User talk:CreativeSoul7981/Archive 2

From talk page guidelines
I have moved your message on WT:Talk page guidelines to here because the message does not appear to be about talk page guidelines, and you may have intended to post it elsewhere:
 * Sorry For the Confusion
 * I didn't mean to make it seem as if you pasted our conversation on the Generations page. I mentioned it in the opening paragraph that it was a conversation I had with another user. I left it there because I thought others would want to know why the Beat Generation was left on the list. Please accept my apologizes - I re-edited to make it clear. Please feel free to fix it in such a way to make it easier to read - or re-direct it to your page? If you'd rather remove the whole thing and just start anew, please do. Again, sorry about that. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Generations
Thanks for the work on those formatting errors. They were not intentional :) And thanks for your patience and positive attitude toward the articles. It is a really pleasant change.

Peregrine981 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Yeah, I know I can be a bit of a stubborn mule at times, but I like to recognize real effort from others. I invited you on the discussion on the addition of the Beat Generation for the reason that I noticed your other contributions. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On First World War, I really couldn't care less... I just think it's a better term. But I would make the point that just because the article itself uses the term WWI, does not mean that all other articles should, especially in cases where there's a geographical difference in terminology.

As to the dates, we have a couple of articles that use dates after 2001, including the famous Neil Howe with Reena Nadler, who cite 2004 in "Yes we Can." 

The television and Gen X part seems odd to me. Perhaps we have a different definition of what "widespread" means. Certainly boomer culture was widely influenced by television, so I think it is a bit misleading to say that it was the first generation with widespread access to television. Perhaps some sort of qualifier could be inserted. At any rate, such a bold and important claim merits a reputable source.

The Strauss and Howe section was certainly not decided by consensus, unless you mean that no one has bothered to remove it since November 28, 2009 when it was inserted, thus tacitly approving it. Looking through the article history and discussion, I see no serious discussion of it, and certainly nothing resembling "consensus." Correct me if I'm wrong. However, even if it had been decided by consensus that does not mean it is now un-editable, as I dissent from the supposed consensus. See CCC.

On the substance of the issue, I think that we should keep the definitions of the generations as brief as possible on the Generation page (unless no article exists for the listed generation). If we get into the details of all the various researchers' theories, books, and minutiae for each generation, it will get out of hand. Additionally, in the current text we wiki link the authors twice, say that "many follow them," AND for good measure throw in that they are "respected." This amounts to editorializing in their favour. In order to preserve NPOV I think we should go with my version which factually states that they are influential, without leading the reader with supplementary adjectives. Saying that the generation "sharply contrasts with those born before them and after them due to the attention they received from the media and what influenced them politically" is redundant and fairly self-evident. Also, it alludes to only one of seven features they list for this generation, and is again getting way too detailed for this page.

Peregrine981 (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, can I go ahead and reinstate the changes? What do you think we should do with Howe and Nadler's close date of 2004? Do you think that overrides the earlier Strauss and Howe, date of 2000? Peregrine981 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If we're going to say that Strauss and Howe are unusually well respected, then we have to pay special attention to their dates don't we? Unfortunately Strauss died a few years ago, but as Howe is continuing to work on the topic, and he seems to have updated his calculations to say that Gen Y is 1982-2004. Surely we should note this change to his earlier position? He must have his reasons for the change. The 4th turning was written in the mid-late 1990s after all. At any rate, we certainly cannot BOTH say that S+H are the most respected authority on this topic, and then completely ignore their most recent research; it just doesn't make any sense.


 * As to Gen Jones, I highly doubt a nomination for deletion would be successful. If you look at the article's talk page, you can see that it has already been nominated for deletion three times since 2006. As long as it is explicitly clear that it is essentially a theory by one man that has been picked up by some others, I don't really have a huge problem with it. Just so long as it doesn't misrepresent the extent to which it is accepted by other experts. In fact, I think that MTV Generation is a much worse example of dubious research. I have yet to find a single coherent researcher that supports the concept, which is less than we can say for Generation Jones. I would agree though, that GenJones has little place in an overview article about the 2010s. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you are passionate about the topic, but I think, with all due respect, that you are being too conservative with regard to the generation/generation Y articles. You are always citing "consensus," but I would like to highlight this aspect of the policy to you:


 * Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.


 * Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.


 * A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.


