Talk:List of generations

Myspace Generation

I was listening to the Billy Joel song, we didn't start the fire (since there was a fire near where I live) and I noticed this song is related to the baby boomers era. So I started reading about generation and I think there is a general consensus on the baby boomers generation (46-64) and Generation X (70-82), So is it possible that the actual definition of the new generation might be under the widely and popular use of the Myspace generation? (82-92) and if not, why not? I hear all the time that this and that is for the "Myspace generation" (among those terms I have heard expressions such as: "Show for the myspace generation", "Created for the Myspace generation" and the like. If such a definition of Myspace generation is true,then maybe I could star writing an article on such a topic. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MySpace in no way defines any generation. Hell, it's not even that popular any more. In decade, you'll look back and barely remember it, if you do at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• There are a lot of problems with this article, some of which I shall discuss here.
  • So Camilo, if the Baby Boom generation ends in 1964 (18 years) and Generation X starts in 1970, ending in 1982 (12 years), what happened to the 5 years from 1965 to 1969? Are they called "Baby X?" That is one discrepancy. Secondly, a Myspace generation would only be 5 1/2 years old at this point - truly not a reasonable timeframe or even half of one, to call a generation...
  • Two, the definition of "generation" needs to be better defined. The one is currently included at the opening of the article, sounds like a bad explanation from a high school student. Generations can be defined by fixed spans or some "experts" argue for a relative span. In either case, the advent of generations did not just begin with the defining of mini-cultural epochs. Aren't generations definable in the context of their size and their replacement value? I will continue with the other article' problems in entries below... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Generation C

Generation C the COVID generation, starts 2020. 2020 was the year when the COVID-19 pandemic started.

Beat Generation

If I'm interpreting this right, most of the generations listed here are listed by date of birth (i.e. Gen X was born between 1970 and 1980 (the dates listed), but weren't referred to as Generation X until the 90s). With that in mind, shouldn't beat generation be moved to something like 1940-something? --24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This table is very confusing, especially to anyone looking up "Baby Boom" only to find "Beat Generation" coming afterwards. Ghosts&empties 23:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What does the article mean by "grew up with" ? At what age are we defined as a generation exactly? Being born at a time does not mean we are that generation does it?

Absolutely, the beat generation is a sub-set of the silent generation. Not particularly a whole generation - or even half of one. By all accounts they appear to be mostly a (small) group of artists. ANd as such i find that 3 of these time blocks need to be changed = the beat generation, and the two below it. Generation jones is a sub set of baby boomers for example.Cilstr 13:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I come closest to agreeing with Cilstr, but actually, I believe the beat generation was more of a subset of the G.I. Generation, or else straddled the GI and Silent generations, since the beats were mostly active in the late 1940s through the 1950s, and during that time were at least in their late teens/early 20s, if not 30s, which means they would have been born between the 1910s and the early 1930s. Including them as a subset of Generation Jones or even the Babyboomers is simply absurd. Shanoman 18:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I reacted too rashly; I think I now realize that there may in fact be at least two distinct definitions of "The Beat Generation": (1) the small group of professional writers/artists known as "The Beats", of various ages but prominent from the late 1940s through the 1950s; and (2) the sub-generation (or cusp?) of young people who were loosely influenced by these artists, those who were teenagers or very young adults during the 1950s/early 1960s, stereotyped as being "Beatniks". I believe Strauss and Howe meant the term in the second sense (sense (2)), and this would thus make them the cusp between the Silent Generation and the Boom generation. My mistake. Shanoman 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was born in 1942, near the tail end of the silent generation and grew up in Los Angeles. I graduated high school in 1960. This was the tail end of the beat generation. There were still Beat coffee houses on the boardwalk of Venice Beach (and a couple in the area of Los Angeles City College) which I frequented. As the Hippie scene began developing around 1965, the Beat scene more or less merged into the hippie scene. Of course, the Beat scene was a relatively small bohemian counter culture while the Hippie scene grew into a massive, youth oriented counter culture. Well known Beat poet Alan Ginsberg continued to play a significant role in the Hippie counter-culture and political protest movements of the 60's.

