Talk:1970s/Archive 1

What a mediocre page. It's 99.9% political stuff and nothing about pop culture. Where's disco? Farrah Fawcett? Etc. Step it up or we'll actually have to go back to book encyclopedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samtskins (talk • contribs) 02:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this page is 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.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.156.202.102 (talk • contribs). on 0:44, 27 September 2007

• 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)

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.

The article lists the gay rights movement, and that certainly is a very important social movement (the right to be different, the right to be yourself even if you are different). But there was also the American Indian Movement, the gray panthers, Hispanic pride, and so on and so forth. To some extent the 1970s was a flowering of activism from the 60s, with more difficult issues much of the time and thus the victories are going to be more partial, and so looking back, it's not as easy to see what was going on. There was an optimism to the 70s. And we can also argue with the phrase "The Me Decade," for the other side of the coin is the personal is the political. FriendlyRiverOtter 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

we really need something about fasion in here. Platforms, hot shorts, bellbottoms...Kitty 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I second kitty's motion, fashion is an important part of culture and history. 76.95.151.5 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Postscript: they have been merged now so the above discussion is historical --John Stumbles 17:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

On the section titled "Bookending Events," I added Jimi Hendrix to the list, since he was a very famous musician, in both the US and UK, and has skyrocketed in fame ever since his death. Also, his death is one of much controversy and such. Thus, i suggest adding him to the list, but feel free to delete him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.147.238 (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

Jimi Hendrix's musical ideas and guitar conception continue to have a discernable impact on the music that is being played today, so I think his name should remain on this page.

Under Bookending events, i took off "The release of John Lennon's heart-breaking song 'The Dream is Over' in 1970. I don't think that is a "Bookending" event. Not many people listen to his music, so only a select few might think it has importance, unlike "The death of John Lennon in 1980," which I think is worthy of a "Bookending Event," since his death had much more impact. Also, i think we should delete one of the following titles "Significant events that occured around 1970 which wiould influence the course of history and character of the decade include:; Significant events thast marked the passing of the decade include:" Seems to me that it is basically the same thing, any comments on the matter?

I take exception to the remark "Not many people listen to his music"when referring to John Lennon. If you want to remove the song as a "bookending event", fine, but not for that reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.53.91 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the death of Jim Morrison significant?

Because he was a cultural icon of the time. The deaths of Jim, Janice, and Jimi are often most noted for being symbolic of the changing of cultures from "60's flower power" to the "70's me" generations.

What is a "cultural icon"?

Shorter OED.

icon

" 6. A person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of a culture, movement, etc.; someone or something afforded great admiration or respect. M20." --Stephen Burnett 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Were The Beatles, Pablo Picasso and Louis Armstrong cultural icons?

Did Europe exist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tonipares (talk • contribs) 10:06:08, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps this is OR or biased, but culturally the 70's has to be one of the most divided decades out there. The first half of the decade is mostly a continuation of the late 60's, a couple years are pretty unique then the last 2 or 3 are more like a precursor to the 1980's. The issue is of course that culture doesn't fit into years, imo there are decades and then there's cultural periods. 1967-1976 is a cultural period, 1976-1978 is a cultural period, etc. So what I'm saying is, shouldn't the article reflect this to some degree? - MichiganCharms 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is essentially U.S.-biased. The different cultural eras are different in every portion of the world. Yes, even Europe. bob rulz (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Should probably be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.171.0.143 (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I kind of find this page very vague. It doesn't really give any great detail on the 1970's. It's just the common main facts. There's not really anything here that isn't common knowledge. It doesn't really help if you're researching things about the 1970's you don't know. Can't there be a more in-depth article on the 70's. And there seems to be nothing on the Popular/Cultural Beliefs of the 70's. Well there is - but it's very vague and not that helpful. Sorry if I'm being very demanding, but I do need the information, and it seems to be nowhere

