Talk:Strauss and Howe

Section heading added for comment without heading

I'll go along with most of the edits. Tweaked for grammar. However with regard to S&H making specific predictions for the future (as opposed to general predictions) I think that does belong in the criticisms. Maybe I should've included examples. S&H have written for example that one of the 13th Generation's first big political issues will be to eliminate no-fault divorce; and mandatory national service will be inevitable in the near future due to the wishes of the Baby Boomers. Those are pretty specific predictions that go far beyond the scope of the the general gist of their generations/turnings theory. Either S&H have a crystal ball or (more likely) they are injecting their own political wishes for the future into their writings with the hope of them becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. That itself could be another criticism. Kaibabsquirrel 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The way I read the book, when they made specific predicitions, they qualified it by saying these are examples of what could happen, to help illuminate the archetype, not that these things would happen (or that they wished it would happen). In fact I think they went out of their way to address the nature of their prediction making, I could dig up the specific passage. Also I think it would be good to provide the reader some reference on who these critics are.. "critics say" can be used by editors to mask their own POV. Im not saying thats the case here, in particular the criticism of archetypes is an old and long standing one that goes beyond S&H to any theoreatical/philosophical metanarrative of history (Hegel and Marx dialectic being two most famous examples, but also Toynbee and other [[Universal History]). Stbalbach 01:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allegation

This potentially defaming allegation, added by an anon user, needs a verifiable source:

Both Strauss and Howe have accepted money from the Bush Administration to sell the largely unpopular and ineffective No Child Left Behind legislation. Neither reasearchers openly admit that they are being paid for specific results in their testing, nor will Howe admit that he is one of the architects of NCLB. This brings up major ethical problems with their work.

--Stbalbach 06:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Generations, Howe and Strauss deserve their own articles

Howe and Strauss and Generations deserve distinct articles on the Wikipedia. Howe and Strauss are a research team who have written several books and have their own histories as demographers. Their individual thesis, Generations, is however such a seminal work in demographics as to deserve its own page.

Notably, throughout the wikipedia, authors have pages that list all of their works, in addition to having seperate pages for their magnum opus, or even secondary works.

I agree that Generations should be a separate article, separate from the biography of the authors. The Generations theory is highly related to Saeculum, and should be cross-referenced together. -- Kreline (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A Strauss-Howe generational theory page has been created for the above stated reasons. It is now possible to edit this page specifically on the partnership of Howe and Strauss. I also think that the authors should have small, individual Bio pages. This would allow each article to be written clearly and concisely without split focusesWP:TOPIC.Corenabh (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Anon additions

Anon added this, moved to here:

One other small thing about the work of Strauss and Howe is that contradictions of theirs come about due to their very conservative political leanings. This is why they often contradict themselves by saying that the current crisis in which Gen X plays a pivotal part (fourth turning) will see the erasure of collective goods such as social security and other entitlements, while they also point out that historically the fourth turning crisis point is usually solved through an increase in collective goods and that the nomad generation (currently Gen X) typically strengthenes collective institutions. This is because THEIR solution to current economic and political problems involves the erasure of entitlements whereas Gen X (aka Nomads, who will actually solve this crisis) react against such babyboomer ideas by acting much more collectively. Sadly, as they point out, the wrong way to think and act in the current crisis is in the old ways of older generations such as blindly using ideology over what is practical and what really works. They are guilty of this themselves because they are baby boomers and doomed to their generational proclivities? (the above pharagraph is by D. Tyler McKay, University of Minnesota).

This is interesting but it is original research. -- Stbalbach 17:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of criticism section

Anon user recently remove the criticism section. I agree with this move. Not that there can't be a criticism section, but the one we had was unsourced and opinionated. Proper criticisms simply re-cap what other notable critics have said, including names, dates and publications. These free-handed anything goes unsourced criticisms are a real problem across Wikipedia in general. -- Stbalbach 23:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This was two years ago. Cant someone find some sources with criticism to this? Surely someone must have said something meaningful about all this? - Redmess (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone down article

If you want to tone down some of the language that is fine, but your negative attack on S&H is totally uncalled for. -- Stbalbach 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

it's uncalled for in a publisher's blurb, but it's appropriate in an encyclopedia. Readers need to hear that few experts take any of this seriously. It's all designed to sell motivational lectures that allow people to predict the future. Rjensen 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Many articles have a "criticisms" section, if you want to create one, fine, but you'll need to do it with credible and verifiable sources which is not original research. The article does a pretty good job of describing what S&H are about, that is the primary purpose of an encyclopedia article, there is no reason to seed negative critical stuff throughout the article sowing FUD about S&H. -- Stbalbach 05:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article started out as a publisher's blurb--an advertising piece--and makes no mention of its reception except they sell a lot of stuff. Perhaps we should add some critical reviews that lambast the amateur work. Rjensen 05:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of this article, I watched it being edited, this was not a cut and paste job. I agree some of it was market-speak but that is easily fixed and for the most part it describes their theories fairly well. As for criticisms, quoting other people is the only way to do it, you can't make negative statements without attributing it to someone else. The context of who said it and where and why is just as important as what is said. The reader needs to be able to make an informed decision on their own, not blindly told what to think by an anon wikipedia editor. --Stbalbach 05:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

template nominated for deletion - also article needs references

Hi - editors here may be interested in this currently active discussion: Generations Template at "Templates for Deletion".

