Talk:The Seventies

The Seventies received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Size issues:

I figure by the end of the week, we'll push the article into something like 75 or even 100k. I don't think we should refactor into daughter articles until the week is over, that way we know what we have to ship over and not leave anything behind. Any objections? Mike H 15:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Lets get the work done then at the end cut and send the television and movie text into their own main articles.

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List

I wanted to discuss the personal and cultural impact, like The Sixties did. This is just becoming a list, like 1970s. Mike H 03:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

We will, we will... the list is just to get us started... This just passed Navy in votes. It's likely to be the COTW tomorrow. ℬastique▼^talk 04:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stay groovy, man... ℬastique▼^talk 04:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See what I'm talkin' about brother? ℬastique▼^talk 04:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've started my Seventies in Television section. Can you start another section, like Music or Cinema? Mike H 18:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna take a crack at expanding the Literature section, since that's what I know most about. I may also try the music, since I know some (not necessarily disco or pop, but the rock components), if I get a chance. Volatile 21:22, June 19, 2005 (UTC)

Literature section is Done! I don't know how to post pictures, so if someone could do that, it'd be awesome. Also, the section might use some link-checks. G'night! Volatile 1:05, June 20, 2005 (UTC)

Working on Seventies in Cinema !Volatile 19:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seventies in Cinema done Volatile 22:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Enviromentalism

Would enviromentalism be best under Economy or Culture? 1970 was the first year of Earth Day(Culture) while at the same time opposition to Nuclear energy(economy?) grew towards the middle and end of the the Seventies. Falphin 00:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would say that would be best under economy, but explain why. Mike H 00:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think a new section for "social movements" should be started, which includes environmentalism.

Merge

I have added a template to merge this into 1970s. The two concepts are the same or similar enough that there is no reason to have both articles separate. --SPUI (talk) 02:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check, Sixties, the Roaring Twenties etc. This is the COTW and so the article is only in its infant stages but it will be good by the end of the week. Falphin 02:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- How would you separate this from 1970s without large amounts of overlap? --SPUI (talk) 02:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - I believe the best way for me to answer that is for you to read this article. Falphin 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, decade articles are generally just lists, and the Seventies was an important cultural decade as was agree upon at the COTW. Falphin 02:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why does 1970s have to be a list? Why can't what's going here instead be done there, and if necessary the lists can be broken off into articles like World leaders active during the 1970s? --SPUI (talk) 02:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Because those articles are always lists, and they aren't meant to go in depth. Falphin 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The decade articles are lists of what happened during the decade. The Sixties (and hopefully, The Seventies) seek to explain the cultural and personal aspects of it...you know, how they happened and why they happened. Mike H 02:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
- And thus what happened, which is a total overlap with the purpose of 1970s. --SPUI (talk) 02:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - The decade articles don't ever go into any depth. If you merged it, it would be the first time this has ever been done, and every decade article would then have to be completely overhauled, and I don't know if that's something that should be discussed just here. Mike H 02:18, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    - So isn't it a better idea to do it before all the duplicates are created? --SPUI (talk) 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      - Not during the first day of a COTW that 23 people voted on, it's not. People voted on The Seventies, not 1970s. Mike H 02:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  - Plus, then you have to do it with every decade. Those articles work better as lists and maintain uniformity from beginning to end. ℬastique▼^talk 02:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to concur with my associates. The 1970s represents a list of what happened. This article represents what it was about. ℬastique▼^talk 02:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And "what happened" is part of "what it was about". --SPUI (talk) 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia separates those kinds of things. Don't ask me why. Mike H 02:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
    - SPUI... I don't think you're quite getting the concept. The 1970s is a catalogue article. As are the 1460s and the 1120s. Nobody is really going to write about the concepts of the Eleven Twenties because nobody really knows what they were about. ℬastique▼^talk 02:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Merge or not, I think we should wait until this is no longer on the COTW to merge it! I kinda think it shouldn't be merged though. --Phroziac (talk) 02:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever merge idea is decided upon, I agree this should wait until the week is over. "Pre-emptive" as this move might be to SPUI, large-scale editing has started and the COTW should not be disturbed. Mike H 02:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