I don't think I can agree with this distinction between the Beats and the sub-generation beatniks. The "Beat Generation" was not, of course, a "generation" in the sense of this article. It was a bohemian artistic and literary counterculture within the Silent Generation. This would include the early 60's when we at the end of the Silent generation came of age. Beat poets like Ginsberg, Kerouac, of course, continued to influence the emerging Hippie generation (a large segment of the Baby Boom generation). Wayne King (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Consistency

This needs to be made consistent with the table that pages like Beat Generation shows. There are significant discrepencies between the two. --24.141.70.171 06:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Generations Table

I think certain aspects need to be modified, for instant The Greatest Generation is actually a sub-generation of the G.I. Generation and not vice versa... 87.80.126.226 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the Transcendentalist Generation, and the Abolitionist Generation? do they fit in somewhere here? Also, do you think the "American Generations" table (found on Generation X etc.) ought to link here instead of Generations (book)? Dev1n 23:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are multiple systems in place and most of them don't agree to any adequate extent. We need a system that will take this into account rather than try to create a chart that contradicts none of them, which is an impossibility. I would also focus on 18-22 year generations instead of 10 year generations as that would at least reduce the magnitude of the confusion to untangle somehow. Personally, I would be all for using the Generations (book) system with 'Baby Bust' for 13th and 'Millenial' for 14th, but this would also have someone disagreeing with it as vehemently as I will probably disagree with anything else. Given the history of the 'Generation X' label I'm surprised to not see it strenched to include Millenials as well. The original 'Generation X' has also been called 'The Me Generation,' a label that doesn't appear to have been applied to anyone else, or has it also referred to the first half of the Baby Boom? Give up and number them numerically and list the overlapping and contradictory names for each number? Strangelv 18:24, 05 May 2006 (UTC)

The Economist magazine April 14th-20th notes: "In January 2006 the first of America's 77m baby-boomers turned 60." Suggesting the start of this generation is 1946, not 1943 as suggested by the chart of generations.

Generation X entry premature

Does anyone else think the Generation X entry is a bit premature? Even though we can presume those born between 2001 and 2025 will share a certain identity as a generation, citing Wars on terrorism and Globalization as notable occurrances is right out. Nobody knows what the future might hold, and extrapolating current events to up to more than half a century away (for those born in 2025) seems, to me, frankly ridiculous. Any objections if I remove "Notable occurrences" for Generation X?--Daniel Medina 21:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming by "Generation X" you meant to say "Generation Z"? If so, I agree wholeheartedly. M. Frederick 06:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Baby Boomers grew up as teenagers in the 60's - I was born in 1957 and like all my friends of same year do not consider myself a baby boomer! Baby Boomers stopped around 1955 or earlier still - using 1960 as the beginning of the X generation is totally wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.31 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Generation Jones! <grin> It really does address this problem. In the US, I've usually seen this term used to describe those born from 1955 to 1964 - still kids during the excitement (Beatles, manned space flights) and turmoil (civil rights, war, protests) of the 60s and early 70s. They were too young to be sent to Vietnam; the oldest of these were just graduating high school right at the end of both the Vietnam War and the draft. This group experienced a whole different view of the world through adolescence and college. In my own personal experience, there really is a difference between Boomers and Jonesers and I'm glad to feel I'm not so much in a no-man's-land anymore.

As I understand it, Gen X still starts at 1965. However, for some reason, this List includes a term - Tweeners - that supposedly equates with Generation Jones, but overlaps the last 4 years of Gen Jones and first half of Gen X's. The dates don't fit with any previously defined generation. On top of that, while Tweeners is listed as the primary term, there is no article for it, just a Disambiguation statement: "A person whose age places them between Generation X and Boomers." Um...any chance we can get a concensus to fix this? Thanks.Krumhorns (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I always though the baby boom started on VE day? not sure when it ends is Barack a baby boomer?

