Jump to content

Talk:Generation Jones/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

End of an era

After years of watching the Vietnam Conflict on the TV and the many MANY affects upon USA society Generation Jonesers performed their part in that melee by being a large portion of those aboard the ships present to "turn out the lights" via the Vietnam Evacuation and the Mayaguez Incident occurring towards the end of the evacuation. Many historians are linking the Mayaguez Incident with the Vietnam Conflict for various reasons.

Thus, the Jonesers were not only impacted by cultural and foreign affairs during a critical part of our mental development years... what may have been mere fads and trends for earlier/older Boomers was a very influential process of Joneser maturation and psychological development and acculturation with long-term impact not seen in the earlier Boomers. Obbop (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Obbop

I'm Back!! Hello, folks. Referring to this: "Key characteristics assigned to members are less optimism, distrust of government, and general cynicism." Yes, it IS a generality but when writing about a huge horde of humans space limitations require generalizing. For what it is worth, I am a Generation Joneser who is very disgruntled; enough so that I am convinced that the USA requires a full-scale military coup to erase the federal government and many various institutions and systems that allow an elite class, corporations and other entities to basically "own" the USA and economically and, to an extent, socially, the masses of "common folks." Have a wonderful week folks and wear your seat belts!!!Obbop (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Extent of usage

Some editors are adding text saying that the term has been adopted by sociologists, but the only sources cited are press and marketing. If there are academic / rigorous uses of it as more than a handy label, please add sources. The specific circumstances of USA in the 20th century seem to be where the concept has most applicability - even the UK press only uses it in discuss the US.Martinlc (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Should we edit the article to reflect this? Even in the US, 1961 and later birth years are generally a part of Generation X and those born before 1961 are part of the Boomers. Generation Jones is rarely used, and when it is, it is always referred to the author who coined the term. I don't know of any studies (market research, sociological, psychological, etc.) that uses the term. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree. I am an academic, and the term Generation Jones has become pretty widely used within academia, especially within the social sciences, literature and business management studies (here's a recent academia example from the field of literature: http://iah.unc.edu/events/calendar/2013/jeffwilliams ) I don't have time right now, but I will soon provide more examples. If anything, this article underplays, not overplays, the usage of the term; Generation Jones has become much more widely-used than is generally known. I'll come back here with more soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalkWriter (talk • contribs) 02:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct Birth Years

Virtually everything I've read about Generation Jones uses the 1954 to 1965 birth years, including that written by the creator of this concept and term. One person keeps reverting this article to start Generation Jones in 1957 even though (virtually) no one uses that start point. Lets's go with the birth years that 99% of those who write and speak about this generation use instead of ridiculously using what less than 1% use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChalkWriter (talk • contribs) 02:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Generation Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Generation Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Generation Jones. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

People, not terms or cohorts

Inline with some of the discussion at Talk:Xennials, we should also refer to Generation Jones as "people" rather than "a term" or "a demograptic cohort." - Scarpy (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Scarpy: I agree; please see reference in new section below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh...I'd be ok with "cohort". --Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@2606:6000:6111:8e00:d152:7f46:a25f:d936: I see you reverted these changes.[1] So we had a discussion about term vs people, and you may want to check the bit about references in MOS:LEAD. - Scarpy (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Use of "term" in the lede

This is not good writing. The concept of Generation Jones is a demographic cohort. This is repeatedly stated in the first reference (as of this writing). A quote from the source:
"Though not yet in common parlance, Generation Jones has had a good deal of traction in marketing, particularly since it encompasses some 50 million Americans. For instance, an IBM Global Business Services report notes that Jonesers began the turn to consumption, take technology for granted, and are more willing than boomers to "co-create" new products. They came of age with the Apple Macintosh.

It has also become established as a political demographic, defining a new cohort of European politicians such as Angela Merkel (b. 1954) and Nicolas Sarkozy (b. 1955), as well as those in the United States, among them many of Obama’s advisers..." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of this may be true, but the term is NOT widely used anywhere, why give it more prominence than is actually true? Try searching Google for Generation Jones. When is the last time you heard someone talk about Generation Jones? And by the way Angela Merkel is a Baby Boomer. Would she refer to herself as a Joneser? C'mon that's ridiculous. P.S. I just searched Google news for Angela Merkel and Generation Jones and there is not a single article that connects the two terms (under news). We should not mislead readers. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:D152:7F46:A25F:D936 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're saying. Generation Jones is an obscure concept, for sure. Obscure concepts still have definitions...the concept is that it is a demographic cohort. Calling it what it is doesn't make it more significant or give it more prominence. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey, I just want to make sure that you're not editing under two diff accounts Kolya Butternut and Scarpy because a lot of the edits are similar. Just checking, thanks. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:D152:7F46:A25F:D936 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Nope, different people. It would be helpful if you logged in with an account. It can give the appearance that you are editing under more than one account. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This article was created in 2004, 15 years ago. Here's what it said in the lede sentence then: "Generation Jones, according to American social scientist Jonathan Pontell, includes all Americans born from 1954 through 1965, all inclusive."

Jonathan Pontell is a nobody who tried to sell books and ideas. The Baby Boom covers the years 1946-1964, and there is NO ambiguity about it. This article should go.

That sentence is how it's been described for over 15 solid years.