1970s is meant to be a simple list of topics more or less while The Seventies is an article. That's how things are for other decades. gren 02:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That would make it the house style, which is why I voted not to merge. --Phroziac (talk) 02:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to leave a note of support for SPUI's idea here. I don't really see a huge reason to keep these separate. More importantly, I think that many people will link to either one arbitarily, and if they're going to be left as separate articles, very clear links should be left between the articles at the top, and someone should consider going through the backlinks. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its the common practice, I do agree with you that the links need to be fixed and clarified.. I will do that tommorow. Falphin 03:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I don't believe many people will actually link to The Seventies without intending it to go to this article, and vice versa, I nevertheless added a disclaimer at the top of this article. Perhaps someone can do the same for the 1970s article. ℬastique▼^talk 03:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

International

The article is becoming frightfully Amerocentric. Is there anyone who can contribute with some reasonable idea about the international part? ℬastique▼^talk 02:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole idea of a collaboration is to contribute what you know. I've contributed what I know...I'm a bit disheartened that nobody else is helping. Mike H 02:20, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a little bit and helped organize it! I didn't see any notice posted on my Talk page either! Did you do that? ℬastique▼^talk 02:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its still early in the COTW, I intend to contribute more but today is Fathers day. Falphin 02:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to add the COTWvoter to the user pages. I could do that tommorow but I can't today with family over. Falphin 02:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mike says he did but just didn't bother with us because we already knew... ℬastique▼^talk 02:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, just wanted to make sure. Falphin 02:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Falphin? sterilized! You know what I mean... ℬastique▼^talk 02:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's the first day... most of us are going to be Anglo-centric unfortunately... gren 02:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must agree, and was about to write a note to that effect when I saw that you'd already done it. As it stands, in my opinion it should probably be retitled somehow to reflect its US-centric perspective. However I'll certainly help to correct some of the grammar and spellings in any case. jamesgibbon 11:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's just it...it's not SUPPOSED to be just an American article. By all means, the best way to rectify the Amerocentric slant is to WRITE MORE ABOUT THE REST OF THE WORLD. Please, will you? Mike H 15:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Free to Be You and Me

Where should this be mentioned? TV in US? This is a rather important set of books and TV specials, and I'm leaning toward TV because it was developed by actress Marlo Thomas. Any thoughts? Mike H 04:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Cinema

Volatile, I know you're still editing the Cinema section, but a must-mention in that section is Hal Ashby, who directed the groundbreaking films Harold and Maude and Being There. Mike H 21:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Done with Seventies in Cinema! Long write, lol. Did mention Ashby's Being There towards the end of the article. Feel free to spell/grammar check, because I'm sure there's plenty I've missed; as well as add anything I've missed. Thanks! Volatile 22:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

70s in Music

The Seventies will be most remembered for the rise in disco music -- umm, I think that's POV? It is remembered for that... but, is that more important that punk or later Zeppelin to most people? I'm not sure about that... it'd need to be sourced from some reliable survey. gren 16:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. I would prefer something along the lines of: Disco was a prominent form of a music, reaching its height of popularity between the years (year) and (year). Volatile 18:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's too POV to say when somebody thinks of the Seventies, they think of disco. I can tell you more think of disco than of punk. Mike H 18:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a little POV... Maybe you can change it to To many people, the Seventies will be most remembered for the rise in disco music? ℬastique▼^talk 18:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's better. I'll change it. Mike H 18:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal... but, I don't think that constitutes common knowledge, nor is there a source. As I can tell from the presidential election, there are definite regional biases. The change is better... I still disagree... and, I just want to voice that, even if it doesn't get changed. gren 02:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must say I really do think many more people think of something other than disco when they think of the term "70s music". More will think of long-haired rock bands with epic guitar solos, prog rock, Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Yes and so on. jamesgibbon 12:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cinema picture

I replaced the Godfather VHS cover with another event resulting from the movie's success -- when Marlon Brando boycotted the awards and sent an Indian woman instead. Mike H 19:18, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

70's in Television - UK

I am about to write something for this topic. So far it's just a list, which needs some boiling down in the comedy area, and probably needs a bit more material in areas like documentary, history and news:

