being referred to. I traced this back to this revision by User:DPacman and am attempting a quick fix: Renaming the current reference section to "Notes", and putting the book titles from the old revision here into a new reference section. Markus Pössel (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, reference for the French protests section does not contain the same information cited and makes no mention of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.159.170.166 (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Protests of 1968. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)