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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research[edit]
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).
Yeah, I checked the references because of the too many primary sources error and found out that at least a quarter of the sources were from Strauss and Howe. Please fix as soon as possible. 49.192.44.178 (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done what I can for the references, such as they are, for the moment.
The flat text references have been updated to citation and sfn templates. I think I have found and reduced all duplicates. I have standardized and reordered where it seemed appropriate. The primary references; Strauss & Howe, Howe & Strauss, and all the Lifecourse Associates remain. I am not a content editor by nature. I remain a gnomic reference/citation specialist mainly fixing issues with what is already present.
I leave it to content specialists to improve, excise, replace, and make useful. —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fault in citing previous studies, regardless of who led the research. The fact two professionals as established as Strauss and Howe have extensive backgrounds on a relatively new subject matter is not a red flag.
If one were to look up much of the modern research published on Evolutionary Psychology, Dr. Robert Sapolsky would be a widespread source, and naturally so, as he is credited with some of the key advancements in this field. This means he often cites his previous works, and why shouldn't he? He is, after all, a trailblazer.
The man is one of the only humans in recorded history to have discovered any species capable of producing an autonomous and self-regulating society wherein zero hierarchy existed. Essentially, what he discovered was the only recorded successful and sustaining anarcho-society. Whom else would he be able to cite most readily?
While I would agree this could be a problem were either demonstrating the same “predetermined outcome” sponsored ideology advertising outcomes as most modern research—-that would be a red flag. However, that is not what we see. Instead, we see well-established researches who still use ~75% citations of previous works, including contradictory theories, and still making it a point to highlight *and* demonstrate the flaws innate with using this theory as an absolute-model.
I would love to find just one modern research paper that even attempted to achieve this standard of objectivity. Instead we have the same issues called out here, sans any admission of irregularities. Often with completely contrived or manipulated datum and images in order to meet the demands what has effectively become sponsorship agreements. Strauss and Howe are not today’s “Research”-for-hire shills, and their thoroughness is self-evident.
Personally I think Strauss and Howe are definitely on to something but it is built on a flawed premise of defining generations when the realities are considerably more nuanced and therefore generations are considerably smaller than approximately 20-25 years. Although, being transparent with the challenges in my hypothesis, Dr. Sapolsky’s baboon society only lasted approximately two generations—-which fits the Father-Son theory as well as Strauss’s and Howe’s theory.
The citations are acceptable and I would challenge any naysayer to produce a better example of pioneering researchers citing previous works and demonstrating the flaws and inconsistencies within their theories and outcomes. I personally believe the theory is too reductive, but the research is solid and, as we see for ourselves, the timing is pretty close, so it is reasonably applicable for most practical applications. It ain't right but it is far from wrong.
The data is good, the research topic was groundbreaking and the availability of previous works to cite is subsequently equally as unique as the theory itself. What more are we looking for here? 216.213.8.67 (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
If this article survives, it need a good case scrubbing. There's no reason to cap a bunch of common nouns just because one author does. I fixed some, but there's a lot more to fix. Dicklyon (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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).