Talk:Counterculture
|
|
Regarding the edit by 66.72.23.227 (deletion of incorrect assumption that monotheistic religions such as Christianity believe that man is inherently good): I didn't write that those religions believe that; I wrote that the idea is rooted in those religions, for example, imago viva dei, man in the image of God. I won't tamper with your edit, but I think that this is a point worth discussing. Where did the idea come from originally, that man is not just a Hobbesian beast? --Herschelkrustofsky 00:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The article previously at this page was a mess of Lyndon LaRouche propaganda and totally irrelevant and specious nonsense. No article at all is much preferable. A new article needs to be written by someone familiar with the cultural history of the 1960s, the writings of Theodore Roszak, Herbert Marcuse etc. If no-one else does something about it, I will do so when I get time. Adam 08:14, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Note that User:AndyL's edits [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Counterculture&diff=4644434&oldid=4644430) replaced a grammatically correct formulation, with a grammatically incorrect one. The use of the subjunctive is appropriate here. --Herschelkrustofsky 15:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The current, protected version of this article is vapid and semi-literate, and part of the ongoing campaign of vandalism carried out by Adam Carr, User:AndyL, and some anonymous person from the University of Houston (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence). I am posting the deleted version of the article below. --Herschelkrustofsky 19:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Krusty's version of the article can be accessed in History pages, or it can be linked from this page. It does not need to be posted here in full.
- The current article is of course far from complete or satisfactory, subjunctives notwithstanding. It is however an honest attempt to write a truthful article, unlike the pack of LaRouch fabrications and fantasies which Krusty is defending. Adam 02:05, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Far from being an honest attempt to write a truthful article, it is part of an organized vendetta by Adam and Andy, that is presently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence. --Herschelkrustofsky 05:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
A vendetta? What did Lyndon LaRouche ever do to me?AndyL 12:13, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's what I'd like to know. Other than advocating the American system, of course. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:38, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I prefer the "American System" to 19th century British liberalism. In any case, the point is there is no vendetta since there's no motive on my part for revenge. Please contain your hyperbole. AndyL 16:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. Any edit war that was going on did not appear serious. Be good. UninvitedCompany 23:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
July 30 neutrality notice
User 4.168.90.122, which part of the article do you think is non-neutral? --Gary D 20:00, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Having not heard back from the anon poster, I have reverted the neutrality notice. Still very willing to discuss it, though. --Gary D 01:42, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't aware J. Rubin had become a stockbroker. My understanding was that he had at one point become a "connections broker," which is to say a facilitator of that distasteful necessity networking.
Question
cultural equivalent of a political Opposition. -- POV? ~ 67.42.203.155 07:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)