 * Please present factual arguments about the topic at hand when discussion inclusion or exclusion, rather than citing a supposed consensus. At the very least you should be able to point so specific discussions or votes, otherwise I have no way to engage with the reasoning in favour of inclusion. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the document we are using as a source. ? Specifically we are currently using it as the source for the statement : "They use the start year as 1982, and believe that the coming of age of the class of 2000 high school graduates sharply contrasts with those born before them, and those born after them, due to the attention they received from the media and what influenced them politically."


 * First of all, it is slightly misleading to attribute this source to Strauss and Howe as this article is written by Howe and Nadler, rather than Strauss and Howe. However, it is fairly clear that it is based on the work of Strauss and Howe, so I think it's fair. However, they do not emphasize the the class of 2000. Let me quote from page 6, "The Millennial Generation (born 1982 to 2004) is coming as a surprise." The only mention of the class of 2000 is this on page 11, "From the precious-baby movies of the mid-1980s to the media glare surrounding the high school Class of 2000, older generations have inculcated in Millennials the sense that they are, collectively, vital to the nation and to adults’ sense of purpose. Parents, indeed, obsess endlessly over them— in K-12 schools, in colleges, and even as they enter the workplace. As Millennials absorb the message that they dominate America’s agenda, they come easily to the belief that their problems are the nation’s problems. Unlike Gen Xers, they don’t mind talking about themselves as a “generation.”"


 * The "media glare" surrounding the class of 2000 is only one example of why Millenials consider themselves to be special. It is NOT a defining feature of the generation. Why should we mention this graduation any more than the "precious baby movies of the 1980s"? This is only one of many, many examples features of the generation listed in their group of 7 special characteristics. I do not believe that this document warrants a singling out of this feature, especially in light of their definition of the generation as lasting from 1982 to 2004. Are we to believe that the class of 2022, is going to have even the slightest remembrance of the class of 2000, any more than the class of 2000 remembers the class of 1978?


 * And this is just from within the document we are citing. Ultimately I don't think that the class of 2000 analogy holds up internationally. Neither do I think that we need to be quite so congratulatory to Strauss and Howe, as I 've said earlier.


 * As to the baby boomer section that you have nixed, it is well sourced, and stands up better than the cliched statement, that all baby boomers were committed to the counter culture and environmentalism. Please explain your opposition. Best wishes, Peregrine981 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not ignoring your explanation for why 1982 births/Class of 2000 are the start of Generation Y. But I have pointed out that in the most recent article on the topic, Howe does not use this definition. He uses the class of 2000 hoopla as one example of why Gen Y might consider themselves special, not as a seminal point change. Please address this specific point, as cited in the article "Yes We Can."

I am in no way disputing the importance of Strauss and Howe. However, we are supposed to maintain NPOV, and are not here to advertise their theories. I think that the current wording overstates their importance. I am not trying to diminish their importance, but currently the wording is highly redundant, mentioning them twice, citing their book titles, and adding the fact that "many" follow their "demographics" without citation. Also, Strauss and Howe are not really demographers, but historians.

As always, please provide a reliable source for your contention that MTV Generation is a sub generation with a coherent academic definition.

With regard to the Boomers, what does "characteristically associated with" mean? I think that it is very imprecise wording, that doesn't mean anything in the end, or leads to the conclusion that all boomers were associated with environmentalism, the counter culture, feminism, and civil rights struggles. Can you suggest a better wording?

Also, I do not know why you keep referring to this mythical "consensus." It does not exist. Please refer me to a discussion that settled the current wording in a consensus. And even if there was a long standing consensus, I again refer you to wikipedia's consensus policy, "'Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" is not a valid rationale for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.''

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

In future please suggest potential changes, find new sources, or defend the reasons for existing wording rather than simply citing "consensus" (which does not exist). Peregrine981 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have said over and over why that information must remain AND added that a larger consensus had already been reached (see the archives where Strauss and Howe were discussed - it goes back at least 6 months to 1 year). Two people are not a consensus. But that is NOT the reason the information stays on the article page. You insist on bringing this up after I have cited the information and stated that it is part of the Generation Y article page. Strauss and Howe are important researchers and MOST media, demographers, and researchers today go by their standards. That bit of information is part of the DEFINTION of Generation Y and Millennials, and therefore belongs in the definition under the Generation page. Also, I said they were researchers not demographers. Others are demographers who use them as references. I have stated the reasons, references, research, and citations are provided. You have not shown any reliable sources or citations that show that MOST researchers don't go by the standard definition. The article pages show the origins, various uses, and definitions. Millennials and Generation Y are used interchangeably. The Strauss and Howe information stays. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in where the information may or may not have come from. We are discussing the text as it stands now, on the Generation page. However, I am interested in where the consensus discussion on Strauss and Howe was held. Could you provide a link, as I cannot immediately find it on the talk page for either Gen Y or Generation. Again though, that is a bit of a distraction ultimately, as there is obviously no longer a consensus on the wording of Generation Y.