COMEDY Porridge, Rising Damp, Dad's Army, The Benny Hill Show, The Goodies, The Good Life, Last Of The Summer Wine, Monty Python's Flying Circus, Man About The House, Please, Sir, Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em, Till Death Us Do Part, Up Pompeii, Man About The House, Are You Being Served?, Minder (79)

CHILDREN'S Blue Peter

SPY / ACTION The New Avengers, The Professionals, The Sweeney

SCI-FI Doctor Who, Blake's Seven

DRAMA: Play For Today, Pennies From Heaven Dennis Potter - Brimstone and Treacle 1976, banned on BBC till 87

MUSIC: Top Of The Pops, The Old Grey Whistle Test

SOAPS: Upstairs Downstairs ,Coronation Street ,Crossroads

HISTORY / CULTURE Ascent of Man

DOCUMENTARY / NEWS: Nationwide, Panorama

Most of the news and soaps of course were not restricted to the 70's but they comprised a significant proportion of TV output so need some mention.

I shall start with what I have, but any further suggestions are welcome.

Stephen Burnett 00:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Soaps are good. I'd mention the rise of Crossroads in 1973 following Pat Phoenix's departure from Corrie. The soap viewers were looking for a strong woman, and critics hypothesized that Noele Gordon fit the bill. 1973, coincidentally, was one of Corrie's worst-rated years ever. Mike H 03:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will follow that one up Stephen Burnett 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Variety shows? ℬastique▼^talk 04:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just found a reference to a show called Rod Hull and Emu. (Huh?) ℬastique▼^talk 04:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes :) Rod Hull was very big in the 70's. Emu was a bird puppet carried on Rod Hull's arm, with his hand inside the bird's beak. The bird didn't talk (a bit like a ventriloquist act, only without the ventriloquism). What the bird did do was to attack people with little provocation and no warning at all, and essentially the humour came from knowing what was going to happen, but not being sure when. Stephen Burnett 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And then there were the Game shows! ℬastique▼^talk 04:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many game shows in the UK were copies of US shows (which, funnily enough, aren't mentioned in the TV section I wrote). Mike H 04:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

for quiz / game shows I have

Ask The Family,Call My Bluff,The Generation Game,The Golden Shot,It's A Knockout,The Krypton Factor,Mastermind,University Challenge, Sale Of The Century,The Sky's the Limit,Three Two One,Top Of The Form,What's My Line Stephen Burnett 07:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so if UK quiz shows were copies of US game shows, and US sit coms were copies of UK sit coms, then why can't they be combined into one section!!!! :) (Just kidding...don't mean to start anything) ℬastique▼^talk 15:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've now added a bit on sitcoms and police series, they will need wikifying eventually. I need to work in a little about representation of women and racial minorities - women were primarily victims, or perhaps junior-rank police officers. The first police drama - Juliet Bravo - to present a woman as a high-ranking police officer would not come until the end of the decade. Comments welcome - I'm Looking at variety shows at the moment Stephen Burnett 07:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marshall plan mention

"The Marshall Plan that was implemented at the end of World War II brought out a renewed Europe out of the ashes of the war in the very early 1970s."

I would like to remove this line because I feel it inaccurately dates the beginning of European recovery. lots of issues | leave me a message 11:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the results of the Marshall Plan pretty much yielded a rebuilt Europe by the 1970s...it certainly didn't start then. Mike H 15:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hirohito

I want to mention Hirohito's state visits to Europe in 1971, and the anti-Japanese sentiment. Where can I mention that? Should I start a Japan section? Mike H 15:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the only way possible. I think we are going to go overboard on size. Is there already a bicent. entry? Could we trim our section to a view lines, merging the discarded with that article?
- I really did want there to be a picture of the Bicentennial, since it was a rather important part of life in the Seventies...but I won't be heartbroken if the picture goes and the Bicentennial section is edited to be in the "US" section. Mike H 15:41, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Parts of the intro

"In much of the world, it is remembered as the decade of the rise of new middle class, challenging old social hierarchies and bringing new hope for successive generation. However these dreams remained unfulfilled for much of the world and hence creating a lingering nostalgia for its passion for change and its hope for a prosperous and egalitarian society."

My impression is that it was a economic slump decade - no condition for the building of a new middle class. I would think the the part about challenging old hierarchies and bringing new hope treads on stronger memory nostalgia ppl have for the 60s. Anyone think this part should be cut?