Providing an adequate social and political view of an era of history is a difficult process and is hard to get correct, especially on Wikipedia, where hard-line editors demand that anything controversial or questionable be provided with a source (oftentimes for the better, admittedly). I think significant improvements could be made to just about any decade or century article, and I'm hoping I can help make some of these happen. bob rulz (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The 70s produced, in regards to culture, some of the greatest artistic achievements due to its risk to explore originality. The movie blockbuster emerged with Jaws and Star Wars whose directors still influence us today. TV shows had some of the most unique ideas ever presented with the Night Stalker, Land of the Lost, Dukes of Hazzard, the Incredible Hulk, Different Strokes, BJ and the Bear, Man from Atlantis, Three's Company, etc... Music shifted away from the dull late sixties and early seventies popular music to New Wave/Punk and Hip-hop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.6.7 (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While many events from other parts of the world are mentioned very well,I think this article is too American and Western oriented. Am I the only one who sees it that way.

signed by:Not a member,Sept 30,2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.32.230 (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The same goes other articles on other decades.Another thing about the americanisationing of thesse articles, it describes the oil crisis in kind of negative terms. Or at least in misleading ways, by saying that the anual inflation from 1900 to 1970 was 2.5% and it rose to a max of 13.3% from 1973 to 1979. Think about 1930 where the inflation was 500% thats in the middle of the mentioned range.

The image Image:Saigon T-54.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Any reason Thatcher is described as a neoliberal? Uh, neoconservative, maybe...

Many books describe her as neoliberal, not that many books should make it more true. I think the reference to neoliberalism is because of her economic policy? And if you read in a history book, she was known for dismissing many governmental institutions, that is a liberal way of doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.30.146 (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, "liberal" is the equivalent of American libertarian, akin to the "classical liberal" of Thomas Jefferson, etc.--Gloriamarie (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

""I LIKE ME" was the global saying, and revolution. They might have thrived and become stable in the way that Europe recovered after the war through the Marshall Plan; however, their economic growth was slowed by the oil crisis."

Something doesn't sound right. I think an entire section has been cut out here.

76.165.249.139 (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Queen should be included in the music section. It's not soft rock, it's just rock or popular rock. They are a legendary band. They were also glam rock and hard rock. And started in 1970. 74.215.162.120 (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The social science section is great. However, Chomsky's famous critique of B.F. Skinner was in 1959, not the 1970s. Cognitive science became very popular during this period in history, but Chomsky's contribution to this movement was in the 1950s and 1960s. Mtukudzi (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This one is rather focused on North America and Iran. Important events also happened in China (Death of Mao Zedong), and also, South America, especially South America. The 70's followed the death of Che Guevaraa and radical liberalism swept through the continent. Numerous juntas also existed on the continent during this period and events like the Dirty War or god forbid Jonestown should be in the montage to give South America some representation. Also I am Canadian and I don't think in the long run that the October Crisis was particularly important in the entire perspective of the 1970's and I think you should replace it with pictures of the Munich Olympics... :/ --Kuzwa (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As we speak I'm doing a new one. I thought I reverted my edit putting this up \o.O/ --SamB135 ^Talk_Contribs 06:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to make improvements to the decade montages, but my edits keep being reverted. My contributions should not be dismissed. I propose we form a central page concerning the Wikipedia Decade Montages, where one can discuss changes and set criteria in making decade montages. CatJar (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see the anti-war movement, and the ending of the War in Vietnam and after the end the subsequent events in Laos and Cambodia - atrocities of the Khmer Rouge acknowledged...Modernist (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to reach a consensus on the final selection of images included in the 1970s montage on the top of the page through a discussion (and not through edit wars) which would include (hopefully) many Wikipedians.

The current montage is composed of the following images:

Please share your opinion on this matter BELOW supplying reasons for or against the current images included and/or supply alternative suggestions. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just change the one of the Apollo 14th moon landings, keep all the others, there is no need for other moon landing photo, like the one of Apollo 11 on the 1960s montage. Revert it back to the image of the gas pump to reflect the oil crisis of 1973.