Also, the article has many in-line external links (not footnotes), and it seems like all of them go to websites related to the authors the article is about. These authors seem to be notable, but the article really needs third-party references to support their notability per WP:V, and the in-line external links should be made into proper citations so they don't show up as external links. You could refer to WP:FOOTNOTES for some hints on how to Wikify those links. Also, it appears these authors are living persons, so WP:BLP should be considered in editing the article.

I'm just posting this info to be helpful, I'm not editing this article and will leave it to you to improve it according to your judgment. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Turning

According to this theory, what Turning are we in right now? Unravelling or Crisis? ike9898 20:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

America should be at the very end of the Unraveling right now. No one knows when an actual crisis will hit but if the theory holds true then it should be coming pretty soon. It's actually pretty obvious something bad will occur with all the poor economic and political choices we've made in the past couple decades and having Bush in the Whitehouse and whatnot... Haynsoul (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Generations(book)?

Hi Folks, I think this page needs to get merged with the Generations(book) page. After weeks of discussion, the big merge is finally underway, and I think it's fair to merge this one too, so that all of Strauss and Howe appear on one single article. --Dylanfly 15:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good. There's no reason for this particular page, since it only talks about the book and its reception. Tag placed. But it is incorrect to do the merge without having it open for discussion as provided by WP:MERGE and listed at the Wikipedia:Proposed Mergers page. DGG (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is entirely optional (and does not receive much traffic relative to the numbers of mergers that are actually suggested/done); all pages with the tags on them have a link to discuss the merge on the relevant talk page (ie. Talk:Generations (book)). --Peta 05:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Strauss' death

It says on the LifeCourse Assoc. website that he died of pancreatic cancer, doesn't that count as a source? Jack Daw (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

cleanup

lots of duplicated material, some of it clearly verbatim from another less than neutral site, and loads of repetetive links to their books in the refs section. +sj + 10:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the discussion there have been comments that Strauss and Howe should have their own bio pages (“Generations, Howe and Strauss deserve their own articles”). They each do have a bio page now (Neil Howe and William Strauss), and there's also a separate page detailing their theory (Strauss-Howe generational theory).

I think that this page should be about Strauss and Howe’s partnership; how they met and the work they did together. This is much more in line with other pages on Wikipedia about working partnerships. Right now this page is a mix of partnership info with theory and bio information that’s already provided on other pages. The repeated biographic info and generations theory should be removed. More info should be added to tell the complete story of Strauss and Howe’s partnership.

There are also many comments about language that copies from non-neutral sites (“lots of duplicated material, some of it clearly verbatim from another less than neutral site”) and the page is flagged for lack of citations. Duplicated language should be replaced with neutral language and adequate citations should be added.

Here is my idea for the article with these changes: User:Corenabh/Strauss_and_Howe. Please feel free to comment and edit. Hopefully we can get this page cleaned up! Corenabh (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

G.I. Generation is the term used NOT Greatest Generation in authors' book

I have the book Generations, and on page 36 and clearly throughout the book, the authors use the term G.I. Generation for the Greatest Generation. Someone changed the term used in the book. They use G.I. (soldiers - see book) to represent the Greatest Generation. Please do NOT change this again.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I meant to say in my edit summary that I changed back Greatest Generation back to G.I. Generation based on the terminology used the authors' book Generations, but it is LINKED back not LOOKED back to the article on The Greatest Generation (a term coined by Tom Brokaw). The person who changed it obviously has not read the book.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe are one source on the generations.

Others use different dates for the generations. Everything in the Strauss and Howe section is accurate about them and it should remain, but I am just pointing out that they are not the only generation sources out there for those interested in researching generations. (Bjoh249 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC))

You spammed 3 separate talk pages with the same information. It is left on the Generation X page. Please stop this disruptive behavior. You have received your final warning. Other editors have also warned you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have stopped editing the pages, but that doesn't make wikipedia and Strauss and Howe anymore right on this.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You have stopped editing the generation pages, but you keep posting the same opinion over and over on several talk different talk pages. Your statement: "that doesn't make [Wikipedia] and Strauss and Howe anymore right on this," is your own personal opinion, which has no bearing on Strauss and Howe's research. The media, along with other researchers and experts, largely believe the authors' work to be noteworthy. However, even if you were an "expert" in generational research, your work would not be allowed as a reference on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable...Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. Wikipedia does not allow personal opinions to be included in its articles. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, WRONG

"Today, many follow William Strauss and Neil Howe's theories in defining the Millennials. They use the start year as 1982, and end years around the turn of the millennium."

