Talk:Strauss–Howe generational theory/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creation

This article was created to provide information on the generational theory of William Strauss and Neil Howe. There is a page called Strauss and Howe, which combines some explanation of this theory with the description of the authors' partnership. The creation of this separate page allows Strauss and Howe to be fine tuned on their partnership, rather than having two focuses (WP:TOPIC).Corenabh (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

John J. Xenakis is a leading proponent of the theory, who has used it to project developments in other nations with some success. See his website http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi-bin/D.PL?s=NUPdcH&d=ww2010.home 174.100.27.18 (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge from Strauss and Howe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was consensus to merge Strauss and Howe into this article Crazynas ^t 01:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

It seems to me that Strauss and Howe should be merged here, as it discuss their partnership in the context of this theory. Any objections? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure that I agree. I might agree to merging the two authors' articles into Strauss Howe, but the generational theory is expanded enough to merit its own page. You probably want to consult with User:Corenabh before making a move, as they will surely want to be involved in the process. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. Keeping the partnership and the theory separate allows each to have a more useful focus. There is enough information in each to warrant separate articles.Patrickbowman (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. WP does do dual biographies in some cases, but this is not an appropriate case. Standards of notability are relatively low for performing duos (Frick and Frack, Eric & Ernie), songwriting teams (from Gilbert and Sullivan to Tim & Bob, whoever they are) and fictional duos (Batman and Robin, Jekyll and Hyde), but there seems to be a much higher standard of notability when it comes to research partnerships. Masters and Johnson, for example, became a household name and a cultural byword. I find no evidence that Strauss and Howe have attained anything like that level of notability. Even Herrnstein and Murray, authors of The Bell Curve, have not earned an article for their partnership; the article about their controversial book, and responses to it, is sufficient. The same standard applies here. Merge Strauss and Howe with the much more useful article Strauss-Howe generational theory. If needed, individual bios can also be written. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge - I'm not convinced Strauss and Howe are notable outside of their work, and the two articles duplicate much of each other's content. - Robofish, 09:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support merge Both are bad articles. I've just deleted a sentence which tried to use Google to prove a point. Hardly any criticism despite the fact that [1] is referenced. Far too much detail on their books compared to the amount of use of commentary from third party sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Places of improvement

So here is what places I see to work on with the article (not necessarily in any order) . Feel free to contribute.

• Header doesn't adequately cover the scope of the article as it stands in summary style.
• We need to change the generational info box so that it also contains the turnings, generation, generational type/turning type and dates all in a sort-able? list.
• Strauss and Howe define a generation to be those born during one phase of life or a quarter of a saeculum. (this is for the intro)
• Less primary sources (referring directly to Stauss and Howe books) and more secondary sources referenced in the article.
• Not sure if each archetype and each turning deserve a separate subheading as it stands.

Crazynas ^t 07:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• In the "Generations" Side bar, the last two generations (Millenial and Homeland) should only be one generation: Millenial (Hero). A S/H generation is approx 20 years long. Millenial generation therefore was from approx 1982-2005 or so. I do not know if S/H have named the next Artist generation yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.142.104.88 (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

References

Critical Reception

There's some interesing stuff here but the critical reception section is becoming too long compared to the actual description of the theory itself. And as Peregrine981 said in an earlier edit summary note -- right now it's "slanted" against the authors.

Just wondering about the statement: "Twenty years later, some say 13th Gen was an accurate and cartoonish representation of youth in the 1980s. Although the authors did point out important trends of the time, and the book was well-researched, many of the negative predictions and stereotypes of that era are no longer relevant and the generation has since moved on." First of all, I presume "inaccurate" is what is meant? Secondly, the source given is this: [2] which is refering to this document presumably: [3]. Or am I mistaken? Why not link directly to the report? Thirdly, the report doesn't seem to me to say anything directly about Strauss and Howe, except this: "The naming of generations and the assignment of age ranges stem from a 1991 book by William Strauss and Neil House called Generations. The book examines generations across centuries and their characteristics, and provides a definition of Generation X that has been used widely in both popular and academic literature." It doesn't directly say anything about how accurate or inaccurate their representation of youth in the 1980s was, leave alone saying it was "cartoonish". In fact, it seems to me that the report is broadly in line with some what S&H say with regard to 13th gen anyway since it basically says that Xers are well adjusted, integrated in their communities, and working hard to raise their kids well in a pragmatic and stable way. Isn't that one of the things Strauss and Howe said they would do? Am I missing something? Peregrine981 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the actual content of the webcast or let us know where it could be found? In the actual report there is no discussion of Strauss and HOwe, except what I quoted above. The report discusses Gen X in general, without talking about Strauss and Howe specifically, so I think that we shouldn't use it. That would IMO constitute WP:Original Research on this topic. This may seem pedantic, but once we start admitting evidence researching indirectly the phenomena that S&H also talked about, we're going to have a mountain here. As you've said, there's already more than enough articles commenting directly on S&H without extrapolating our own understanding of what they said and how new research reflects on that. Also, I don't think it is too long yet. We need to be careful not to go overboard, but the theory itself is quite complicated and has many individual parts. In order to address them all it might take some space. I don't think that there's any real redundancy at the moment. Quotes discuss different aspects of criticism, or from different perspectives, or different books. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It only discusses Strauss and Howe to the extent that it says that they are often credited with creating the modern definition of Generation X. It does NOT say anything about their report being inaccurate. It doesn't say anything about it being well researched. It does not say that the negative stereotypes of the generation were used by Strauss and Howe. Nor does it examine how they were wrong, or what they actually said. So I think it's quite the extrapolation to say that we can attribute a broad statement like that to one sentence at the beginning of a general report on Generation X. It is synthesis to say that the report says X, S&H said Y, and therefore X disproves Y. Please have a look at the section on original research. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, we seem to be having some communication problems. Could I ask, respecftully, that you respond directly to my points, rather than going off on new tangents. If you want to discuss the merits of that paragraph fine. But please start a new section and deal with it there. Here we are discussing the LSAY report/webinar. You haven't responded to my questions or comments at all. Here is the quote in question:

Twenty years later, some say 13th Gen was an exaggerated description of youth in the 1970s and 1980s.[67] Although the authors did point out important trends of the time, and the book was well-researched, many of the negative predictions and stereotypes of that era are no longer relevant and the generation has since moved on.

That may well be so. BUT the source cited says nothing directly about that. It doesn't talk at all about the book 13th Gen. It doesn't say that that Strauss and Howe pointed out important trends. It doesn't say that it was well researched. It doesn't say what the negative predictions or stereotypes were, nor why they were wrong. It does talk about changing perceptions of Gen X in general, so may be a useful addition to the Gen X article, but is not directly relevant here.

