Talk:Baby-Boom Generation

This discussion is a continuation from Talk:Baby Boomer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baby-Boom Generation redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

History

This redirect 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

Culture

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles

Redirect - to Baby Boomer

I see no reason not to send this back to the Baby Boomer article. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. In reverting the sockpuppet's edits, I mistakenly did this one. I'll do it myself. Unitanode 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, this isn't the article I was thinking about. I'll have to go back in my contribs and find it. Unitanode 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Jones

GJ article should not be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:UNDUE. GJ is a FRINGE-y theory, without wide scholarly acceptance. Treating it as if it somehow on the same plane as Boom and X is not tenable, in my view. Unitanode 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to adding the line that exists on the Baby Boomer page:"The term Generation Jones has gained popularity to distinguish those born 1954-1965 from the earlier Baby Boomers." But only here, not in all the other articles that GenJones seems to creeps into.--Knulclunk (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is with placing it in the lead portion of the article, as it seems to be UNDUE. What are your thoughts on where it might best be placed? Unitanode 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging it on the end of the lead would be fine for me. The language I suggest implies that the term is both recent and limited. It acknowledges the term's popularity while not ascribing any more weight than a simple definition. (The GJ article can cover all that.) This language does not imply that the 1954-1965 cohort are no longer considered members of Boomer or GenX, simply that there is a common, more nuanced definition that is also accepted. --Knulclunk (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine to me, then. I may tweak the language a bit after you place it, but I have no real issues with a mention here, given your explanation. Unitanode 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of POV tag

In light of the recent removal of the POV tag from the Generation Jones article, I see no reason for the tag to still be on this page. In the absence of a targeted discussion of this article's POV status, I am deleting the tag. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Generation Jones needs to be included in any discussion of Baby Boomers

If you read recent books about Boomers, you'll find that they almost always now include a discussion about GenJones. It would certainly create a false impression for Wikipedia readers to not include GenJones, and to pretend that the old, now widely-discredited definition of the Boomers is still what is used by experts. Wiki readers should know what current thinking is among experts, and then they can decide for themselves what they believe. In fact, the way this article was originally written (I should know since I wrote it) was specifically to give Wiki readers this current take. The opening is confusing and doesn't even make sense with the GenJones reference removed.

The concept and name “Generation Jones” has achieved widespread acceptance and usage, especially in the last year or so. The Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Many very influential experts, pundits, and analysts have publicly supported the GenJones constructs, from media outlets including The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Books about generations now almost always automatically treat GenJones as a full bona fide generation.

If interested in exploring some of the major support GenJones has gotten, you may want to check some of these links out…

This 6 minute video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ta_Du5K0jk) features over 20 top pundits expressing support for GenJones, including : David Brooks (New York Times) Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine) Dick Morris (Political Advisor) Roland Martin (CNN) Jeff Greenfield (CBS) Michael Steele (Chairman, GOPAC) Doyle McManus ( Los Angeles Times) Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC) Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call) Karen Brown (CBS) Michael Barone (U.S. News & World Report) Juan Williams (Fox News Channel) Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor) Susan Page ( USA Today) Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]) Lynn Sweet ( Chicago Sun-Times) Bill Press (Fox News Channel) Carl Leubsdorf ( Dallas Morning News) Al Sharpton (Activist, Minister)

Here is a full page column about GenJones by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107583

Here is a column about GenJones by Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Clarence Page in The Chicago Tribune: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/22/news/chi-oped1022pageoct22 And here is video of Clarence Page bringing up GenJones on NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZSiKd0B54

All of the above are recent (in the last year or so,) and there are many more recent ones, as well as many more from earlier years. You can find many more on this page: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html ,as well as in the reference section of the Generation Jones article, as well as in the talk pages of the various generation pages on Wikipedia, as well as many thousands of GenJones references on Google.

If for any reason, you disagree with this edit, please don't start an edit war, but rather please give your specific reasons o this talk page why you think my edit doesn't work. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic Baby Boomer Generation - a Myth!

The whole idea of a Baby Boomer "Generation" based on a demographic is untenable. Take 3 Post-World_War_II_baby_boom "generations" and length of boom in years: Finland=6, US=18, France=28. Because the US baby boom (1946-1964) is approximately the length of a generation, it is frequently labeled as such. But it would be ridiculous to call a 6-year baby boom a generation, and equally ridiculous France's 28-year boom a generation. Besides, in the US, state birth rates reached pre-war levels (thus marking the end of that particular states boom) spanning from the late fifties to early seventies. While all states mark the beginning boom year at 1946, 1964 is considered the ending boom year (according to compiled birth rates from all 50 states) with the boom having already ended in about half the states. The US census relied on state data, and populations in one state have absolutely no effect or bearing on the population of another. There was no national phenomenom but the sum of the parts. Using these two examples, any unified concept of a baby boom generation is difficult to define in terms of demographics. Ledboots (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]