I don't expect this to be changed with Creative Soul in charge, but I need to inform people that many still use 1980 and earlier dates to describe Generation Y and the millennial generation. I have many articles on this posted on my personal "My Talk" Page. Bjoh249 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We have gone over this several times with other editors. Generation dates vary because commentators use different dates - there are no exact time frames, only what is generally used. The introductions have been worded carefully and decided by a consensus; it is backed by several reliable sources - indicating the earliest and latest dates. It's usually either 1976 as the start of Generation Y or 1982, but again, dates have ranged from as early as 1975 to 1982. However, it has been stated by a source provided by Educatedlady that despite there being no exact time frames, the earliest date generally used for Generation X is 1961, and the latest 1981. Other sources tend to use 1965-1981 such as Australia's Bureau of Statistics. Few sources use 1982 as the end of Generation X, but even Peregrine981 and Educatedlady (who disagrees with me) have acknowledged that 1981 is more commonly used as the end of Generation X, and that most popular media use 1982 for Generation Y. I have proven that many journalists and researchers from different countries and backgrounds (marketers, sociologists, journalists, businessmen, psychiatrists, government officials and bureaus) use 1982 as the official start of Generation Y/Millennials. I have provided references showing how Strauss and Howe are well-respected and highly influential. They are at the forefront of generational theory and the most well-known. However, I have also shown that other countries not referencing Strauss and Howe (own sociologists) and those running Millennial Conferences (U.S. and Canada with speakers from around the world) reference 1982. If a few people disagree with Strauss and Howe, well, that is their opinion. If you disagree with these authors, that is your opinion as well. The majority of media seem to respect these authors and their work, and Neil Howe continues to publish his research and work as a highly sought after consultant. That is not my opinion, but the opinion of the media in general. There is already criticism on their page, where it belongs - not on every generational page. The majority view by the public (PBS, ABC News, CBS, etc.) is that the authors' work is influential. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Strauss and Howe are wrong and you are too. Strauss is dead and Howe is some old man from a previous generation. I don't care what you or they say. I have done the research. I have articles from the last few years from different sources like CBS News and USA Today on my My Talk page, but you don't care. You are obsessed with keeping 1981 in Gen X and that is your opinion. There is no difference between people born in 1981 and people born in 1982 than one year.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have warned you before about spamming the talk pages with the same discussion over and over. I have moved your posts to this discussion page instead. Once again, please be aware of personal opinions and Wikipedia policy on original research. Regardless of what you say, I have provided several sources, including CBS News, that use 1982-1995 for Generation Y/Millennials. As other users have already mentioned, sometimes the same newspaper or other other media will use a different time frame. I have copies of the articles and appropriate news transcripts. I have also shown that 1981 is more commonly used by a variety of sources around the world as the last year for Generation X. While few sources use 1982, it is more common for the media (especially more popular and reliable sources) and researchers to use 1981. Even Educatedlady and Peregrine981 have acknowledged this. For years, 1982 has been used as birth year of the Millennials, and I'm sorry, but despite few exceptions, this is the birth year most associated with the Class of 2000. This is not just my opinion, but one of the reasons why so many sources use this particular birth year for Generation Y. Stop acting as if I just randomly picked this year by myself. The association of 1982 with a "new generation" has been around for over twenty years. Apparently Psychology Today disagrees with you, because they published an article within the last year or so distinguishing those born in 1982 from the generation born before that year. You can disagree with me all you want, but I provided plenty of sources that support my claims (none of the information was written or published by me). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that Strauss and Howe are at the very least influential. Whether or not you agree with them or think they are complete cranks is not relevant to the point that wikipedia should portray them as such. If you have reliable sources disputing their findings or broadening our base of knowledge please by all means include them. I find the present article to have too few critical or even positive outside opinions of their work. Far too often "the media" will report on issues, such as generations completely uncritically using whatever sources are easily to hand. This way the impact of potentially mediocre work is often greatly expanded and can become self sustaining. Although they are reliable sources, many mainstream media reports still need to be taken with a grain of salt, as they are often uncritically repeating claims.

Incidentally, for what it's worth IMHO this discussion is getting too personal. Let's try to focus on the articles, and maybe try to expand portions that are less controversial. If we spent a fraction of the effort taken to battle over some relatively minor points in the generational articles on the articles themselves they could be featured by now! I am as guilty as anyone on this point, but I think we should all make an effort to move on, and I do feel that we are coming to somewhat more of a consensus now. Let's try not to descend back into trivial battles of the past. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Turnings and Generational Archetypes

This article has two focuses: Strauss and Howe theory, and Strauss and Howe partnership. There is now a Strauss-Howe generational theory page to explain the authors theory, specifically turnings and archetypes. I am proposing removing the Turnings and Generational Archetypes sections to focus this article on the partnership of the authors. Corenabh (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I would propose merging this page into the Strauss-Howe generational theory and the individual pages on Strauss and Howe, or vice versa. Right now this page seems redundant to the other pages. Better to consolidate information to avoid duplication of work. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Millennial Generation

This article says that strauss and howe coined the term millennial generation but does not explicitely source the claim. Does anyone know that they in fact did coin it?

On a related note, for those interested, I think in recent years there is increasing consensus to call "generation Y" the millennial generation. Would anyone be interested in moving that page? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Strauss-Howe generational theory

Please keep the discussion at Talk:Strauss-Howe generational theory#Merge from Strauss and Howe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)