• I like the current montage as is - so far - add oil crisis and one more image - Kent State - GIs leaving Vietnam, and the events in Laos and Cambodia...Modernist (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll add the oil crisis and Kent State.CatJar (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Kent state photo is fair-use, I'll just add Oil crisis until I find another image to add relating to the events you listed.CatJar (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let this discussion be held for a week at least before you go ahead and make changes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the images of the Paris Peace Talks and the Khmer Rouge are needed too. Agree with TCG - wait a week for further commentary...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is currently viewed (and will be viewed in the future) by a tremendous amount of young users from around the world whom were born after the 1970s. Some of them never heard of these events before and are not familiar with the history behind these events. Therefore, I think we need to choose the pictures wisely in such a way that our readers would be able to understand the importance of these events in the best way possible without relying on them reading the caption for each image.

Unfortunately, sometimes we do not have images available to us which are capable of representing the importance of historical events in the best way possible - in my opinion the picture of the gas pumps from the 1970s is just not good enough to represent the notability of the 1973 oil crisis and it’s affect on the western world.

For the same reason I think we should find a replacement for the disco ball image.

I believe we should decided on only one image to represent the Vietnam War - either the image of the refugees aboard a US naval boat after the Fall of Saigon or the image of the Paris Peace Talks. Which one do you think works better?

Even though there were four lunar landing missions during the 1970s (and there were two during the 1960s), I believe that these missions are significant enough to be represented by at least one image in the montage.

Does anyone else think the Khmer Rouge period should be represented in the montage? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about people not being around during the 70s recognizing these images. I never lived in the 70s, yet I recognize most of the images naturally. But, my father, who was born in the 1950s, and was around for the 1970s, doesn't even recognize half the images, including the Iranian Revolution, The Bhola Cycole, and Camp David Accords. That's why the descriptions at the bottom help tell what the images are in a detailed description. And if vistiors want to know more, they just click on the image. I don't know how people could not discover things in an online encyclopedia.CatJar (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet, in my opinion, the gas pump photos are not good enough becuase they don't really show anything, they are just images of gas pumps from the 1970s. Even this image would be better in my opinion. Does anybody else believe that we should choose this photo instead? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, most people don't associate gas stamps to a gas shortage. A gas pump is the most associated image to that of gasoline for automobiles. I also picked that image because it had the clearest resolution, and you can make it out when you first look at it. The gas stamps won't even be readable in the montage, that's an image that has to be looked up close. Whereas a gas pump, you never have to take a second look. During the Oil Crisis, the thing most people came across and associated with the whole event was an empty gas pump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CatJar (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why, in my opinion, none of the images we have of the 1973 oil crisis is good enough for the montage. Does anyone else besides CatJar believe we should add the image of the gas pumps anyway? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote on the subject

For: Change the montage to the version I have originally made. CatJar (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear CatJar, before we vote on the final version of any montage we need to discuss the selection of images in each montage for at least a week! TheCuriousGnome (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

1970s image suggestions

Note - Genocide must never be ignored, lest we forget...Add image suggestions here:...Modernist (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Skulls of Khmer Rouge victims
• Photos of Khmer Rouge genocide victims on display at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum
  Photos of Khmer Rouge genocide victims on display at the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum
• 
  Signing the Paris Peace Accords

：：Ｉ　ｌｉｋｅ　ｗｈａｔ　ＣａｔＪａｒ　ｗａｎｔｓ　ｈｅｒｅ　ｔｏｏ．　Ｙｏｕ　ａｌｒｅａｄｙ　ｈａｖｅ　Ａｎ　Ａｐｏｌｌｏ　ｍｏｏｎ　ｌａｎｄｉｎｇ　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｍｏｎｔａｇｅ　ｂｅｆｏｒｅ　ｔｈｉｓ　ｏｎｅ．--142.167.99.61 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I will also include an image of the Khmer Rouge event, as suggested by Modernist. CatJar (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Rouge genocide image

Could not find a public-domain image of Khmer Rouge, I will put one up if I find one. CatJar (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This image seems like the best image available. Does anyone else, besides CatJar and Modernist, think we should add an image of the Khmer Rouge genocide to the decade montage? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Paris Peace Accords image

