Talk:Greatest Generation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC about the Federation Generation terminology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should mention of the Federation Generation terminology and the references for this terminology be deleted from this article? This includes removing "Federation Generation" from the sentence in the lead which lists other names for the demographic cohort and also deleting this paragraph from the body of the article:

"McCrindle Research expanded on Howe's work and uses the term Federation Generation to describe Australian members of this cohort, born between 1901–1924, "a time of peace when Australia finally secured nationhood" who came of age during The Great Depression and WWII and experienced post-war prosperity in midlife."

References

RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC). 15:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep - The information is well sourced, on topic, and has been in the article for over a year. It also helps to WP:GLOBALIZE the article. Deleting this text and the accompanying references seems contrary to Wikipedia policy. There do seem to be some valid concerns that the title of this demographic cohort article could be less U.S centric, and that might be an issue which could be resolved via page move to a less US Centric title, perhaps WWII Generation, but even under the current title of “G.I. Generation” the Federation Generation terminology clearly belongs in the article because the references specifically link it to the work of demographers Neil Howe and William Strauss (the demographers who coined the term G.I. Generation) and specifically describe it as Australian terminology for the same cohort of people (people born from approximately 1901-1924. DynaGirl (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Keep This is not a category about American generations at all. Neil Howe and William Strauss deliberately included generation members/"peers" from the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Philippines. Dimadick (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose with the title as it is. Just because one source mentions peers of a cohort they invented does not make it a global cohort. If we can find a sourced title that covers this cohort and show that it is a globally accepted cohort then this article should be moved to the new title and sections can be created for the different national equivalents. If there is no sourced global cohort such as WWII generation and the only sourced cohort is GI generation then references to other nations should not be in the lead but in a section with a suitable title such as "Other nations" to avoid a US centered article. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There are actually currently two sources describing Federation Generation as the Australian name for the cohort of people born between 1901-1924, not one source (please see linked references attached to RfC). These sources link it specifically to the work of Strauss & Howe. Then there is a third source, the 1991 book by Strauss & Howe used to reference the notable members section, which I think you might be referring to because they use the word "peers". DynaGirl (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Keep it, but create an international section or get additional references that connect Federation Generation and G.I. Generation and/or WW2 Generation etc. The McCrindle ref does that though. 2606:6000:6111:8E00:A1F1:52F9:73B9:503 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

I have added a neutral notification to the Australia project page Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#RFC_on_Talk:G.I._Generation#RFC_about_the_Federation_Generation_terminology but am not sure how to include it in the RFC notifications sections. Dom from Paris (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be called "The Greatest Generation?"

@Binksternet: I tried looking at the old talk pages here and for The Greatest Generation article, but it's still unclear to me how this article was named. It appears to me that this generation is usually called The Greatest Generation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] And I don't understand why the Australian cohort is called the "Federation Generation"; The Australian Bureau of Statistics calls it the "Frugal Generation"[6]. Do you remember how it was decided to call this cohort the G.I. Generation? Maybe it's time to reevaluate. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I see what happened now; in 2016 the G.I. Generation page, which had been just a redirect, was expanded into a full article about the cohort, and then in 2018 you made the proposal to merge this article with The Greatest Generation article, which has not happened. I would propose that the content of this article about the cohort should be under the name The Greatest Generation, with a hatnote redirecting to an article about the Tom Brokaw book. G.I. Generation could either redirect to The Greatest Generation article or the Strauss-Howe Generational theory article. How does that sound? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Notable People

To the IPs who geolocate to the same location, please stop adding unreferenced content to the notable people section. Unreferenced content was tagged in that section as needing a citation and after a year with no sources provided it was removed by User:Binksternet [7]. If you want to add individuals to the notable people section, please provide a reference that indicates they are a notable figure in their generation. DynaGirl (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we eliminate the Notable People section? One author cannot decide who is a notable member of a generation. I think we should keep this consistent with WP Millennials, etc, and not list members.
MelanieN, the IP is adding content to the notable people section again. Could you restore the protected status? Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, thanks for the ping. It does look like that’s the same person adding the same material that was reverted by many people last time. So if that continues (I can’t protect after just one problem edit) I could add semi-protection. BTW I see an additional issue: Up to now there has been a sourced list, and that is what people have been protecting by reverting the IP’s insertion of additional names. I see that you decided to remove the whole section, including the longstanding material. If any of the regular editors here objects, you will need to discuss here on the talk page and get consensus to remove it. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I understand removing the section may require discussion in the future. Can I go ahead and restore my edit? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly. This page is not under 1RR, and hopefully we will deal with any disruption before it gets to 3. But if a "regular" editor here restores the original paragraph, you should probably leave it in while you discuss. The usual default is to leave the article in its original/longstanding condition while a contentious edit is discussed. That's if it becomes contentious, which it may not. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN Hi, could you take a look at the revert history to see if there were IPs or editors who went over the 3RR rule and make recommendations? Thanks.Carfree82 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Greatest Generation. We have consensus that this is the common name for the generation, and that it's the primary topic of that name. The dab page will be moved accordingly. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