Please review the basic wikipedia policies on WP:Verifiability. Without being on the same page in that regard I fear we will go around in circles in this discussion. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but you're the one who included it! :P (also, please for the love of god, stop removing the section header below. It will be very confusing for people who may try to follow the discussion that it suddenly breaks here. Trust me. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Past tense dispute

One more point in the interest of avoiding an edit war:

In the following passage you say that we need to establish that it was written in the past, counteract the present tense of the quote. Fair enough, but as I see it that is done twice as it stands. "In 1993" pretty clearly establishes that we're talking about the past. Then new sentence: "Back in the early 1990s when the article was written." Was "In 1993" not clear enough to establish that this is the past we're talking about? I've added emphasis to show the double time marking:

In 1993, Andrew Leonard, reviewed their book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?. Back in the early 1990s, when the article was written, Mr. Leonard saw an agenda: “as the authors relentlessly attack the iniquitous "child-abusive culture" of the 1960's and 70's and exult in heaping insult after insult on their own generation -- they caricature Baby Boomers as countercultural, long-haired, sex-obsessed hedonists -- their real agenda begins to surface. That agenda becomes clear in part of their wish list for how the 13th generation may influence the future: "13ers will reverse the frenzied and centrifugal cultural directions of their younger years. They will clean up entertainment, de-diversify the culture, reinvent core symbols of national unity, reaffirm rituals of family and neighborhood bonding, and re-erect barriers to cushion communities from unwanted upheaval."

Twenty years later, some say 13th Gen was an exaggerated description of youth in the 1970s and 1980s.[67] Although the authors did point out important trends of the time, and the book was well-researched, many of the negative predictions and stereotypes of that era are no longer relevant and the generation has since moved on. [68]

Let's simplify! Less is more. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If people don't understand that a quotation mark indicates a quote, as in a verbatim reprinting of what someone said or wrote in the past then they're going to have bigger problems than that in understanding a wikipedia page. I think it is pretty clear that if we quote, with a citation, and "quotation marks" from an article that was printed 20 years ago, and introduce it by saying "in 1993 Mr. X wrote:" that it is a statement that was made in the past... It doesn't matter how many statements are made in the paragraph, you just need one to say: all of the following statements were made in the past. It isn't like a mathematical formula that you need to balance out. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

what do you mean get the facts right? It is a quote from a review, expressing his opinion. You may disagree with his characterization, but that is neither here nor there. I think it is notable that the reviewer for the NYT claims that the book has a political agenda. Find somebody arguing against this and we'll put it in. The book itself is 20 years old, so therefore the reviews will mostly be 20 years old...

The reason I'm relying heavily on quotations, is that in my experience on wikipedia is that it is usually better to have a few, well chosen, clear and direct quotes from critics, than trying to paraphrasing in a way that does justice to their argument, and is NPOV and takes into account a variety of opinions. Better to have clearly attributed, direct quotes that can be used to represent currents of opinion without dispute, along with a minimal amount of summarizing and condensing when required.

Look, you are free to find other quotes or sources. I personally am happy to have more, although you already said it was getting too long. We shouldn't turn it into a tit for tat debating section, but I think it is interesting for readers to have access to notable reviews and arguments about the book, as well as possible rebuttals from the authors or their defenders. I find one of the most useful parts of wikipedia is that you can usually get a nice sampling of opinions on a given topic. That is the project's great strength.Peregrine981 (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read Generations. Please address my points rather evading the issue you yourself have brought up. What "facts" are you disputing? Are you disputing that the article in question alleged a political agenda in their work? The question isn't whether there is a political agenda, rather if someone notable believed there to be. I quote from WP:NPOV:

Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it

Can we agree that is the aim here? Peregrine981 (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It already says explicitly that it was written in 1993. How many times does it need to be said? If appropriate, after the quote readers can "be brought back to the present day" but only if necessary, depending on what is there. That is not what I have objected to. I object to the quadruple signalling that it is in the past (stated twice, quoted, and cited).

You may think that it is "not a good or intellectual review" of the book, but that doesn't really matter here. The editor of the NYT and the journalist they asked to review the book did. Have you read the verifiability and NPOV policies as I asked you to? If you're having difficulty with it (as many people, including myself did at first) please read the FAQ: Wikipedia:ASF#A_simple_formulation. I have chosen to include the quote because it seems quite relevant that a major international publication wrote a review alleging a political bias. Doesn't that seem at all relevant to the topic to you, or do you think we should white wash the "critique" section to people who agree with the theory? If you can find people who think that the NYT review is complete BS, please include them in the article.

Book reviews are usually not as long as the books they are reviewing. That is in their nature, so I don't understand your complaint there. Are you saying it is inherently impossible to accurately review a book in anything less than another book?

Whether I have read it is largely irrelevant for this purpose. I am not reviewing the book. I am reporting what others have reported. My own understanding and interpretation of the book is beside the point in this case. Besides, if we restricted editing to people who have read all of the books on the topic we wouldn't have many editors.

Please make a good faith effort to respond to my comments and read the policies I am referring to. I am not seeing any arguments based on those policies. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please engage cooperatively to try to form WP:Consensus. You are consistently ignoring my attempts to engage on the content of this article, and reverting all of my changes. I thought we had reached consensus to remove the disputed sentence about Strauss and Howe mischaracterizing Gen X (see above). I would appreciate if you could explain your edits with reference to wikipedia policy and my arguments instead of steaming ahead unexplained. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus, by definition cannot be dictated. I'm sorry, but I don't accept those sources as adequate to back up the statement as written. Let me try again:

• Where is the transcript or copy of the webinar, or at least where would it be publicly available. Without it that link is not adequate as a reliable source.

On the contrary. Editors are under the obligation to provide a citation: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing reliable sources that directly support the material" " The source should be cited clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) and must clearly support the material as presented in the article." See:WP:BURDEN. The publicity page for the event, with no indication of the actual content or how to find the content does not meet those criteria.Peregrine981 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where does it say that Strauss and Howe presented an exaggerated description of youth in the 70s and 80s.

This is clearly synthesis. Have you read the links I posted regarding original research? I quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."WP:SYNTH In this case you are taking facts from source A (S&H), conclusions from B(LSAY), and combining them to form conclusions C (S&H were wrong) that are NOT directly supported in either source. It is a textbook case of synthesis. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where does it say that the book 13th Gen was well researched.

This is a more debatable point, but I would still say that just because he says their definition of Gen X was widely used, does not necessarily imply that they think the whole thing was "well researched". Using one fact or one quote from a work does not imply such a blanket endorsement. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Where does it say that the "negative" predictions (specifically by S&H) and stereotypes were either a) present in the work of Strauss & Howe or b) if present no longer relevant.

See above for info on synthesis and the burden of proof. Editors absolutely ARE under obligation to break it down, and cannot assume a knowledge of the subject on the part of the reader. Nor can they make logical leaps like that, no matter how obvious they may seem to the editor. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Until those questions are answered I do not accept these sources as adequate to back up the statement in the article which applies specifically to S&H, not Gen X in general which has been widely discussed by others than S&H.