Does anyone else, besides Modernist, think we should add an image of the Signing the Paris Peace Accords to the decade montage? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Lets really only have one political event on the montage. CatJar (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia is very bad program do not use this

                               by                                  DHAMSAS                                   IX.G                                  MES  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.100.20.236 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC) 

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

where is it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.122.146.37 (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

From the first paragraph: "The hippie culture, which started in the latter half of the 1960s, waned by the early 1970s and faded towards the middle part of the decade, which involved opposition to the Vietnam War, opposition to nuclear weapons, the advocacy of world peace, and hostility to the authority of government and big business."

- does the second half of the sentence (beginning with "which involved opposition") refer to the "hippie culture" or "the middle part of the decade"? The entire meaning of the sentence hinges on this ambiguous construction. Also, if the sentence is about a culture that primarily affected the previous decade, it should probably be omitted from the top paragraph of this article. 66.70.12.254 (talk) 13:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)It is kind of ambiguous, but if you know anything about the "hippie" movement, you know that they were: opposed to nukes, advocated world peace, etc...." 74.111.58.202 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Tominrochester74.111.58.202 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the social movements section, there must be mention of the black power movement. The civil rights movement of the 1960s had developed fully in to the black power movement by the 70s and many young african americans became disallusioned with civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marx99 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the gregorian calendar system, decades began at year 1 and concluded at the end of year 10. Therefore the 70s began on 1 January 1971 and concluded on 31 December 1980. Please correct this. I had though after 2000/2001 everyone was now aware of this once and apparently still common misconception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.7.36 (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above with the title "1970 - decade" deals with your issue. Pro66 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The CDC 6600 was the first supercomputer, not the Cray-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.123.167 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

A decade starts in xxx1 and ends in xxx0. Like the 1970s - they start in 1971 and end in 1980. Learn a bit of history. TaniaPes (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems, confusingly, that the 1970s run from 1970 to 1979, but the eighth decade of the 20th century is 1971 to 1980, because the Western calendar began with the year 1 (see 1900s)

I don't understand why my recent edit was reverted? -- the link contradicts the statement re eighth decade of the twentieth century. See my comment above -- and various relevant Wikipedia sites: 1901 was the first year of the twentieth century. The edit page to the twentieth century link offers further commentary. Rwood128 (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

TaniaPes' comment is totally wrong. Rwood128's comment is merely confusing, as "1900s" is ambiguous. Please try to establish a consensus at WT:YEARS for your changes before attempting to make them again. Consensus is that the 1970s is the 8th decade of the 20th century, even though the former is 1970–1979, and the latter would technically be 1971–1980. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to have been clearer. What I was trying to say, is that the the sentence containing the phrase "eighth decade of the 20th century" is confusing because the first year of the 20th century began on 1st January 2001, not 1st January 2000. The link to 20th century page, and a citation on that page, support this. There is no reliable source that would support the view that the 20th century began on 1/1/1900. This is a matter of fact and a link that doesn't support a statement. From what you say it looks like the earlier consensus may have been based on an erroneous opinion, rather than citable fact. The solution is to drop the erroneous sentence. I don't disagree with the idea that the first decade of the 20th century runs from 1900 to 1909, etc. Rwood128 (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Would the following revision be acceptable? "The 1970s, pronounced "the Nineteen Seventies", was a decade that began on January 1, 1970 and ended on December 31, 1979. The eighth decade of the 20th century, however, ran from 1971 to 1980."