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that part you removed describes the 1960s much better than the 1970s. The "Me Decade" philosophy could very well fit all over the world, as economics took center stage. Mike H 19:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

"However, the rise in a global middle class brought about at the same time a challenge to long-held social hierarchy. This consequently saw the duality of democratic transition amid increasing information blockade and ever-increasing numbers of people seeking urban life over an agrarian economy." I don't want to chainsaw wreck other people's work, but I feel those lines sound unsupported.

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if they were supported, it would still fit into the mold of the Sixties and not the Seventies. Mike H 19:23, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

When one takes the world economy ( and I suppose when writing an article onh the seventies all human beings are included) then the rise in middle class was in the seventies. Of course the west especially America felt the pain of the Oil shock which I have mentioned in the section on world wide trends of the 70s. However I wrote the section on rising middle class to represent the aspect of much of the third world countries where much of the rise of middle class happened in the early seventies.

Besides why have sections been removed without discussion. sections have been removed on the opinions of just one or two individuals. That is POV.

User Lotsofissues wrote:

 "My impression is that it was a economic slump decade - no 
 condition for the building of a new middle class.  I would think the 
 the part about challenging old hierarchies and bringing new hope 
 treads on stronger memory nostalgia ppl have for the 60s."<<

Mike wrote:

"Even if they were supported, it would still fit into the 
 mold of the Sixties and not the Seventies."

this makes this article american-centric. which is okay with me. However if one claims to write an article on the seventies of entire humanity, then it is fallacious to equate that with the decline of the 60s in the west the same happened in the third world. Instead the changes in the west in the 60s started making its impact in Asia and much of the third world in the early seventies, only to be prematurely halted by the Oil shock. That is if one is truly interested in a global article. which is why I kept on adding the phrase In much of the world which by the way happens to be the third world. Robin klein 23:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you felt we acted too quickly, but let us please flesh out these snipped sections. From an end of the decade Economist assessment: "Ldcs' [third world] output grew by 4.6% a year between 1973 and 1980, compared with 2.5% growth in the output of industrial countries." So yes developing countries did better. Despite these numbers the meager improvement was not enough to bring a new middle class in large places such as China/India. A 2004 article points to sluggish performance/problems across the developed world (a large part of the world) "From a rate of 2-3% through most of the 1960s the average inflation rate in developed economies soared to 13% in 1974, and stayed in the 7-12% range for the next eight years." during the whole decade. This is what creates my impression that the 70s was not a decade of better wealth dispersal that created a new middle class. It is of course very difficult to get a handle on the economy of the world over a whole decade, so I would like to read new info that doesn't support my idea.

lots of issues | leave me a message 23:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Seventies definitely didn't bring a renewed middle class to China, which was still recovering from the Cultural Revolution and the deaths of Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong. Indeed, Deng Xiapoing's embracing of capitalism led to a somewhat established middle class...in the 1980s. But DEFINITELY not before then. Capitalism was still a very dirty word in 1970s China. Capitalism was un-Communist, and even being vaguely "capitalist" meant you were an enemy of the state. Mike H 03:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The seventies were not entirely great even for the third world economy. The point is that it might have got better in the way that Europe recovered after the war through the marshall plan, however the growing economy of the third world which undoubtedly began in the mid -late 1960s (remember green revolution) began blooming in the very early 70s was halted in by the Oil Shock. Therefore I wrote the intro paragraph of Unfulfilled dreams of egalitarian society and nostalgia etc. Besides when you removed that intro, now it looks as if the only people alive in the 70s were people in the west. at least include better paragraph fused with the impression you have and the points I have stated. If a global article is the goal. Robin klein 00:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do wish for a global article. I took the hasty path of deleting rather than modifying because I am still too unsure of my own comprehensive view of the economy of the decade to confidently write it. However, I felt what existed expressed a misleading sense of positive economic achievement in a generally slump decade.

lots of issues | leave me a message 03:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feminism

One of the biggest worldwide trends hasn't even been touched! Will someone start a paragraph on it under the worldwide trends? Mike H 19:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it more of a Sixties topic during the Second wave? Falphin 15:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's definitely a seventies topic. Women started joining the workforce en masse in the Seventies. People like Gloria Steinem became popular in the Seventies. Ms. magazine gained momentum in the Seventies. I know a big impetus for the women's movement in the US in the Seventies was the fiftieth anniversary of women's suffrage in 1970. Mike H 15:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Removed The Bicentennial

I've removed the Bicentennial section. If it can fit in a summary under national issues, please summarize.