In the old lump-everyone-born-from-'45-to-'64 model, he technically is. However, Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Steve Carell, Hugh Laurie, Colin Firth, Sean Bean, Viggo Mortensen - and umpteen others coming into their own now - all fit the birth years and the attitude of Generation Jones.Krumhorns (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Baby boomer influences

In the chart identifying notable occurrences for Baby Boomers, the civil rights movement is mentioned. I think another importanat occurence would be the feminist movement, which made life dramatically different for female baby boomers than it was for the generations that preceded them.

• This article is so narrowly conceived and so American-centric it needs to be completely overhauled... Apparently, even in the so-called Modern or global era following WWII, only the United States had a population explosion... Where are the author/contributors living? In Sarah Palin's basement (right next to her living room)? This article, as others have noted, needs to expanded to include a world-wide perspective... Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Generation Xbox?

Um, I know Generation Y has a lot of names, but come on . . . Generation XBox? As a Generation Y'er, I'm kind of fed up with being named after electronic devices. I'm deleting it.

If anything, they should be named Generation PS4, being that the PS4 has sold more. Kids born from 2012 and on should be called Generation Fortnite

Consistency

The dates given here are inconsistent with the ones on the Gen X and Gen Y pages. Is there any chance you can tidy it up? I'm born in 1980. Am I lower Gen X as stated here or upper Gen Y as stated on the Gen X page? (I would say upper Gen Y, but that's just personal opinion).

It would be great to clear up birth ranges for each generation and would love to see if anyone has names for generations going back before teh lost generation - founding fathers post civil war whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnstony (talk • contribs) 15:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The End of Gen Y?

What specific date is fair truly to give to those born in the late 80's - late 90's [Like myself]. I disagree with the fact that they would be listed together as per they share few events in common with those born eariler. Also what in itself defines a Generation? Can it truly or fairly be classed so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.163.5.16 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

About 1994 to 1995 is the changeover to Z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

97 to 98. People born in 96 (incliuding myself in January) can remember 9/11, 2000 election, Beginning of Iraq War

Gen Y should end in early to late 1997 and Gen Z should then start.

A three year old can not be said to remember significant events in any real sense. Remembering that there WAS an election is not the same thing as actually remembering it.

An advertising perspective, not an analytical one

This article presents mostly an advertising perspective for the current/recent generations and then flings it back through history to make some continuous history of generations that isn't demographically accurate. Many of the historic generations were not due to inventions or "pop culture" (which only emerged at the turn of the century, in any case) but wars and their demographic effects. The problems of telling a story about generations is why demographers and sociologists rarely use the word "generation" in favor of "cohort." This article should describe the attempts of advertisers to perceive and shape markets of age-related cohorts separate from such actual, popularly-identifiable generations as "The Greatest Generation" and "Baby Boomers" Pshopboy 18:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Why don't you write such a section and pop it in? Be bold. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe however that 96 is a generally good time to end a generation, I don't believe you would remember 9/11 too much if your only 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.152.110 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The Steve Jobs Generation

Anyone born between 1990-2004

Why? The release of Toy Story in the early ninties began the emmergence of Pixar which has almost replaced Disney(which owns the intellectual property and now the company of Pixar but has little creative input) as the source of childhood entertainment in the Ninties establishing a new monopoly on children's culture. When those who grew up with Pixar begin to turn to new media texts in the early 2000's they needed almost a new medium. What was this medium? Apple computers and Ipods. Apple computers now, as of 2007, is a strong competitor with Microsoft and has supported media on it's computer OS better and seems to own a monopoly on virtual media. With Apple and Pixar in tow the next and last proof for the Title the Steve Jobs Generation for the 1990-2004 generations is the acquistition of Pixar by Disney. This acquisition made Jobs the majority shareholder at Disney, which owns ABC, one of the biggest American networks.

