Talk:The Third Wave (Toffler book)

Genre
Under genre in the infobox are: Social Science, History, and Futurology, but are those genres or subject matters? I get the impression that this is a sci-fi novel, not a non-fiction reference on social science, history, or futurology. If this is a sci-fi novel that focuses on social science, history and futurology, then the genre should be: Soft science fiction and Historical fiction/Alternate history/whatever the case may be.--Subversive Sound (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fourth Wave
Changed the title of this section, as it was called "Fourth Wave?". If it is disputed, that may be mentioned in the article, but the title doesn't really need a question mark. Furthermore, why does it say "note: The rpg "Transhuman Space" postulated a Fifth Wave - the consequence of Nanotechnology, Memetics and Artificial Intelligence." right below it? Besides the fact that the "n" in "note" should be capitalized, and RPG should also be capitalized since it is an acronym, it hardly belongs the section about the fourth wave, if in the article at all. Sandwiches99 00:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just another quick add-on the my previous point: The part at the bottom is hardly even necessary, and certainly not notable.  It is simply a detail of a video game story, and hardly belong in this article.  After correcting the aforementioned details, I've decided to simply remove it altogether.  Feel free to re-add it and dispute it in this talk page or on my user discussion page, thanks.  Sandwiches99 00:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a roleplaying (D&D-like) game, not a videogame, but the point is valid. This article is very disorganized and replete with unsourced or speculative information. Nearly everything in "the fourth wave" section seems like it should be either in another article or removed entirely. A detailed description of Toffler's thesis is appropriate, but as it stands we have a fragmented ideas, again mostly unsourced.


 * There's also no mention of critical reception or impact of the work. Newt Gingrich put this on his conservative reading list during the aftermath of the GOP house takeover of 1994, for example. The Maynard book seems like it belongs here (if indeed it references Toffler specifically). Wellspring (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
Seems to have been messed up; I've restored the previous version -Indigenius

I've added extra information placing the book in the context of the trilogy that it is a part of, providing a summary of the salient features of the third wave society (including extra elements gleaned from the sequel Powershift), and a short section speculating on the ever-prevalent question: "The Fourth Wave?"

A separate page should be written up for Powershift and maybe also for War and Anti-War. Toffler coined new phrases Material-ismo, Zone of Illusion, respectively, a play on "machismo" and the "zone of peace" term in vogue in early 1990's Europe. -- Mark 2006 June 30

Main Point
The main point is how wealth is created. First Wave - land, Second Wave - raw materials, markets, Third Wave - information. This should be said clearly. Instead, I get this: "eclipsing of monetary wealth by knowledge" Not monetary wealth, raw materials and markets. Doru001 (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference Please
The main quote about the waves (ie Toffler writes: "The Second Wave Society is industrial and based on mass production, mass distribution, mass consumption, mass education, mass media, mass recreation, mass entertainment, etc..." has been quoted in dozens of URL documents all referencing Wikipedia, but I can't find it in the book "The Third Wave". Can someone give me a solid reference? Is it not actually a quote from the book but from some where else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.197.8.42 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am concerned with the paragraph which starts with "Despite the forecast of the obsolescence..." and includes the term "United States of Earth" and how the paragraph proceeds to describe a hypothetical reality which as explicitly stated, does not appear in the book. The implication is that the comments are from the author (Toffler), based on the previous paragraph in this article, but I have located the comments from that quote (ref. 1) and they do not include those made in the paragraph in question. I propose this paragraph be stricken in toto unless someone can show that these are comments made by Toffler, versus the editorial comments made by the Wikipedia contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.14.0.154 (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)