G.I. Generation → Greatest Generation (cohort) – Per WP:RS, the "Greatest Generation" is the WP:COMMONNAME for the generational cohort born before the Silent Generation. The New York Times, Time magazine, the Pew Research Center, The Atlantic, and Gallup all use the "Greatest Generation" to refer to the cohort. The table below shows that the Greatest Generation is much more popular than the G.I. Generation in searches of reliable sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

	"The Greatest Generation"	"The GI Generation"
GBooks	73,400	4,640
GNews	41,600	388
GScholar	8,530	1,140
JSTOR	559	68

• Support per above, or any form using the term "Greatest Generation". Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support per above, better (demographic). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURALDIS. I also don't much trust the numbers given by OP, as the phrase "greatest generation" is somewhat broad and could be in use to describe any cohort, any of the distinct topics listed at Greatest Generation, or completely different contexts. Also, the (cohort) disambiguator is.... lackluster and obscure to most readers and editors. I would support a move to simply Greatest Generation because other DAB entries use "The" as part of their titles, and this WP:SMALLDETAIL is enough distinction, along with hatnotes and move of the dab to (disambiguation). -- Netoholic @ 08:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Netohoolic, and the awkwardness of the word 'cohort'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, would you support moving this article to 'Greatest Generation' without the 'cohort' part and moving the current 'Greatest Generation' article to 'Greatest Generation (disambiguation)' instead per Netoholic's suggestion above? Someone963852 (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's 'cohort' that doesn't seem needed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I would also strongly support moving this article to 'Greatest Generation' without the (cohort) part, too, as Netoholic stated above. 'Greatest Generation' is the most WP:COMMONNAME name for this cohort. Going down the list of references currently used in this article: only Strauss & Howe use the term G.I. Generation, whereas Pew Research Center, Investopedia, Tim Brokaw, McCrindle sources use the Greatest Generation as the main name. Someone963852 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The important thing in my opinion is to change the name from G.I. Generation to "Greatest Generation" in any form. I would support "Greatest Generation", "Greatest Generation (cohort)", "Greatest Generation (demographic)", etc. @Randy Kryn and In ictu oculi: do you have a preference among those options? Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Greatest Generation" works. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• better with (demographic) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support move to Greatest Generation, without the cohort. Also removes the reference to "G.I." and its American associations, to which I had objected before. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose or move to Greatest Generation. "Greatest Generation" is a bit jingoistic and the current title is very widely-known (note that neither term is generally used outside the United States, unlike several of the other "generations"). But I would say that it's still the primary topic for the term "Greatest Generation". -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Support move to Greatest Generation, it's the primary topic, per above. Leviv ich 21:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor: Typo and inconsistency

Typo: "Demographers William Stauss" should be "Strauss".

Inconsistency: Sibling generation pages have a section for "Date and age range definition(s)", but on this page similar content is included under the "Definition" section.

Global?

While this term is not popular outside of the US, it does exist:

"Why the Greatest Generation has the highest suicide rate in Australia", Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"The ranks of the 'greatest generation' are becoming very thin", WAtoday

"Britain's Greatest Generation", book

"Britain's Greatest Generation" BBC 4-part documentary based on the book

"Cross countries: international comparisons of intergenerational trends", Resolution Foundation (UK)

"Remembering the USSR’s ‘greatest generation’ in the U.S., UK, and Canada", Russia Beyond

Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This qute mature and fairly widely read Australian has only ever encountered the term here on Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your experience sounds consistent with what I have described. Have you encountered another term for this generation, or is a name for this birth cohort obscure in Australia? There're just a handful of articles in the Canberra Times which mention the Greatest Generation: [8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I've never heard a name used for that generation in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This immature and illiterate American has never heard it called anything else. Leviv ich 05:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

But that's hardly relevant to the initial point made in this thread, which is about what name, if any, is used outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich made the same point that you made. It sounds like we've established that what we are personally familiar with is not relevant. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

lede

removed original research statement in the lede, if anyone has articles that would say otherwise please add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.43.88 (talk) 02:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Help

Someone vandalized this page and I don’t know how to get the original page back 75ki5j (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Never mind someone fixed it 75ki5j (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Museum exhibit on the generation (and book)

Exhibit from the University of Iowa: "Stories Worth Telling: Marking Twenty Years of 'The Greatest Generation'", September 7, 2018 – January 4, 2019

This is a summary of the book by Tom Brokaw which intends to hit on the major events for the generation: [9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)