Therefore because of his de facto control of children's culture through Pixar,his influence in the media via Disney's ABC and his control over the growing Computer giant Apple, Steve Jobs should be the defining feauture and thus the Title of our generation.

Don't get cocky, Steve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattawa (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Steve Jobs? who is Steve Jobs? JK, I know who he is, but most people born 1990-2004 don't. Apple has just recently become popular with the i-pod, and I am sure there is probably a journalist who has used the term i-pod generation. The idea that Jobs has a monopoly is ridiculous. You might as well call it the Redstone, Murdoch, Immelt, or Parsons generation. Of course maybe google or napster generation is more fitting a title. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• This notion is absurd... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

US Generations

I just removed a rather derogatory comment that made an very valid point. Shouldn't this page be titled "American Generations" or "US Generations"?
_{- Smedrick 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)}

requested move: List of generations → List of US generations

This should be renamed because all the generations are American based. 70.55.84.6 08:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the preferred style is "U.S." or "United States" though I might go with "List of Generations in the United States" . FrozenPurpleCube 19:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Several of those listed for the US (or for America and Europe) are common to other countries, such as mine. This article should be developed to describe the geographical limits of these generations, as is already happening. Andrewa 03:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment a new article could be created for that. 70.55.84.224 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It could, but why? There are already detailed articles on many of the generations, and ultimately I expect there will be on all of them, with this list as an overview. Is an intermediate level of detail necessary? And even if it is, and this article is split as a start to providing that, why should the current article be moved first? Wouldn't it be better to keep the article history attached to the most general article of the tree? No change of vote. Andrewa 09:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The concept of generations is worldwide with some overlaps between countries. It would be WAY more better to add info about other countries rather then to limit it to US only with a POV name change. 205.157.110.11 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 14:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

is there any material for this outside of the US? If there is, I think it should be a separate article unless there are reliable accepted sources to demonstrate a worldwide similarity. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the only reasonable person here. 18:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.5.140 (talk)

details

I removed some material from the Baby Boom section. Since there is a separate article, it should go there, A summary of one or two sentences is enough here. DGG (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Source

One source that could be used to validate this article is The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy by William Strauss and Neil Howe. It came out in 1997, and charts American generations. It begins in England with the Arthurian Generation (born 1433-1460) but generations take on a more American character as society changes from its English roots. I think this would be an excellent source, but it shouldn't be the ONLY source. If someone can come up with two or three additional sources then maybe this article can get organized. CClio333 04:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing more than Strauss and Howe Time to merge

Time to merge Silent generation page with List of generations . SG is nothing more than a hodgepodge of Strauss and Howe. It is a pointless list of people born at a given time, without any scientific backing, notability, or decent references. It could be fit into the LIST of Gens, if people feel so inclined. But the time has come to get rid of this thing.

The agreement--Summer 07--was to let the "silent generation" stand if it could have an existence apart from Strauss and Howe. It has not. Thus, it's time to merge it away. --Smilo Don (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Have done some research, sourcing and expansion. I haven't read Strauss/Howe, so I don't know how much the sources I used come from them, but it was very easy to find lots of stuff on these folks. I don't think it appropriate to write off these folks, many of whom are still around today.--Cbradshaw (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is one of the relatively few ones here that might stand. The time cover story is enough documentation for the term. Removing the lists nonsense is however a good idea. As they remian undocumented, I have simply just now removed them. The additional information you have been adding is names of people who have lived durgngthe S&H period in question. Since there is no reason to think this has any general significance outside of their fringe theory, and since silent generation is a much more general term that antedates S&H, the list is irrelevant, and I remove removed it entirely. Please do not re-add it without consensus on the talk page there. Yes, there is plenty of stuff on those folks, but except for fortuitous birth years, not necessarily anything much common about them. We have list of 19XX births already as articles here. and no need to do it by 20 year periods. DGG (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed it again from that article, since it is absolutely not supported by consensus. DGG (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Generations Table Placement

The table on the wiki page is appearing below the References section, despite being declared above it in the wiki markup. This is most distressing. h3h (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Generation Z

When we discuss about Generation Z, i.e., people who born after 1990's, certainly we will think that they are the "Internet Generation", because they are born on or after "the Internet" become mainstream technology.