On another point of etiquette, I'd appreciate if you would explain your changes more thoroughly. I've repeatedly asked you NOT to change the headings in the talk page, for a discussion that I started. Yet you continue to do so without a word of explanation. I am willing to listen to you, but I find it really aggravating when you insist on going against me without a word of explanation. I think it's better to have distinct sections between distinct discussions (which I started). Why make one giant section with two separate discussions? It has already caused confusion when I thought you were talking about the U Michigan statement, but you were referring to the NYT review. I don't like to fight about little things like that, but I find it a bit disrespectful when you seem intent on doing what you want regardless of my input. Sincerely, Peregrine981 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you got rid of it long before the subject had been settled. And even if it had been settled that doesn't mean that we erase the discussion. People may want to refer to discussions in the future if the topic comes up again. Also, consensus means that everyone has agreed, not just that you presume they have agreed, so please hold back on the trigger finger before assuming discussions are settled. I have answered your substantive critiques above. I implore you to please read the page on original research, because quite honestly you don't seem to be applying it correctly here, and it is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. I know it can seem frustrating and a little silly if you know a lot about the topic, but it is the only way to protect the encyclopedia from a torent of would be experts from inundating the place with their own theories. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please address the points I've made. Your opinion of the "agenda" is a separate issue. I have absolutely no problem with putting other quotes to balance out this view of the book. NOne whatsoever. I've said so repeatedly. Please do find quotes that balance it out. But they will have to be correctly sourced, and not OR as above. Let's try not to make a mountain out of a mole hill here. Now please, let's stay on topic regarding the LSAY quote which is our present discussion. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

? Ok, I've gotta move on. It is not acceptable to say that you won't deal with specific problems until other problems are dealt with just because you think you are more informed on the topic. The NYT quote IS in compliance with policy, even if it may be giving undue weight to that criticism, the solution is to add other sources, not to eliminate this one. The LSAY statement is clearly in contravention of wikipedia policy, and you aren't even trying to contest that. This is not a hostage negotiation or a competition to get "your" quotes in. I've demonstrated clearly, with specific examples why the disputed LSAY citation does not comply with wikipedia policy. If you aren't interested in dealing with that then we will have a problem. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is NOT that "I don't like the content added". Please review what I've written above. I don't think the sources you've used meet the standards of evidence required. I've said specifically why, and what could be done to fix the situation. But you have refused to find either new sources, or to find the evidence required in that source. I've also said that I'm perfectly open to new sources. So I'm not being unreasonable. Also, it is not "biased" to say that the book has a political agenda if that is what the NYT says. In fact it would be biased NOT to say it. It may give that criticism undue weight, but surely we could work to deal with that in a constructive way rather than fighting about this problem.Peregrine981 (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward with criticism section

Let's try to move forward with this section. For future reference I have referred our discussion about LSAY to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Strauss-Howe generational theory. Let's leave that discussion there for the moment.

You said: "The key issue about all this is that the editor who added the book review (Peregrine981) reduces Strauss and Howe's 13th Gen to an "agenda book" using a New York Times article as proof -- so it's a biased description of the book anyway. The editor doesn't want to fix their work -- but rather ask another editor to clean up after them. Please review the book correctly in an unbiased way without any undue weight."

Perhaps I have not been clear enough above: please DO insert whatever other reviews or properly sourced opinions you want. I have no problem with that. I encourage it. This is supposed to be a collaboration, so I am not "getting you to clean up after me." If you see a problem with the article you can and should make fixes. That's the way the process works. Just because I don't agree with the validity of the source you put in does not mean that I disagree in principle, as I've taken pains to point out, that you can add reviews that you think correct the "bias" of the NYT review.

Furthermore, I don't know exactly what you mean by saying the NYT review is "biased". Do you mean that he has some sort of personal conflict of interest that prevents him from reviewing it correctly? Or do you simply mean he has a negative opinion of the book?

Also, you say that I've reduced the book review to an allegation of "agenda". That is certainly not my intent, and why I encourage you to add mitigating information. BUT I would point out that you were the one complaining that the section was getting too long, so you're being a bit inconsistent on that point. The fact remains that the NYT review's MAIN POINT is that the book has a political agenda, and is basically "a diatribe against the generation responsible for the breakdown of contemporary America into what the authors regard as a fragmented, polarized, chaotic society. " That is his opinion, like it or not, and it would be biased NOT to say so.

My approach has been to put in a bit of info on reviews of each major book + include information on major thematic criticisms, and then also some rebuttals from H&S where appropriate. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is summerized at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Strauss-Howe generational theory.

Ok, following the comments of GeorgeLouis at that noticeboard, I agree we should see on how much we can agree on. I think that something like this would work:

"Twenty years later, Jon D. Miller, at the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (funded by the National Science Foundation) wrote that Strauss and Howe's definition of Generation X (although they called it the 13th generation) has been used widely in both popular and academic literature." (source:LSAY report)

It is on topic, states clearly what the report says, and doesn't present any of our own "spin". Any objections? Peregrine981 (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It will take some time to rework any proposed changes. There's significant spin from the review chosen to represent the book too.Media67 (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. Just one point though, there's a difference between "our" spin, and the spin of the article. That is perfectly ok to include. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the difference?Media67 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that we should try to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." That means that we have to present the views of all significant voices on the subject in a fair way, whether or not you think they are biased or wrong. That is different from putting our own views on the sources or the subject into the article. So, we have to say that source X thinks the theory is rubbish, source Y thinks it is amazing. But we cannot put our own editorial spin on it, to say X is wrong to think it is rubbish. (unless another source Z says so). Do you agree? Peregrine981 (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Does your review fit the Wikipedia policy i.e. "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."Media67 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the Andrew Leonard review, I think yes. It currently takes up three lines, which I don't think is disproportionate considering the length of the article. It's a point of view that is not represented anywhere else in the article, it was published in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world, it isn't presented as being anything more than a single review by one guy, and it opens up the political interpretations of their work which we haven't really discussed at all, so in fact I think it could even be further elaborated without being considered disproportionate. As I've said before, you are free to add whatever other reviews of the book you like as long as they are properly sourced and meet wiki guidelines for notability. I continue to insist that we change the wording of the Miller citation. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's twenty years old.Media67 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

What difference does that make? So is the theory. Most of the reviews will clearly be from the time the books were first published. If you have sources saying that intervening developments have invalidated or made these older reviews out of date, then please add them to the article. I don't see why the review is any less valid now than it was then, and the age of the review is not hidden from readers. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In the context of history, it's very important that 20 years has past since the review.Media67 (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is important, but I think it is pretty clear that the quote was made in 1993. Obviously peoples' views may have evolved in the time since then, but one of the important parts of wikipedia is to capture what opinion has been through time, and document the change. All of the quotes we have provided may or may not still be relevant in the modern context, but that is for others to judge, not us. If you know of some reason to think that Leonard has changed his opinion, or others have conclusively rebutted it, or Strauss and Howe's own opinions changed, or anything like that, I again invite you to share it. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

subsections under criticism

It is precisely because the section is getting long that I broke it up into sections.... Isn't that kind of a logical thing to do in a section that is getting long? Adding four subheadings will hardly make a huge difference to actual length, but will make it much easier to read and edit. I also think it could stand to be even longer, which I would think you would support given your previously expressed concerns about undue weight. Given the complexity and number of works involved in the theory, the criticism section will be pretty long if we're going to be fair to both the theory and its reviewers. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception flows together better as one (1) section -- that way readers will tend to keep reading it instead of jumping to an interesting point then leaving altogether.Media67 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I don't really care much. Thanks for your explanation. But if it gets much longer I do think that we should split it up. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

