This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
I do not understand the logic of the subheads, given that some in the "Others" (Hart Crane, Isadora Duncah) spent significant time in Paris.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, as poorly defined. I don't feel strongly about this, merely puzzled. "Ex-pat" seemed poorly defined and arbitrary. Glad to talk about it.
Softlavender: Well, if this is to be not just a list but a category, then its sourcing really, urgently, needs to be improved by an order of magnitude. The concept of "lost generation" isn't the sharpest to begin with, and when it's almost totally unsupported by reliable sources, weasel-worded ("who have been considered", ... "generally applied to reference" (what's that?) ...), then we are teetering on the brink of purest WP:OR. The definition and list criteria need to be sharpened up and cited properly (if they can be); and quickly. The combination of a miniscule overview/definition and a list where only one member is actually cited - though the note to Stein hints at the actual source of the term - could easily be fatal to both article and category. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had nothing to do with this list article, but here are some randomly collected sources:
They don't look great, and it's hard to understand why one would wish to construct the whole apparatus of a category system if one hadn't studied the sources and considered them robust and reliable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, I am not sure if this list would survive a deletion discussion. ―SusmuffinTalk 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither of you seem to live in the U.S. In the U.S., the writers of the Lost Generation are arguably the most famous in American literature, and the names are very well known and documented as being Lost Generation writers and not under any controversy as to that categorization. We have Category:Beat Generation writers, Category:Beat Generation poets; there's no reason not to have a category on the much more important and well-known Lost Generation writers. Likewise for the list; just because the article isn't sourced, that's no reason it should be deleted. There are hundreds of references denoting the writers of this group. As far as the comment that, for instance, Britannica "[doesn't] look great", well that's news to WP:RS and you're welcome to start a thread at WP:RSN. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