Actually, in addition to Internet, I also want to mention that they are also "Genetically modified" Generation, since they are properly eat many GM food since they born (as GM technology become mainstream on 1990's). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.149.118.174 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Generation z watch too much hannah montanna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.142.229.87 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to mention that you've provided no sources and are blabbering about your pointless ideas. 85.97.5.140 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

This article is completely bereft of reliable sources, and is likely full of original research and unproven theses. Additionally, posting an entire table based on Strauss and Howe is completely lopsided, as in the 20 years since the book was published there has been a great deal of research published that expands on their work and disproves it. This article needs sources that prove out both of those issues; leave the tags until that's resolved. • Freechild'sup? 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Generation Y?

Doesn't this generation consist of those born from the 80's and the early-mid 90's? Since all the children born during this period had similar experiences and stuff. And what is the difference between Generetion Y and Generation Z since both experienced the Internet going mainstream when they were young. --Esoj Oirgela (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But Generation Y experienced this after they were born, while Generation Z's era began after the Internet became mainstream.

Strauss & Howe

Why not include the actual date ranges given by Strauss & Howe? Given they are the most respected experts on said subject. The author of this page has given a table loosely based on Strauss & Howe. The author attempts to take all the dates from all these different sources gathered and "squeeze" them into Strauss & Howe's date ranges. Which results in a contradictory table the has sub generations within the Strauss & Howe generations, but the dates don't match. The subgenerations do not exist datewise within the actually generation. This article should be deleted as one already exists on Strauss & Howe's generatinal theories. The article would be appropriate and non-duplicating, if it focused on the differences between Strauss & Howe's theories and the many less-researched theories that have popped up from news media, social commentary and other less academic based theories. THis article confuses the idea of a generational "system" proposed by S & H. Perhaps the author(s) are on the right track, but have just kind of "vommitted" the information at us. All this information projected at us without any direction towards an opposing argument to Strauss & Howe, or an explanation of what all this information is supposed to lead us to think. The author(s) sound as if they are the pre-eminent authorities on the subject. When actually what we have here is a collection of all information one can obtain by goggling "Generations". Furthermore this collection of information is presented in a way that almost every detail given contradicts another detail given. Perhaps if some time was taken to set up the information. For example why not explain that theories exist outside of S & H, and these are some, etc. THen instead of generically throwing them all out at once, say "one theory believes this...another believes this...etc...etc." Then perhaps the author(s) could have summarized their own opinion based on their research for the article. Good concept, but poorly conceived & executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.210.98 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The S&H, though the fullest and most internally consistent list, is aimed at illustrating a specific theory. This is intended to be more general, listing generations proposed by others, as well as the few by them that have come into general use. I agree on reorganizing, but w certainly cannot have authors summarizing based on their own opinions-- see WP:OR. As for consistency between the different generations, suggested by everyone, I don't see how that can be expected. DGG (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Topic Is Limited to USA Pop Culture

This article is an example of a topic which is absolutely shameful in its Americentricism! I also agree that it seems to be limited to one or two material sources which were seemingly written not as responsible history, but basically as nostalgic commentary. As a US citizen myself, I am always horrified by material that presents itself as a valid reference of human sociology, yet is written by someone(s) who is totally ignorant of the fact that there's a whole WORLD out there that is NOT ruled exclusively by shallow American Pop Culture.

Anyway, as you can see, I'm very opinionated on the topic, so I did not edit the article, only tagged it. I noticed a prior proposal of deletion was put forward but ended without conclusion; I hope someone who understands my reasoning for objecting to this article will go further and either 1, figure out a better way to present this material, or 2. request another deletion discussion. itinerant_tuna (talk) 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly room for improvement, but the very first example given talks about a group of people who were primarily differentiated by their international travel. That is, these are American generations listed with various strong influences from the rest of the globe. Many examples are specifically cited in terms of what happened to a group of people when young, arguably making this an extension of the Youth movement concept. Given the amount of cultural information exhibited here it would make more sense to refine than to delete because of a lack of appropriate qualifications. -- M0llusk (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Early 90s = NOT Gen Z!!!!!