The Bicentennial

The Italian tall ship Amerigo Vespucci makes its way through New York Harbor, July 4, 1976.

1976 marked the 200th year since the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and plans were made all year to celebrate the United States Bicentennial.

On July 4, 1976, parties were thrown across the nation on an even larger scale than usual, and historic ships sailed through New York Harbor. President Ford was on hand to officiate the ceremony, which ended in a display of fireworks at Ellis Island. The Statue of Liberty was lit up for the occasion, and provided a picturesque backdrop for the fireworks display. The fireworks display was broadcast on national television.

Mike H 19:29, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

70s Music

This might sound stupidly obvious but 70s music is notable for the reason that it marked the end of the 60s. It is widely recognised that toward the end of the sixties the hippy movement was collapsing; Jimi, Janis and brian jones died; the beatles split up; and the rolling stones had a shocker at altamont involving the hells angels (obviously not in that order). I think its sensible that we mention something about this in the 70s music section! --CJ 23:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CJ, that sounds like the makings of a wonderful beginning to an expanded Music section! Why don't you write it! ℬastique▼^talk 02:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree CJ, the story of the Beatles, and what happened to their Apple empire, seems for me to sum up the conflict between late 60's idalism and 70's acquistiveness. In 67 they were saying "all you need is love" - by the 70's they'd realised that not everyone thought that way, and actually you needed money as well.

Sorry, but i am really busy at the moment and i can't quite find the time to contribute anything here. Just thought I would throw that little comment into the ring and hope that someone would react. Apologies, --CJ 19:23, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought - I'll try to do something when I've finished with TV and have more time. Stephen Burnett 06:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Worldwide trends integrated with the intro?

I think tweaking and merging the info with the existing intro would improve flow, organization, and result in a better intro.

lots of issues | leave me a message 12:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, World wide trends is an important major section by itself. It should be left as a separate section and not merged with the intro. And compared to the fanfare that hollywood cinema has received on this page, the section on world trends is miniscule. however the entire article, as is, reflects the world as of now. Robin klein 12:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sports

Can someone come up with something to add to the sports section of the artical? --ZeWrestler 12:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured image

Starlet posing for photographers at the Cannes film festival.

Maybe someone can find a way to work this featured image taken in the seventies into the article. - Haukurth 12:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound mean, because the contribution is very nice, but it's kinda useless without knowing who the "starlet" is. Mike H 15:09, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Headings

I've unified the headings to start them all out as "The Seventies in..." since the article is about The Seventies. Also, PLEASE PLEASE try not to mention "1970s" in the headings because the article is The Seventies and NOT 1970s. There is a difference that we're trying to claim...the worst we can do is prove our detractors correct. Mike H 15:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

New national issues section

We've covered the US, the UK, Japan and the Middle East at least in basic form. Now we need to write a section for what was arguably the biggest influence on world relations in the Seventies: the Soviet Union. Mike H 20:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed but what exactly should be covered. Sorry, I'm not very familiar with Soviet history. Falphin 20:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not especially well-versed in Soviet history, but I do know this was the Leonid Brezhnev era, and Soviet history can include the satellite states in Eastern Europe. You know, the ones Ford said weren't under Soviet control? ;) Mike H 21:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, Poland, Lativia etc. Sadly I know more about Tonga's history than I do the Soviet Union.(I'm sort of familiar with events preceding the 1900's in Russia). I'm going to see if there is anything useful in the Culture of Russia, or Culture of the Soviet Union articles. Falphin 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - You are an extremely quick editor. LOL. Falphin 21:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    - Yeah, sorry about that! I think I'm done with the Soviet Union section for now so you can finish it. The History of the Soviet Union article seems a bit flawed so I think it'd be best to get the idea of the Soviet Union in the '70s from the Brezhnev article itself. Mike H 21:51, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      - I didn't see a Brezhnev article. I also noticed the Soviet Union article was flawed as it seemed rather POV with no sources. Falphin 21:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        Never mind you mean the person not the era. Falphin 21:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

UK sentence

About two thousand people died in political violence between the police, British army and paramilitary groups during the seventies.