See also discussion on 2000s (decade) page. Rwood128 (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Bring it up as a modification of WP:RY or WP:YEARS, so you don't have the same argument spread out over all of the decade talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Until Wikipedia, decades were always correctly defined per TaniaPes comments. Check a printed encyclopedia. This discussion points out the root problem with Wikipedia - that everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks their own opinion is correct. Matters of math are not subject to opinion, popularity or "consensus." Take a bag of apples, take them out of the bag, one at a time, counting as you take them out, and when you have ten apples out of the bag your count will be 10 - ending in zero. If you think that a decade ends in a nine, start over again, pulling them out the bag very slowly so as to not confuse yourself. Picture a multiple choice test, the most popular answer is not necessarily the correct answer, unless you're on Wikipedia. Learn to Count2ten (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Name one source, considered reliable by any standard, which consistently refers to xxx1–yyy0 as the xxx0s. "Cultural" decades are something else; for example, the 1960s is sometimes considered to run from 1961 to 1974 (Nixon's impeachment). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't need a source as this is a matter of first principles. As long as you acknowledge that a decade is 10 years, and that the Gregorian calendar starts at year 1, the only possible valid conclusion is as TaniaPes correctly stated. There is no year 0. Anything else is wordsmithing, not logic. Reach into that bag and pull out the ZEROth apple for me ! 68.150.204.13 (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between the 1970s and the 198th decade. Everyone else does. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1970s. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150204145451/http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/16/corneroffice_blank_corp/ to http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/07/16/corneroffice_blank_corp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1970s. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63TOAxXf3?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imdb.com%2Fboxoffice%2Falltimegross%3Fregion%3Dworld-wide to http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1970s. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319072130/http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3315/guinness2007.pdf to http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/3315/guinness2007.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150205081224/http://freestyledisc.org/history.html to http://freestyledisc.org/history.html

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) 12:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Decades, the UK and Europe, and trains before creating or restoring sub-sub-sub-sub-sub headings. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

They serve the same purpose and the lead is extremely short. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Harold Wilson Number 10 official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Star Wars (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Is there no structure for the formation of the "people section" for the 80s and onwards. Does it have to do with age? Or is it just because no one's made one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:74B0:AA00:DCE8:F729:4EF:262F (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that, other than the world leaders, it should even exist in the first place. It's horribly inadequate; any reasonably complete listing would be far too lengthy. Also, it's 100% western-oriented, again excepting the world leaders. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. One of my biggest annoyances about this fine resource is the date link on the front page. If you look at births for dates in the long time past, there are people you might have heard of and who are notable. After about 1970 the list is almost all sports people who will be forgotten in 20 years time. --TrogWoolley (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I think its a great idea though to what stood out in that decade, its not just on the 1970s article its on the 1960s 50s and below and I think it would be great if people added a "people section" to 1980s and onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:7413:AB00:4BE:F805:B503:5F7 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason why 2000s hasn't got a "people section" the ones from 1990s and 80s are pretty perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:741D:D700:FD92:8397:7A14:8A8E (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Slash and burn these things. Any value they have is redundant to the sections about any particular sector of society (government, sports, science, etc) and they are far too prone to pointless bloat ("But, but, but.... you HAVE to include Random-Singer-With-One-Minor-Hit! S/he's the GREATEST musician ever!"). --Khajidha (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Gaddafi 1972.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Verteidigungsminister Helmut Schmidt.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Savang Vatthana.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Moamer el Gadafi (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mohammed Daoud Khan.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mohammed Daoud Khan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AtariInteractive.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

So, this may or may not stir up a few arguments, but this is something I really think needs to be done: we should add this picture to the collage. Look to the right.The Bangladesh Liberation War was possibly one of the biggest events of the 70s, along with the Bhola cyclone. So many artists- George Harrisson, Joan Baez, etc.- hosted an entire concert for it, and it gained widespread media attention. I think this is a necessary requirement to the collage, and this is something that CANNOT simply be forgotten.
But Wikipedia is a cruel place. If you try to make an edit, the consensus-loving, not-caring-about-viewer-safety administrators will revert it in a click. So, I need some consensus- do you think that it is a good idea to add the Bangladesh Liberation War to the photo collage? It was a massive event, and it had wide-ranging implications- which simply cannot be forgotten. Please reply if you support or oppose. TootsieRollsAddict (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Can we please have a section about medical care including advancements and limitations in these decades. Thank you 79.76.192.220 (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)