So you went ahead and reverted it back to sub-sections. It's fine with me, but Millennials Rising should be the next paragraph after 13th Gen. It makes more sense in terms of the people they describe. Millennials are born in chron order after Gen Xers. The books don't need to be in exact chron order of published dates. 4th Turning discusses all the generations together in one book. Yeah, I'll try to leave a note about any changes in the Edit Suummary. Media67 (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"back" in 1993

Why insist on the wording "back in 1993" as opposed to just "in 1993". "back in" is pretty colloquial and a very redundant way of just saying, "in 1993". How does "back in" add any information? Why put it for all of the reviews from 1993? Peregrine981 (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's okay to make the point by using "back in 1993". It's accurate, its a fact. The word "back" gives more historical reference. In fact, I saw another major journalist use it recently to make the point (sorry I don't have the article). He said something like "way back in the early 90s". It points out that this review was written a long, long time ago which is important to point out.Media67 (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Look around in other wikipedia articles. Usually people just write "in year XXXX". We don't say "back in 1939 Germany invaded Poland." "Back in 1992 Bill Clinton was elected president." It's just not necessary. It sounds like a grandfather talking about his childhood. I think it just clutters up the article. 1993 is clearly, and self evidently in the past. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See these Wikipedia policies for reference. It's appropriate to bring the reader into reality from a twenty year old article that uses heavy present tense statements in the quote itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TENSE and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_present#In_describing_fiction Media67 (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In-universe

The article still has a serious problem distinguishing Strauss & Howe's claims from reality. It's full of stuff like this:

The First Turning is a High. This is a post-Crisis era when institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by the conformity. America’s most recent First Turning was the post-World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The Silent Generation (Artist archetype, born 1925 to 1942) came of age during this era. Known for their caution, conformity, and institutional trust, Silent young adults epitomized the mood of the High. Most married early, sought stable corporate jobs, and moved into new suburbs.

We shouldn't say this in wikipedia's voice. It looks more like astrology than encyclopædic content. bobrayner (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it a policy or just a style issue?Media67 (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NPOV are core content policies. bobrayner (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You brought up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:In-universe. On that page it says: "This page is a guideline, not policy, and it should be approached with common sense and the occasional exception. However, following the basic notions laid out in this guideline is generally a good way to improve articles on fictional topics".

There are plenty of high-quality, reliably-sourced references on the Strauss-Howe page. How is that not adhering to WP:V and WP:NPOV Media67 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This basically seems to apply to the 'Generational archetypes and turnings' section. I think it could quite easily be remedied by qualifying statements like we have in other sections, by adding qualifiers, for example :"according to Strauss and Howe", "according to the theory" etc.... This has been done in most other sections. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I think that would fix it. Media67 (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The bulk of the article, for instance the "Generational archetypes and turnings" section, presents Strauss-Howe's relentless categorisation and labelling of "generations" as though they are actual facts. This is not appropriate because it is not supported by independent sources; as I said before, the article still looks more like astrology than encyclopædic content. The easiest solution is to get rid of this stuff. Any alternative suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you tell us what specifically is against Wikipedia's policy? Go ahead and add "according to Strauss and Howe" disclaimers but there's nothing wrong with describing the theory in detail. They've written a dozen books, its a complicated theory. Does the Wikipedia article on astrology look like astrology? If so, then the S&H generational article can be all about generational catagories.

Or please give us examples of how you would rewrite portions of the article to make it better? Media67 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

creating balance in the critical reception section

I was trying to put some positive quotes into the critical reception section (on Dec. 22), as everyone here seemed to agree that this was something that could be done to make the section more balanced. But my edits got taken out and marked as "spam." Did someone have an objection to them, or a suggestion for how to make them better? I do think the section needs more balance, but I'm happy to collaborate to do it in a way that works for everyone. Please let's discuss and come to some kind of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resn7 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

They look useful, weren't spam, and -- particularly because the reverter doesn't appear to have any other edits to their IP address -- I'd support adding them back in. I'm not adding them in myself because I agree with at least one unrelated criticism: The article is too long. (It also repeats too much, and gets lost in S&H jargon more than is appropriate for an encyclopedia.) I'm going to spend some time looking at what can be usefully excised. Patrickbowman (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will revert the edits, then. I agree that the article could be shortened, but I think this should be done by removing repetition. I weigh in on your suggestions for doing that below. Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on trimming it back a bit:

• Cut the Fourth Turning summary in half, and focus on what's really "new" about it, i.e. the expectation was that the Crisis really was approaching

I'm not sure which section you mean here. Section 4.1.4? Or 7.2? Both are pretty short. Can you clarify? Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Neither: The book's section in Works (certainly not clear from my description). I've done that edit already. Patrickbowman (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cut the Cycle section down to focus on the Saeculum. Move the Crisis/Awakening info into their respective turnings leaving a (brief!) summary here.

I agree that the Crisis/Awakening section seems like a bit of a detour where it is currently placed. Looking back at the history, it was originally before the description of each of the four turnings. I think it works much better there, since it introduces readers to the basic driving mechanism of turnings before getting into the details about what happens in each turning. That helps readers understand more clearly what turnings really are--first how they operate in general, and then how each individual turning tends to unfold. Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove a sentence or two from each Generation section, and/or move that amount back into the appropriate Turnings section

I think this could easily be done

• Remove most of the Dynamics section. If someone wants to go that far into S&H, they should pick up one of the books.

I think the first paragraph and the chart in this section could go. The last two paragraphs seem useful because they explain concisely why the archetypes recur in a cycle, which is a key part of how they work. Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove the "Summary" of theory that comes right after the encyclopedic summary that is the bulk of the article

I agree. Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Remove either the Generations sidebar or the Timing of Generations and Turnings table - there's no need for both. I have a slight preference to leave the second, because it's the only area that acknowledges the American Civil War "Hiccup."