 * You still haven't addressed the substance of the issue regarding the class of 2000. I'm waiting for it, and I think it is entirely reasonable for me to remove it now if you don't provide a corroborating source.


 * Wikipedia does not use negative burden of proof! It is not up to me to prove that people DON'T do something. I am not disputing that Gen Y and Millenials is an interchangeable term....


 * You have not addressed my point regarding boomers. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not provide the information on the boomers. I added that back in because it was deleted. That information is also pertinent to the article on the boomers. I can work with you on better wording, but the information and sources has long been a part of the article. Many, though not all, boomers are associated with environmentalism, the counter culture, feminism, and civil rights struggles. I'd say that the generation is associated with them. Maybe I'll start a new section on my page for that, or on the generations page. I think I know a couple of other users at least who would like to participate on that discussion. There is no harm in clarification or better wording regarding that subject.

I have addressed the issue of the Class of 2000. I have stated that most demographers and media today use the Strauss and Howe definition. Millennials ARE used interchangeably with Generation Y. I did not make that up. When the twentieth century was drawing to a close, the term gained momentum and was used for the Class of 2000. I graduated in 1999 and was NEVER a Millennial. I realize my example is original research, but I'm only clarifying what I'm saying. Universities, media reports, researchers, etc. describe the Millennials as the Class of 2000 - most do. It is a part of the definition of Millennials and part of the term on the Generation Y/Millennials page. You can't re-define a term that has been in use for over a decade. Sure, there will be more important events this decade that have yet to occur, but that doesn't change the definition of the Class of 2000. As to the links, they are very far back in the archives, when the discussion on Strauss and Howe took place; their section in the generation articles was moved. I'll try to go through the several hundred pages to find the changes, but the discussion occurred because the sections were deleted or vandalized. The researchers' contributions are now included in both the Generation X and Generation Y articles. The clarification on the authors' terms were moved from the opening paragraphs to the terminology section and the 13th Generation section (since that particular term is coined by Strauss and Howe). The definition of Generation Y and Millennials were addressed. It is worded now in the introduction and terminology paragraph as such because a consensus was reached. Millennials is at the top of the opening paragraph, but only in by what other names Generation Y goes by. It is not until the section on terminology that the definition is clarified. Strauss and Howe will remain in that paragraph. The article already clearly shows the various uses; the same goes for the other generation pages. The Generation page has a list of generations by definition, and should include the Strauss and Howe definition because Millennials is also a term used interchangeably with Generation Y by media today; it is widely known.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not, nor has it ever been my intention to claim that Gen y and Millenials are not the same term. I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I am not disputing any terminology.


