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
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).
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.
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)
Hidden comment in "Generations"
I want to do a bit of cleaning up and trimming, but that hidden comment said something about pages linking to the subheadings and {{anchor}} needed. Can somebody explain to me how that works? Thanks in advance. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up?What have I done?) 02:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
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).