This has little to no context and reads like a non-sequitur. Can someone put it in context and write more about it? Mike H 21:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. In fact, there should probably be a separate section on Ireland as to cover the IRA and other groups. I don't know a whole lot about this, though, so I'm not the best person to cover the issue(s). Volatile 02:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

Sooner or later, there will have to be a list of information sources, especially for the political portions of the article. Just a note. Volatile 19:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I referenced a lot of the history sections from other articles on Wikipedia, but I also used a book, which I will reference soon. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:35, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I started The Seventies in technology and In the Middle East using information from other pages on wikipedia that I linked -- in case that helps you getting this article well referenced (not that self-referencing is good). gren 19:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Music topics

Can we get rid of the Topics list? The section looks very well-rounded now. ℬastique▼^talk 21:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being bold--I removed:

Topics

The Singer-songwriter movement (Carly Simon, Cat Stevens, James Taylor, etc.)
Development of Alt-country (Gram Parsons, The Eagles, Emmylou Harris, etc.)
Heavy metal (Led Zeppelin, The Who, etc.)
Bubblegum pop (Osmonds, Jackson 5, etc.)
"Art rock" (Genesis, Pink Floyd, etc.)
Glam rock (David Bowie, Elton John, etc.)
Popularization of Country music
Popularization of Reggae
Minimalist music in European classical music
Classical rock especially Pink Floyd Echoes (1971 song).

Has that section been finished? A lot of that stuff should be covered if it isn't...especially that very first topic. Mike H (Talking is hot) 22:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

The music section is a bit thin, and not all of the topics have been covered, let alone covered well (Singer-Songwriter, Alt-Country, Country, and Raggae in particular). I don't mind the list of topics being removed, but the section still needs some fleshing out. Volatile 01:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well hurry up then, because we've less than a day on COTW!!!! ℬastique▼^talk 02:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

World Cinema

I'm not sure who started this section, but it abruptly stops at 1973. Anyone planning on finishing it through 1979? Volatile 01:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started the section on world cinema. I will try and get more information on that topic. But I though people from other regions in the world to give in more input. nevertheless I will try to improve it. Robin klein 06:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Now that the collaboration is winding down, I've called for a peer review so we can get more input as to what to tighten, refactor into daughter articles, add, etc. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:19, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

There's plenty of information here, and this is good featured material. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 1 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

The opening paragraph needs a lot of work: unfocused, overly generalized, with repetitive wording ("change" used twice in one sentence, and so on). Lots of great content throughout the article, but not a feature-worthy opener, in my opinion. Moncrief July 2, 2005 08:47 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at re-writing it today. I'd really like to see this article up to feature standard. Volatile 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

Sentences such as "The dynamic world of the 1970s led to the experience of a zeitgeist that emerged from the transition of the global social structure from the end of World War II and the decline of colonial imperialism—to the rise of a newer middle class" need to be heavily revised or eliminated before featured status can even be considered. That sentence is unreadable and comes across like a bad parody of a bad college term paper. Moncrief July 3, 2005 17:38 (UTC)

I'd really like to see more headings within sections and shorter paragraphs. There's a lot of great information here, but the ability to wade through it all is diminshed due to the size of the paragraphs and the lack of headings. Moncrief July 3, 2005 20:22 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Why is Hong Kong's section 1) not placed where the other sections should be, 2) not elaborated upon, and 3) even pertinent to the article? Can't this really be put under something like "In the Commonwealth" under "In the United Kingdom"? Especially if two or three sentences is all they're going to write on the subject? Mike H (Talking is hot) July 3, 2005 20:52 (UTC)

Social zeitgeist

I don't understand what that section is supposed to accomplish. I hardly think "social zeitgeist" was a worldwide phenomena in the 1970s, so maybe this should be reworded (preferably with another word besides "zeitgeist"). Mike H (Talking is hot) July 3, 2005 20:55 (UTC)

That section kind of bothered me too. I doubt the average reader even knows what "zeitgeist" means. Volatile 3 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Add topic