This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParrTiff (article contribs).
This page appears to be entirely aimed at promoting research by Strauss & Howe, presumably to promote both their heavily cited books on this "topic", and their heavily mentioned Lifecourse Associates publishing/speaking/consulting company. This theory does not appear to be sufficiently independently notable outside of work by Strauss & Howe to justify a page. Adsbhiasi331 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with deletion. However the plain fact that what this article describes is useless pseudoscience written by and for MBA marketeers who haven't seriously thought about history since high school ought to be mentioned in the header instead of being buried down in the criticism section. Andro124 (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the theory is significant enough to exclude it from deletion on that basis. However I think it needs close to a complete rewrite and I question how much of the current text is worth saving. In some ways I think starting from a blank slate would take less work and produce a better result.
For example early in the article the following is stated:
"However, Strauss and Howe later suggested that there are no exact generational boundaries — the speed of their development cannot be predicted. The authors also compared the cycles with the seasons, which may come sooner or later, which turned out to be right. 16"
First, what does this even mean? It is unambiguous what 'which' refers to. Is it that cycles are like seasons, that seasons come sooner or later, that there are no exact generational boundaries?(note a boundary that can occur at variable frequency does not necessarily mean it is not a smooth transition as opposed to a sharp shift)
Second, the citation given refers to an entire book and does not give a page number. This leads the reader to having to accept the statement on it's face or to read the entire book searching for this passage. How is one expect to edit these sorts of passages? It's these sorts of issues (and there are many) that make me question the value of any of the existing text.
I recall this article being less bad years ago. Relative to its length, this is probably the worst wikipedia article I've read and I think that will continue to be the case without some more significant action that trimming around the edges. 66.30.140.148 (talk) 12:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is an unusually successful student project; the article rivals in length the Wikipedia article about Christianity (and makes about as much sense). But people need to know about Christianity because of all the things it's affected over the years. The dual originators M's Strauss and Howe cannot have had such a significant effect (as the techings of Jesus Nazareth have) since it is less than one generation since the advent of their revelations. Is there a way to choose the optimal length for a Wikipedia article? Createangelos (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before I take a look at the archives, are there any editors here that feel these issues (possible COI, PRIMARY and OR) are still prevalent? Cheers. DN (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, could you point out which specific issues need to be addressed? The tags have been up far long enough, with no discussion or effort to resolve them. Cheers. DN (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem would be the weight of the books in the article, yes they are important to the theory, but is it justified to have the book in that much detail? Cutting the whole part does not feel right either...(edited) —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up?What have I done?) 00:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are objecting to removal of tags, the ONUS is on you to point out the issues. Let's just take one thing at a time. What's the first line/issue you want to address? DN (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:PRIMARY but as long as it's clearly attributed and not in WP:VOICE it can be very useful. There are many articles on WP about pseudoscientific theories that refer to the PRIMARY source to help explain the subject. We just need to make sure it's clear. DN (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"People are looking for a new way to connect themselves to the larger story of America. That is the problem. We've felt adrift over the past 10 years, and we think that the way history has been presented over the past couple of decades has been more in terms of the little pieces and people are not as interested in the little pieces now. They're looking for a unifying vision. We haven't had unifying visions of the story of America for decades now, and we're trying to provide it in this book. The kinds of historians who are drawn to our book -- and I'm sure it will be very controversial among academics because we are presenting something that is so new -- but the kinds who are drawn to it are the ones who themselves have focused on the human life cycle rather than just the sequential series of events. Some good examples of that are Morton Keller up at Brandeis and David Hackett Fischer. These are people who have noticed the power in not just generations, but the shifts that have happened over time in the way Americans have treated children and older people and have tried to link that to the broader currents of history."
"as the authors (Strauss and Howe) relentlessly attack the iniquitous 'child-abusive culture' of the 1960s and '70s 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."
The report described Millennials Rising as a "good-news revolution" making "sweeping predictions" and describing Millennials as "rule followers who were engaged, optimistic, and downright pleasant", commenting the "book gave educators and tens of millions of parents, a warm feeling, saying who wouldn't want to hear that their kids are special?"
"This is not a good book, if by good you mean the kind of book in which the authors have rigorously sifted the evidence and carefully supported their assertions with data. But it is a very good bad book. It's stuffed with interesting nuggets. It's brightly written. And if you get away from the generational mumbo jumbo, it illuminates changes that really do seem to be taking place. <--Backhanded compliment —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up?What have I done?) 03:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the article is about the theory, it's our job to present it in a Neutral format, not censor it or pretend it doesn't exist. DN (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has something equivalent to MOS:INUNIVERSE issues. Like seriously:
Artist (Adaptive) generations enter childhood during a Crisis, a time when great dangers cut down social and political complexity in favor of public consensus, aggressive institutions, and an ethic of personal sacrifice. Artists grow up overprotected by adults preoccupied with the Crisis, come of age as the socialized and conformist young adults of a post-Crisis world, break out as process-oriented midlife leaders during an Awakening, and age into thoughtful post-Awakening elders.
I wouldn't simply remove the entire section, but condensing down in a summary style would be a step forward in the spirit of BRD. Or, do you mean simply changing the title of the section? DN (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to this edit by Bob200505722, I noticed in their edit summary "Bad faith biased edit removal. The theory cannot be pseudoscientific as long as the term “Millennial” remains a prevalent social force." they failed to adhere to WP:AGF and then mistakenly assumed that because "as long as the term “Millennial” remains a prevalent social force" it cannot reasonably be considered pseudoscientific. See sources below....
^Lind, Michael (January 26, 1997). "Generation Gaps". New York Times Review of Books. Retrieved 1 November 2010. The idea that history moves in cycles tends to be viewed with suspicion by scholars. Although historians as respected as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and David Hackett Fischer have made cases for the existence of rhythms and waves in the stream of events, cyclical theories tend to end up in the Sargasso Sea of pseudoscience, circling endlessly (what else?). The Fourth Turning is no exception.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParrTiff (article contribs).