Dont agree -- both of these charts are very useful.Media67 (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Cut back the "America's current position in the cycle" to the first sentence ("Howe posits that America is currently in or about to enter a Fourth Turning.") and move it to the Fourth Turning book section. Almost anything else that can be said is speculative. Patrickbowman (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What is your reason (according to Wikipedia policies)?Media67 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A combination of Crystal Ball, Not Jargon, and Bad Idea. I opposed the merger, but as that is done and the resulting article is huge, we should do what we can to keep it usable. This section takes four paragraphs to expand on that first sentence, is difficult to understand if you're not already versed in the concepts, and doesn't manage to convey much more useful information. Much of it speculates on what will happen ("As Gen Xers replace Boomers in midlife...") in a way I'll call non-encyclopedic because it won't easily transfer from Future to Past - if it does come to pass, the same section in the past tense wouldn't be worth including in the article. Mostly, it's because it's a less useful section in an overlong article, so a good candidate to be cut. Patrickbowman (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Also the "Fourth Turning book section" you proposed to move the info to is under "Critical reception" -- so it really doesn't fit there.

Fair enough. As one sentence, it could be moved almost anywhere. I may have meant the description of the Crisis/Fourth Turning, which could perhaps benefit from an acknowledgement that it's likely the current turning.Patrickbowman (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could start by just cutting the middle two paragraphs. The first and last paragraph give the general gist without getting into too many details. Resn7 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What is your reason (according to Wikipedia policies)? It's sourced.Media67 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Much of it seems far too promotional in tone. bobrayner (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that it seems promotional. It's pretty factual--it just report's Howe's current analysis based on the theory, properly cited. The only reason to cut some of it is if it goes into too much detail. I'm not sure that it does, but I don't feel strongly either way.Resn7 (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I see it as a style question rather than a policy question: What Wikipedia reader wants to know our current location, and why? Someone randomly accessing the article probably wouldn't see why it matters (nor will the section make that clearer). A recent reader of "Generations" might want to know if 9/11 started the Crisis, but won't get that from here. And for a person who has read multiple books and has an interest in identifying the Turning changeover (like, say, me) it's not specific enough - yeah, generational alignment, moral Prophets, pragmatic Nomads, societal response but has it started or not? For each of these people, about the only useful fact in the section is "Howe thinks we're in a Crisis," and that could be somewhere else. Patrickbowman (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If these paragraphs in question accurately describe part of the theory then I vote to keep it in there because it's part of the theory. If you want to rewrite it then please post it here first (per policy). Media67 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Describe it, then criticize it. Don't try to interlace. --Monado (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Other cultures?

This is very interesting, but it's also very Amerigocentric. Is there any information about how this plays out in other countries and cultures? If it's a psychological reaction to parental values and childhood environment, then we should see it in, say, France as well, or Japan or China. Are there any extant analysis of generational values in the light of this theory? --Monado (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see on the generation page, a number of people have written about generations with a similiar mindset over the last 100 years or so. I have no idea if anyone has explicitly modelled another analysis off of Strauss & Howe in particular, but it wouldn't surprise me. Worth investigating anyway. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Casey Research interview with Neil Howe

Returned sourced content to the page. I don't understand how an interview with Neil Howe is "contentious" and not reliable? The article is about him afterall. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

This text:

Howe posits that America is currently in or about to enter a Fourth Turning.<ref name=Galland>{{Cite web| url=http://www.caseyresearch.com/pdfs/20090922_TheFourthTurningJMD.pdf| last=Galland| first=David| title=Into the Fourth Turning: A Casey Research Interview with Neil Howe, Co-author of The Fourth Turning| year=2009| work=Casey Research Special Report| accessdate=3 September 2010}}</ref><ref name=winter>{{cite video |people=Neil Howe |year=2009 |publisher=LifeCourse Associates |title=The Winter of History: An Interview with Neil Howe on “The Fourth Turning” |url=http://store.lifecourse.com/products/9/The-Winter-of-History.html |accessdate=November 6, 2012 |isbn=978-0-9712606-6-5}}</ref>

is poorly sourced. If it's genuinely significant, as one of our anonymous friends seems to thin it is, then there must surely be much better sources, specifically, secondary sources (not interviews, which are primary). Guy (Help!) 08:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The interview has a secondary aspect to it. The interviewer asks questions which direct the interviewee and are original thought from a source other than the subject of the interview. So part of the article is "secondary". 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View Header

A Neutral Point of View Header was added in June, 2016. According to Wikipedia standards, this header should be accompanied by a statement on the talk page of what the issues are. This was not done - the last edit to the talk page was in early 2015. Would whoever placed the header please state cis objections so we can discuss them and make any changes that seem warranted? Otherwise, by Wikipedia standards this header can be removed by anyone. ~~John Roth~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.134.102.98 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I added it in June to replace the previous peacock and essay tags [4]. The NPOV tag seemed more appropriate to address the concerns raised, as it seems the article as currently written is not in adherence with WP:NPOV, in that it presents this theory largely as factual and it is low on sources which criticize or question the accuracy of the theory.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the POV header because I have edited article to add reliably sourced critiques and questioning of theory and also added text to clarify this is theoretical rather than factual, as it was previously presented as factual in much of the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Add Generational Dynamics criticism to Critical Reception section?

John J. Xenkais in his book Generational Dynamics as well as the online draft of Generational Dynamics for Historians, both builds on and makes a number of criticisms of the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, discovered while extending it to other countries.

The restriction to 20-22 years for a generation and 80-90 years for the full cycle is overly restrictive. He's identified cycles as short as 54 years and as long as 117 years.

The list of historical periods combines English and American history. The historical periods (turnings) are English at least through the Armada Crisis. The American periods are accurate from the Great Awakening.

The descriptor "High" doesn't work for most other countries and cycles. He states that this period is characterized by a restrictive political, social and economic regime, enforced by whatever means necessary. He suggests calling this an "Austerity."

Does this look like something that would help balance the article?

~~John Roth~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.134.102.98 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting. Do you have a link to a reliable source for this? I haven't read this book. It seems appropriate if it's in this book and the book isn't self-published. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Profession

I don't mean to impugn the integrity of Strauss/Howe, but I do question calling them "historians" in the lead. Obviously they wrote about history, but is that enough to simply call them "historians" as opposed to the multitude of other things that they did? Neither of them could reasonably be called a professional historian in my opinion. One M.Phil between the two of them, and no professional research or teaching positions makes me skeptical of their formal qualifications. One could also call them a sociologist, or consultants, or government professionals, or whatever. IMO we should leave it at authors to avoid getting into questions of definitions. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What are your qualifications for a person to be a historian? Here's the wikipedia definition: "A historian is a person who studies and writes about the past and is regarded as an authority on it.[1] Historians are concerned with the continuous, methodical narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race; as well as the study of all history in time". Media67 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

well, as I said above, they are many things. To say that they are simply 'historians' is potentially misleading, since they were professionals in other fields. Why not leave the description blank, and simply say they developed the theory and let the facts speak for themselves as is the general wikipedia policy? Peregrine981 (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is David Barton a historian?--Petzl (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

the problem it seems (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that there's an effort to discredit the Strauss-Howe generational theory in the introduction -- without giving readers the room to discover it first. For example, the stuff about academics not widely accepting it. That's ridiculous -- it's social science not hard science. If there were a textbook (or encyclopedia) for example that started out with a debunking in the first paragraph on page one (1) why would anyone continue to read the theory? I don't think it's in the spirit of an encyclopedia like wikipedia to debunk before giving the information first.--Media67 (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not here to credit or discredit the theory, but rather to give a balanced overview of it, warts and all. Wikipedia policy toward lead paragraphs says:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. [my emphasis] See:WP:LEAD