 * I'm sorry to harp on this, but I don't believe you have addressed the class of 2000 issue. You say "Universities, media reports, researchers, etc. describe the Millennials as the Class of 2000 - most do. It is a part of the definition of Millennials and part of the term on the Generation Y/Millennials page. You can't re-define a term that has been in use for over a decade." Fine, but please provide some credible sources that claim this, rather than just asserting it. Previously you said that it was Strauss and Howe who made this claim, but I have now provided evidence that they no longer make this claim. It is simply not true that they use the class of 2000 as a defining feature, at least not any more (although I'm skeptical that they ever did, truth be told). Also, how do you resolve saying that "many" people follow their lead, while simultaneously denying their most recent research in our own definition? Peregrine981 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't contradict myself. I never said Strauss and Howe coined "Millennials". That term was already starting to be used by Generation Y members themselves. I said they coined the term "13th Generation", which they use in their books. I am not denying their most recent research by my own definition. I said they DEFINE why the term 'Millennials' is used to describe Generation Y, and why the two terms are used interchangeably, which is all mentioned in the Generation Y article under terminology. Thus, the definition belongs in the list of generations on the Generations page, where each generation is define. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ? You're losing me. I am not talking about the definition of Y vs, millenials, or who coined the terms. I am not discussing terminology. I am discussing the claim that Strauss and Howe " believe that the coming of age of the class of 2000 high school graduates sharply contrasts with those born before them, and those born after them." They make no such claim. Please, I beg of you, address this particular point. Where do Strauss and HOwe claim that the the coming of age of the class of 2000 high school graduates sharply contrasts with those born before AND after them. For now, that is all that I ask. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a claim. They DO say this in their research. It is properly sourced. If you go to their website, you might be able to read it in their articles. I also have their books. All of this is sourced in both article pages. I feel like I am repeating myself here. I am going through my Millennium book later this week. I'll get back to you on your page. On a completely different note, I think some of the pages we both watch are being inundated with vandalism. Have you noticed anything recently? There were a couple of recent users (guessing one was a sock puppet?) who have been blocked or banned. I will let you know if I hear anything. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it is not properly sourced. Simply asserting that it is so does not make it so. The source cited in both the Gen Y and Generation articles, is the "Yes we Can" article, which does NOT say anything about class of 2000 being a special defining feature. It also cites 2004 as the end of the generation. Their website has a brief synopsis of the generation, which also fails to mention the class of 2000, and says that the end of the generation is inconclusive. See here. Anyway, I look forward to a specific citation from the Millenium book later this week, as we can then perhaps stop going in circles. If you're going to cite the book, a specific page number will be required. However, even if it has an ironclad reference, I will still likely dispute it for inclusion here, as the most recent sources do not mention it at all, and that book was written 10 years ago. Events have certainly overtaken some of its conclusions by now. On vandalism, it is a sad fact that many of these pages are prone to it :( Peregrine981 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More on Moira Kelly
Hi CreativeSoul. Don't worry about directing people to my talk page regarding our discussion on fan sites. Normally I wouldn't do that mostly because I will probably eventually archive/delete my page, and also because I think it would be safer for people to read the real guidelines rather than MY interpretation in MY words, if that makes sense. No worries, though, it will stay for now. TO make it easier on editors, I did redirect the link (both on Moira Kelly talk and Beryl1989 talk) so it goes straight to the conversation on my talk page. I also added a link to the true guidelines. That made me feel better! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Named of the Decade
Join the debate. Artx (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2000s_(decade)#Request_for_consensus_concerning:_Names_of_the_decade

2010s - templates

 * I have not added any material to the article.
 * If you need help in using the templates correctly, please ask. As you were using them, however, it was very unclear, unsightly, and completely wrong.
 * Please do not insert them again in their current form.
 * Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Generally, when adding templates, it looks like you're typing  {{tlx|citation......  while you should just be typing  {{citation......  – the 'tlx' prefix is only for special occasions. Try that; it should work better! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

2010s
There was a discussion for deletion, and I voted for Strong Keep. I don't think we do agree. Zazaban (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, just delete anything speculative. And there is a lot of it added, mainly from people predicting that their favourite genre of music is going to be dominant. Zazaban (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

generations etc..
good luck on the research. i appreciate the effort you are putting into this. The vandalism on the generations articles, often seems to be mostly people who are ignorant of wiki procedures rather than malicious people, but it is very annoying you are right. In other articles you certainly get a lot of juvenile stuff, that you wonder why people would bother with. Oh well, good luck on your research, and hope you get some done before class starts. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * any progress in the research? I am interested if you have any additional comments regarding our discussions of a couple of weeks back? Thanks, Peregrine981 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll wait to see what you have. I am very appreciative of your good faith efforts. However, as a point of etiquette, in future I think it would be fair to remove disputed statements until such time as you have found suitable sources. I appreciate that we all have other things to be doing, and that it takes time to do real research, but I do think that the onus should be on an editor to prove worthiness of inclusion, before including something, rather than simply asserting that something is indisputably true, if a considerable amount of time is going to be needed to procure the sources. Also, I don't know how I can possibly state this in a way that I haven't already tried, but please try to remember that a) consensus can and does change. b) consensus has to be verifiable. I have never seen any consensus regarding the issues we are discussing. I have asked you before for a specific discussion or edit where it was established, but you have yet to show it to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peregrine981 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
99.238.7.113 (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation
I would check this out to begin with. There's loads of different styles that you can use if you prefer one or the other.

Referencing_for_beginners_with_citation_templates

It is far from a perfect system, and I hope that Wikipedia will some day address that. An article with a lot of citations can become close to unreadable in its source format. I also have never found a simple way to make a citation for the same source with different page numbers that doesn't require a completely new entry. Thanks for the effort! Peregrine981 (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Enya
Hi. I notice you've added that category quite a few times and been reverted by a few people, including me. Have you seen WP:BLPCAT? Maybe if you read that, you'll see why adding that category to a biography of a living person, when her religion is not even mentioned in the article, is inappropriate. Could you please instead bring your verifiable sources to the article talk page and we can discuss it there? Thanks. --John (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)