Talk:Strauss–Howe generational theory

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research

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).

Deletion Request

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)

WP:BEFORE - A quick google search shows there is coverage of the topic. E.g., [1], [2] EvergreenFir (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Tags from 2019-2022

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)

Yes, I think they definitely are... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 08:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

All of them, or certain ones? Would adding attribution solve that issue? DN (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I am not too sure about how to deal with that... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

For one, I believe that the reception and specific detail of the individual books could possibly be omitted? The article is not about the books themselves. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

However, would entirely removing them be considered excessive?... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 02:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

I also think that there are too many lengthy quotes, and the fact that most of the quotes in this article are in favor of the subject or the books does not help... —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "in favor"? What are some examples? DN (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

"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)

There is also the possible problem that this article is being promotional to the books. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

However, the article in its current form contains way too much about the books themselves. I believe that trimming it down to only how the books contribute to the theory would help. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 03:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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.

Please go ahead and trim the article to make it sound more encyclopedic. Some1 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed DN (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Would removing the "Generations" part and renaming "Timing of generations and turnings" be a good idea? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

I am not quite confident how far I should go with condensing it though. Would it be ok to trim out the historical events, as they are already included in the table below? —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Classification as pseudoscience

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....

From List of topics characterized as pseudoscience#Sociology

Cheers. DN (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

References

The pseudoscience double standard

A big issue with many of the edits asserting that the theory is pure pseudoscience is their lack of acknowledgment of how much the theory has influenced the framework of modern generational theory. Take Millennials, a widely recognized generation among demographers and marketers; they cannot be a legitimate generation if the very people who coined the term, William Strauss and Neil Howe, are nothing but charlatans. It is unfair to scrutinize the Strauss-Howe generational theory while accepting the concept of social generations (debatably pseudoscience as well) as legitimate.

If the Strauss-Howe generational theory is truly pseudoscience, it is illogical to have a protected Wikipedia page for the “Millennial generation” and not apply the same level of scrutiny to every other generation article in Generations in the Western World. It’s just as easy to cherry-pick sources that regard the Strauss-Howe generational theory as pseudoscience as it is to cherry-pick sources from experts who regard the concept of social generations as a whole as pseudoscience. Take sociologist Philip N. Cohen. Yet, that same energy is not present in the other generation articles. Do I suspect bias? Bob200505722 (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, your title here seems a bit hyperbolic considering these "biased" descriptions are documented and sourced. We let the sources do the talking. The article seems to accurately describes the theory and notable opinions about the theory in extreme detail. This article seems to go overboard on both accounts IMO.

"A big issue with many of the edits asserting that the theory is pure pseudoscience is their lack of acknowledgment of how much the theory has influenced the framework of modern generational theory"

I doubt you could point out any policy that explicitly shows a requirement for such a qualifier in order to include what appears to be reliably sourced context that describes the theory as such.

"It is unfair to scrutinize the Strauss-Howe generational theory while accepting the concept of social generations (debatably pseudoscience as well) as legitimate"

According to which WP policy? This is not about "accepting the concept of social generations" or justifying the explanation behind generational nomenclature. It's about explaining the theory itself according to sources, so your argument sounds like an apples to oranges comparison, kind of like an accidental red-herring.

"they cannot be a legitimate generation if the very people who coined the term, William Strauss and Neil Howe, are nothing but charlatans"

That seems to be jumping to a conclusion that isn't implicitly stated here. Editors here aren't making that judgement, the sources are, so this argument does not seem to be a reason to exclude, because, it is not our job to try to "legitimize" the theory. We do not exclude reliably sourced and notable material simply because it isn't "fair" or because it "scrutinizes" the article subject in a way we don't like, particularly if those views are in the majority.

"If the Strauss-Howe generational theory is truly pseudoscience, it is illogical to have a protected Wikipedia page for the “Millennial generation” and not apply the same level of scrutiny to every other generation article in Generations in the Western World"

It's still unclear how or why you are making these comparisons. Simply put, if the majority of RS "scrutinize" the theory, therefore so should the article. Take a look at WP:MOS, specifically WP:LEADFOLLOWS. Excluding summary statements from the lead because they appear critical or "scrutinizing" can easily become an WP:NPOV issue.

"Do I suspect bias?"

See WP:AGF

Cheers. DN (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I had the theory presented to me today, and immediately began to likening it to astrology in the conversation. Then I searched WP and found the article here. This theory is only descriptive when viewed in a certain retrospective angle. It has little to withstand scientific rigour. Even "Kondratiev cycles" which just describe economies and which are similarly vague, even they are more convincing (and note, they propagate different timeframes).

Pseudohistorians regularly make their claims based on "it looks like..., therefore it must be..." which is a fallacy. These kind of people also use to prop up the Roman Republic as the equivalent to the US Republic; finding that both lasted for ca. 250 years before infighting 'inevitably' turned the Republics into Empires respectively which then are 'destined' to last another fixed timespan. This kind of deterministic thinking ignores all nuance and cherrypicks data. One could just as well claim that the US "are like" Carthage: a plutocratic merchant state, a naval power that engages mostly in proxy wars fought by mercenaries, and relies on an obscure system of trading colonies under indirect rule, itself being the offshoot of the colonies of a precursor naval power (GB/Phoenicia). In this metaphor, modern China "is like" Rome: a tough organized militaristic and meritocratic state that begins as the underdog... etc blabla. All of it crystalball-gazing... will the modern Rome proceed to salt the modern Carthage?

Again, this kind of thinking is based on fallacies, trying to literally find "rhyming" in history. It can be helpful as narrative device in pop history. That is it. --Enyavar (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)