At the moment the lead says "the books are best-sellers and the theory has been widely influential and acclaimed." So, I don't think we're slanting against them. The fact is that the theory is not widely accepted in academic circles. (at least according to the sources I can find). Since it is a quasi-academic theory I think that is relevant. Feel free to experiment with re-wording, I certainly don't think it is perfect, or finding other outside sources that are more positive. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Except social science theories invariably uses large masses of collected data. And they dont make vast, historical characterizations based on this data. This is just not a "theory."--Petzl (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

It's an overly broad statement to say that "the theory is not widely accepted in academic circles". Says who? What academic studies, polls or surveys have been done on that one question? Zero. What scientific studies -- either social science or hard science -- were conducted? The statement is just an opinion.Media67 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Further, the discussion about sales, marketing and consultants in the introduction is another attempt to remove it from the realm of social science.Media67 (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

you may be right that this is over-broad claim as things stand, or at least POV to point it out so boldly in the lead. However, I think we should make it clear that there has been some serious questionning from academic circles both of SH and more broadly the concept that generations can be studied in such a systematic manner as they claim, or that their style of framing has any real empirical validity. HOwever, I strongly disagree that the statement about sales and marketing is intended to discredit them. One of the most notable facts about SH is indeed that the concept has been so widely copied and adopted by others to the point that this is a real industry at this point. If that is perceived to reflect badly on the theory, well too bad. (which i don't think it necessarily does) We're not here to protect their reputation from public scrutiny. I repeat, if you have other sources which show serious academics using SH, or claiming that many do, then let's put it in, but IMO it isn't really an academic book. That isn't to say it doesn't have some value, but we shouldn't be representing it as rigorous empirical or scholarly work (as has been the case in the past on wikipedia). Peregrine981 (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The study of demographics (or human generational populations) is a social science. Wikipedia definition of demography: "Demography is the statistical study of living populations and sub-populations. It can be a very general science that can be applied to any kind of dynamic living population, that is, one that changes over time or space (see population dynamics). It encompasses the study of the size, structure, and distribution of these populations, and spatial and/or temporal changes in them in response to birth, migration, aging and death. For etymology(origins) of demography. Demographic analysis can be applied to whole societies or to groups defined by criteria such as education, nationality, religion and ethnicity. Institutionally, demography is usually considered a field of sociology, though there are a number of independent demography departments.[1] Formal demography limits its object of study to the measurement of populations processes, while the broader field of social demography population studies also analyze the relationships between economic, social, cultural and biological processes influencing a population".

The mention of sales, marketing and business in the introduction is (because of the prominient placement in the intro.) more ad hominem than a sincere description of the theory. Neil Howe might be a consultant but - isn't this article about the theory and not Lifecourse Associates?

I doubt UC Berkely, for ex., would agree that their demography department doesn't qualify as social science. See http://www.demog.berkeley.edu/department/index.shtml --Media67 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The study of demographics is not usually centred around generations, or at least not in the fixed way that it is in S&H. To say that people disagree with a particular way of interpreting demographics doesn't mean that you disagree with the entire concept or field. You can equally say that S&H theory is historical. If I disagree with it, that doesn't mean that I reject the entire study of history. Some demographers use generational labels, but I don't think that they are generally so deterministic and generalizing about the specific characteristics of the people of those generations as S&H are. Also, weren't we arguing about calling them historians, not demographers?

Perhaps we should be clearer about what is being criticized or not. Clearly the theory is quite broad, and they have refined it in certain books. To me there are two broad areas which could be criticized separately. One is the broader thesis: the idea that there is a fixed pattern of generational archetypes that repeats itself roughly every 80-100 years. Second: Specific discussion of the characteristics of particular generations. In this they have written quite extensively about Millenials, 13th gen, and baby boomers and less so about earlier generations.

Why is it ad-hominem to say that the theory is being used to make money? If anything, isn't that a good thing since people clearly think it is useful enough to pay money to learn about its implications? This article covers all prominent aspects of the theory, any books and elaborations of the theory. I think that the consultancy specifically set up by the authors to advise companies about its implications is relevant, especially since it continues to refine the theory and has published work (cited by wikipedia no less) about the theory. And it is certainly relevant that the theory was so influential that it has inspired imitators. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's ad-hominem when the introduction paragraphs combine language about "sales, marketing and consulting" with the statement "the theory is not widely accepted in academic circles". The introduction is supposed to give the readers a description of the theory rather than trying to discredit and debunk it -- in the first 2 or 3 paragraphs.

The intro is supposed to give a "concise overview" as I mentioned above. The fact is that one of the notable facts about this theory is its use in marketing, sales and consulting. We could give a more nuanced description of academic reception if you want, but it is also a fact that it has had a bit of a hard ride in many academic circles. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Math for birthyear ranges

I see someone reverted my corrections of the lengths of generations. She or hr wrote, "Undid revision 843431474 by Khemehekis (talk) did the math. 1943 to 1960 is 17 years, not 18".

I have changed this back. Let's count the years for the Baby Boomers (1943-1960), for instance:

1. 1943
2. 1944
3. 1945
4. 1946
5. 1947
6. 1948
7. 1949
8. 1950
9. 1951
10. 1952
11. 1953
12. 1954
13. 1955
14. 1956
15. 1957
16. 1958
17. 1959
18. 1960

Clearly 18 years. Khemehekis (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources are Strauss and Howe themselves & Conflict of interest

This article relies mostly on primary sources written by Strauss and Howe. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This article was created by someone who appears to have a connection to the subject. Most of the summaries of the Strauss and Howe books seem to have been written by this editor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

And whom would this editor be? Nashhinton (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I read that it is against policy to out people so I'm not sure what to say, but their user name makes it obvious. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: just an FYI WP:OUTING refers to the publishing of 'non-public' (off wiki) information about an editor. Simply mentioning who started an article is not outing. Drawing inferences about who they are, although perhaps uncollegial, is also not a policy violation that I'm aware. Crazynas ^t 20:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crazynas: WP:OUTING states "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment...Personal information includes legal name", so I don't think I should name the owner of the account who created this page, but like I said it's pretty obvious. Anyway, I think this article should be cleaned up to make sure it's neutral. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Kolya Butternut: the user appears to have outed themselves with the first edit to their own userpage, that said, they haven't been active for seven years, and the article is notable, so I'm not sure what is to be done (it would have been an apparent CoI at the time, but what's done is done). Crazynas ^t 23:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Crazynas:, it is true that the user outed themselves, but it appears to have been unintentional; they removed their name three minutes after having added it. But I understand that's not important at this point. I agree the article is notable. I don't agree that what is done is done. We can clean up the article to make sure it's neutral. A great percentage of the text which the creator added remains in its original state. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut and Nashhinton

Kolya Butternut I don't know who you're referring to exactly. I used the account Media67 to add content to the Critical Reception section.