There is no such thing as "generation Jones." It is a made-up idea by a know-nothing to try to section off the Baby Boomers. The Baby Boom generation is an official designation by the United States Census, the only such generation so designated. The Baby Boom generation covers the years 1946-1964. There is no point to this bogus article. SN 13 March 2020

So, there's nothing about a "demographic cohort". Your recent change, calling it a demographic cohort, is way late in the game. There isn't any old or new research that all of a sudden proclaims they are an official cohort in social science. The other mainline generations however do that, for ex. the U.S. Census recognizes the Baby Boomers (but not Jones). Your thoughts? 2606:6000:6111:8E00:D152:7F46:A25F:D936 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Different people. Feel free to check with WP:SPI if you'd like. You didn't respond to Koyla's request about creating an account. - Scarpy (talk) 03:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
There's no edit war going on, so it's fine. I'm editing under an IP address. Not challenging or reverting anybody's stuff over and over again. And we're using the talk page to work it out correct? Can you address the status quo issue with the lede too please?2606:6000:6111:8E00:D152:7F46:A25F:D936 (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The lead sentence still uses the word "cohort," so how about adding back in the word demographic? Pontell is a social scientists; he has researched this demographic cohort, not that research is necessary to establish a demographic cohort. "Hipsters" can be a demographic cohort if you're doing a survey to see how many of them have kids. [2] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I support the recently edited version from User:Scarpy [3] which avoids both "term" and "cohort" DynaGirl (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
How is that better than "demographic cohort?" It's less descriptive. Isn't it true that you just don't want the words "demographic cohort" because you feel like that makes it sound more significant and official than you feel that it is? What is your understanding of those words? The only reason "group of people" is suggested is because you're being coercive. Cite sources to show what "demographic cohort" means. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

US only?

I'd never heard of GenerationJones before stumbling across this article. Is it a United States thing only? If so, maybe this should be noted in the lead. Silas Stoat (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably, just have to find the info in the references and write it in the body first. The 2606 IPs have been blocked, so hopefully there shouldn't be any resistance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tweener is not a term which has any significant usage as a synonym for Generation Jones

I’ve heard this cohort between the Boomers and X’ers referred to as Generation Jones many times, but never as Tweeners. Out of curiosity, I just spent some time researching this today, and found that my experience with this is matched by the research. The term Generation Jones has been used many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of times across a large number of major media outlets, including The New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, Time Magazine, Associated Press, NBC, CNN, etc. Many notable individuals have used this term Generation Jones as well, including numerous major business, political, and entertainment figures. Moreover, many online dictionaries include the term Generation Jones to describe this cohort between Boom and X.

By contrast, the term “Tweeners” has hardly ever been used for this cohort. There are a few usages in very minor media publications, like small blogs, but no serious usage anywhere that I could find: in the media, among prominent individuals, or anywhere else. Many online dictionaries include the word “Tweener” but not with this meaning. Instead, they define Tweener to mean other things, like young people between childhood and adolescence, players who are in between two different positions in a sport, people who feel in between two different cultures, etc. None of these Tweener definitions in dictionaries, with one minor exception, make any reference to Boomers/X’ers. Even the website tweeners.org doesn’t define it that way. And looking back over the many years of contributions to this Generation Jones Wikipedia articles, I couldn’t find anybody, except Scarpy now, who has ever suggested that the term “Tweener” should be used as a synonym for Generation Jones.

Scarpy, I assume you come from a place of good faith, and care about accuracy in Wikipedia articles. From what I’ve seen of your contributions to Wikipedia, you seem like a serious contributor who has made numerous helpful and accurate edits. If you believe I’m wrong vis-a-vis my above research, please cite references in this Talk section that would back up the idea that “Tweener” has been used as a synonym for Generation Jones enough in the public to warrant that positioning in this Wiki article. Otherwise, I respectfully submit to you that it should not be included in this article. It’s not accurate to use it here, and it creates confusion in relation to the ways that the term Tweener is actually used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CultureMaven2000 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Self-contradiction

The second sentence of the article says, "Generation Jones was first coined by the American cultural commentator Jonathan Pontell, who identified the cohort as those born from 1954 to 1965 in the U.S., who were children during Watergate, the oil crisis, and stagflation rather than during the 1950s." This sentence is self-contradictory, in that someone born in 1954 was not a "child" in 1974, when Watergate occurred--they turned 20 that year, and they were a child in the 1950s.

Also, the second paragraph says, "there was no compulsory military service and no defining political cause". This is false. Conscription in the US ended in 1973, but males aged between 18 and 25 were required to register with the Selective Service System, so someone born in 1954 would have turned 18 in 1972, and was certainly still subject to the draft. This is followed by the statement: "opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War was for the older boomers", but this is manifestly false. Anyone born in 1954 would have turned 21 in 1975. The Paris Peace Accords of January 1973 were broken almost immediately, and fighting continued until the spring offensive and the subsequent fall of Saigon in 1975. There were certainly members of this cohort, if one accepts the arbitrary start date for it of 1954, who were protesting the Vietnam War in 1970. I was one of them.

As I say, the lede of this article is confused, and contradicts itself. Carlstak (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


If you adopt the traditional definition of adulthood as 21, then the math technically works, but you're certainly correct that it's not what is ordinarily spoken of as "childhood". Also, "Men born from March 29, 1957 through December 31, 1959, were not required to register with the Selective Service System"[4], so that people born during that window were completely free of the draft.
The basic insight of the "Generation Jones" thing is that people whose high-school years were all in the 1970s had a very different cultural experience from people whose high-school years were all in the 1960s, but some of the wording and examples could definitely be improved. AnonMoos (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Generation_Jones/Archive_2&oldid=1254354893"