Talk:Strauss and Howe

message: 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)
thread_title: Section heading added for comment without heading

message: 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)
thread_title:  Allegation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Generations, Howe and Strauss deserve their own articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anon additions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of criticism section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tone down article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  template nominated for deletion - also article needs references  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with Generations(book)? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strauss' death 

message: 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)
thread_title:  G.I. Generation is the term used NOT Greatest Generation in authors' book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Strauss and Howe are one source on the generations. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Turnings and Generational Archetypes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Millennial Generation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Strauss-Howe generational theory]]