I have never been employed by Strauss and Howe or by any of their companies or affiliates. I have never been paid to contribute anything to Wikipedia on their behalf, by them, or by anybody else.

I appreciate the opportunity to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you.

Btw, I misplaced the password for Media67. I had to create Media671 to respond to you today. Media67, Media671 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I was not referring to Media67, but their edits appear to be POV pushing. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Kolya is correct, the creator of this article appears to be related to one of the authors. This is not against the rules, of course, but we want to make sure it's NPOV. Xyzzyplugh (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Timing of Generations and Turnings chart

Can we delete this section with the chart? It seems redundant. It takes up a tremendous amount of space in the article and there already is a very similar chart which fits nicely to the side. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

No. 2601:940:C000:A3:F94B:AB09:C478:7E32 (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Why? There are two charts in the article. So maybe only have one. I agree with having only one chart.Nashhinton (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed the first chart. You are right. It was redundant. Nashhinton (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the chart. Editors were adding turnings to the chart that Strauss & Howe never defined explicitly (ie the first two turnings in the late medieval cycle), and the turning names were becoming a laundry list of events that editors were adding based on their own opinions of how each turning should be defined. So the turning names have now been changed back to the much shorter and official Strauss & Howe names and the chart takes up a lot less space. That being said, it is interesting to see these different interpretations of S&H theory and it would be nice if a separate article or section was reserved for alternative versions of this chart for people to post their own potential improvements to the theory. But I'm not sure if wikipedia is the place for that. Drakus79 (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)James Murray

Merge from Strauss & Howe named generation articles

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

Merge Proposal and / or Redirect. Please do not modify it.
The result of the request for the Proposed Merger of the requested articles into this talk page's article was:

Discussion indicates clearly that consensus has been reached — Awaiting merge by interested editor(s).
— — — — —

I propose merging the following articles to Strauss-Howe generational theory:
Humanist Generation (Strauss-Howe Theory)
Reprisal Generation
Liberty Generation
Republican Generation
Gilded Generation (Strauss–Howe theory)
Missionary Generation
Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support it seems these generational definitions are only relevant in their framework. - Scarpy (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support and trim details from the original articles, but still have the full idea. Nashhinton (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support These all seem to be limited to this specific theory. Crazynas ^t 20:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. These all seem to be different pages for the same idea. Additionally, the other pages are all too small and lacking in citations to survive on their own. DeemDeem52 (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each page talks about their respective generation.--Paleontologist99 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per the other comments above. These separate articles are only limited to this specific theory and not relevant any elsewhere. Humanist Generation consists of a description by Strauss-Howe and original research on the Notable People section with a random article about the history of the printing press. Reprisal Generation again includes only sources from Strauss-Howe and original research on Notable People. Liberty Generation includes a short description consisting of only Strauss-Howe sources. Republican Generation doesn't even have any sources. Gilded Generation lacks sources, except sources for the Notable People section which again is original research. Paleontologist99, it's a 5-1 for merging. By the way, merging does not mean that the articles and everything in the articles will be deleted -- instead, the different articles will redirect here and a separate section for each of those generations will be created in this article instead. Someone963852 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

— — — — —
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a WP:PM.

Please do not modify it.
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

A copy of this template can be found here.

Merge from Generations (book)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a rough consensus to merge Generations (book) into this article Peregrine981 (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

---

It is basically a shorter version of what we have here, I don't see what is notable about that book, except that it was the first, for the duo. Only references are about the theory, not the book, fails WP:NBOOK. Crazynas ^t 01:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• I support it. There are also separate pages for both these authors, which also seems over the top.--Hontogaichiban(talk) 20:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• The whole lot, should at a minimum be merged.--82.68.5.205 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• Their ideas have been so widely discussed that is may be hard to find sources just about the book, but I think there is enough discussion of the book that the current vanity page about the book could be turned into a nice short stub --Guerillero | My Talk 20:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose the merge. The book is a seminal work and deserves its own page. The page on the book should be trimmed down and should use the terminology of the book, with the excess material moved to the "generational theory" page. Warren Dew (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'd support this merge, or merging the other way around. The subjects of the book and the theory cross over to such an extent that they'd best be covered as part of a single article. Robofish (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• The two should certainly be merged. No strong opinion on which should be the new name. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. Keep the current article, shorten it, and redirect the book article here. The book article is somewhat clearer and less redundant. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 04:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vanity page?

It seems pages have sprung up all over wikipedia about these two and their book. Suggest an editor goes through and removes or at least distils out any worthy substance from the stuffing into a single page or reference. --82.68.5.205(talk) 19:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, may I take it that you support mergingGenerations into this page then? Crazynas^t 20:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hell yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.174.221 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this was done competently, Crazynas^t. Thank you both, Crazynas and IP user. I find the ideology of Strauss-Howe generational theory persuasive, but it shouldn't have had peripheral separate articles peppered throughout WP. Good job consolidating!--FeralOink (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider article regarding Steve Bannon & Strauss-Howe Fourth Turning

I notice there's an IP hopper who is removing longstanding content regarding Business Insider article regarding Steve Bannon and Strauss-Howe theory of Fourth Turning. That the article title quoted includes "should" is not grounds for removal. It's in quotes as an opinion given by a reliable source. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"Seems like" is good enough for you? If so, then we are ll free to cite a bunch of "seems like"s everywhere. It doesn't matter the source (dubious cit-ability) as much as it's not a supporting statement. 24.101.95.10 (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The quote regarding Steve Bannon & Strauss-Howe generational theory is reliably sourced and on topic. Please stop removing this longstanding content and please stop removing the Business Insider reference from the article absent consensus to do so. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Longstanding-ness does not influence correctness. A Business Insider (tabloid) opinion piece from an irrelevant Linette Lopez is not good enough citeable content. I can find similar content that says he is not doing so. According to your standards, I can add that in. 24.101.95.10 (talk) 04:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Business Insider opinion pieces are definitely tabloid content. BI had credibility prior to about 2014 but much less so after Jeff Bezos purchased a controlling interest and tilted it ideologically toward whatever his ideology is exactly. The news articles from BI are much closer to NPOV sources.--FeralOink (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Synth

I'm noticing a lot of Synthesis and subjective opinion dominating this page, especially from mobil users that may not be aware of the Wikipedia rules. Is there anything that can be done about this? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

There is also a lot of unsourced WP:Original Research. Remove them when you see them. Some1 (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Several problems

Not sure how they would be resolved, I'll leave that to one of the Wikibureaucrats reading this, but they are:

1. Title needs to be "hypothesis" not "theory", this isn't anything that would stand up to the rigors of what is considered a scientific theory.

It's a social science theory not a hard science theory. See "How to Build Social Science Theories", by Pamela J. Shoemaker, Syracuse University, James William Tankard, The University of Texas at Austin, and Dominic L. Lasorsa at the University of Texas at Austin. --Media67 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's plenty testable to be considered a theory by social science standards. The Theory and this article have a considerable amount of issues, but this isn't one of them. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

2. Article too long (esp on details of "theory", criticism section too short. This "theory" is more than unscientific, it's complete crap-- huge and unwavering generalizations are drawn from complete speculation and flights of fancy. Now one could say the same of a lot of Carl Jung's work but his work had a MUCH bigger impact on society and many academic disciplines. This is nothing but a bulls**t pop-sociology book...it should be given the same credibility and attention as "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is given-- in fact, less so considering the popular notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.174.221 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit harsh concerning the subject of the article, but I accept the criticism of the article. Much of it is far too credulous, and much of the text is redundant.

The criticism section is quite good and commendably brief. I'm not sure we need to pile on more attacks. It would be better to cut the rest of the article down to size.

There is nothing wrong with the usage of the word "theory" here. The anonymous critic is insisting on a narrow construction of the word. There is no need to rename the article "Strauss-Howe generational hypothesis," for instance. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This is supposed to be a "Crisis" point at the Fourth Turning (to use the author's terminology), right? It doesn't seem like a "hypothesis" in 2020. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The third paragraph as of August 2, 2021 does a good job of citing some very valid critiques. However, the current period with societal repercussions from the Covid pandemic do present a new wave in the cycle, kind of strengthening the "theory."Dogru144 (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

In fact, with the precipitating event of the financial crash of 2008 and a 22 year cultural crisis characterized by a nadir of faith in institutions, if it was a hypothesis, the fulfillment of predictions since it's development in the 1980's seems to be quite credibility-building. 50.46.37.28 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

dubious source

Searched 2 major libraries and the internet. No record of this source anywhere -- #73. Ferron, Alexander (July 1, 1993). "13th Generational Malaise". Eye Magazine. Remove? I'd say so. 49.192.44.178 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

dubious source

Searched 2 major libraries and the internet. No record of this source anywhere -- #73. Ferron, Alexander (July 1, 1993). "13th Generational Malaise". Eye Magazine. Remove? I'd say so. 49.192.44.178 (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

WW3?

Why is WW3 under 4th Turning for Homeland Generation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meco1999 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It was a Twitter thing for a while. It's just generic vandalism. No one with any authority has made an actual declaration of WWIII at this time. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

No as a member of the class of the promless 2020, I believe that the best 4th turning description would be the War on Terror against Radical Sunnis and Shiite Militias. See Al Qaeda and Hezbollah for more information. You may also see the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani for more information. I do believe that Generation Z lasts, based on calculations for only 2002 to 2019 and that Generation Alpha is beginning however this fact is disputed. Personisgaming (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello to you commenters back in 2019! From here in mid-2022, the world is gripped by a conflict between one of the biggest nuclear powers (led by a utter lunatic) with a proxy ally to the other biggest nuclear power (led by a neoliberal hawk). This is following four years of the US being led by a wannabe dictator (thankfully incompetent). If we back date the fourth turning to the precipitating event of the 2008 financial crash, then our current situation is 14 years into the crisis turning and predictions about the possibility of WWIII are not, I repeat "not", overblown. 50.46.37.28 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

i hope your being sarcastic. no human would actually want to start ww3. 99.27.106.23 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. NATO has demonstrated it knew where the line in the sand was—and they did not care. NATO started this conflict nearly two decades ago. Meanwhile NATO has also repeatedly advised Ukraine to not agree to the same terms of peace the rest of the world sees as reasonable. Three times, btw.

Without going too far down the rabbit hole, there is ample evidence within the State Department archives alone to declare with certainty that not only does someone actively seek to start WW3, but also shed some interesting insights as to who is truly responsible for the conflict in Ukraine. 216.213.8.67 (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

People have been predicting WW3 since WW2, it takes no real effort, any crisis will do. The idea that generational archetypes define human history is fanciful at best. From a brief read of the article I would say it is pseudoscience. It can't be tested.--Cuthbert Bargepole (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Way too many primary sources

Yeah, I checked the references because of the too many primary sources error and found out that at least a quarter of the sources were from Strauss and Howe. Please fix as soon as possible. 49.192.44.178 (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I have done what I can for the references, such as they are, for the moment.

The flat text references have been updated to citation and sfn templates. I think I have found and reduced all duplicates. I have standardized and reordered where it seemed appropriate. The primary references; Strauss & Howe, Howe & Strauss, and all the Lifecourse Associates remain. I am not a content editor by nature. I remain a gnomic reference/citation specialist mainly fixing issues with what is already present.

I leave it to content specialists to improve, excise, replace, and make useful. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no fault in citing previous studies, regardless of who led the research. The fact two professionals as established as Strauss and Howe have extensive backgrounds on a relatively new subject matter is not a red flag.

If one were to look up much of the modern research published on Evolutionary Psychology, Dr. Robert Sapolsky would be a widespread source, and naturally so, as he is credited with some of the key advancements in this field. This means he often cites his previous works, and why shouldn't he? He is, after all, a trailblazer.

The man is one of the only humans in recorded history to have discovered any species capable of producing an autonomous and self-regulating society wherein zero hierarchy existed. Essentially, what he discovered was the only recorded successful and sustaining anarcho-society. Whom else would he be able to cite most readily?

While I would agree this could be a problem were either demonstrating the same “predetermined outcome” sponsored ideology advertising outcomes as most modern research—-that would be a red flag. However, that is not what we see. Instead, we see well-established researches who still use ~75% citations of previous works, including contradictory theories, and still making it a point to highlight *and* demonstrate the flaws innate with using this theory as an absolute-model.

I would love to find just one modern research paper that even attempted to achieve this standard of objectivity. Instead we have the same issues called out here, sans any admission of irregularities. Often with completely contrived or manipulated datum and images in order to meet the demands what has effectively become sponsorship agreements. Strauss and Howe are not today’s “Research”-for-hire shills, and their thoroughness is self-evident.

Personally I think Strauss and Howe are definitely on to something but it is built on a flawed premise of defining generations when the realities are considerably more nuanced and therefore generations are considerably smaller than approximately 20-25 years. Although, being transparent with the challenges in my hypothesis, Dr. Sapolsky’s baboon society only lasted approximately two generations—-which fits the Father-Son theory as well as Strauss’s and Howe’s theory.

The citations are acceptable and I would challenge any naysayer to produce a better example of pioneering researchers citing previous works and demonstrating the flaws and inconsistencies within their theories and outcomes. I personally believe the theory is too reductive, but the research is solid and, as we see for ourselves, the timing is pretty close, so it is reasonably applicable for most practical applications. It ain't right but it is far from wrong.

The data is good, the research topic was groundbreaking and the availability of previous works to cite is subsequently equally as unique as the theory itself. What more are we looking for here? 216.213.8.67 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)