Of anything we're the true Yers. We grew up with everything in the 90s 80s babies did, we just don't remember it as well. 1993 at the EARLIEST is when Z starts, not 1990, 91 or 92. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to be able to say that with the same certainty you do, but where does this information come from?--Father Goose (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not agreed by everyone, but most sources cite dates after 1994. Whoever is changing this is wrong - I'm a 1990er and feel well within, not on the fringes of Gen Y. Yes the current times are fast-changing, but no generation only lasts 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article has no or not many clear citions and is need of major work. Also it seems to be on or a few peoples own point of view. For example stating that Generation X starts in 1964 and ends in 1978 is clearly wrong, however I do see what the writer is trying to express. He is trying to say that born between those years and being a teen in the 1980;'s and an adult in the 1990's you related more with the trends of the late 60's and early 70's. The Sum generations I also understand, but found no research on them. Some generation names are actully sub names within another generation. For example Generation Jones is a period within the (baby) Boom generation. I will start and edit in a week if no one conters my POV.--Mickey 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeyp2814 (talk • contribs)

Define a Generation First

Maybe there should be some discussion first to define what a generation is before you try to ascertain or measure the range of when one occurs... Generations are not just modern phenomena. If you want to characterize what one is or what purpose it provides, that may help the contributors ability to denote its existence. There is no standard for inclusion or delineation here, so that is why this article is so disjointed and conflicted. Even the "generations" that have some agreement are full of conflicting and contrary dates... First establish a definition for a generation... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Form of table

Regardless of disagreements on the content of the table, the FORM needs work. Blank lines, overlapping year intervals, WP:DASH violations, etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

This entire debate about Generation Jones is based on flawed analysis and relies too much on non-expert opinions (reporters/journalists who have cited the Joneser designation). By far, the majority of experts and expert media identify the BABY BOOM GENERATION as those born between 1946 and 1964. While GenJones enthusiasts can cite media references to GenJones, expert proponents of the traditional demographic description outnumber GenJones proponents 100 to one. Wikipedia doesn't have enough server space to cover all the traditional demographic citations for this "generation." The majority of members of this generation have never heard of GenJones, and the media who have become acquainted with the construct have almost always received the information directly or indirectly from Pontell or his proxies. The latter half of the baby boom has also -- more typically -- been referred to as Late Boomers, Trailing-Edge Boomers, Young Boomers, and even Cuspers. There are many more media sources that can be cited where the younger half of the Boomer generation is referred to in some other way than GenJones or a derivative. There are many other authors -- other than Strauss & Howe -- who have had better selling, more influential books than S&H, and who also consider younger Boomers as being part of the same generation. At best, GenJoners are a subset of the Baby Boomer Generation, or, as the most influential generational theorist would have it (Karl Mannheim et. al.), Jonesers are a "generational unit" of the Boomer Generation. Most of the major values that experts associate with early Boomers (leading-edge) are also shared by the younger half of the cohort -- such as gender equality, distrust of institutional authority, self-empowerment, and racial equality. The cultural similarities between early Leading-Edge Boomers and Trailing-Edge Boomers (Jonesers) are far more extensive than the differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonda Wharton (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

With all respect, "Fonda Wharton" has no clue what he/she is talking about when it comes to Generation Jones. His/her above description is so completely filled with innacuracies, that is difficult to know where to even begin in correcting it. Suffice it to say that Fonda is obviously not even slightly familiar with the current state of expert thinking on this topic. The truth, which can be completely substantiated by spending some time on Google and Lexus/Nexus, and at a bookstore, is: 1) Only few experts these days still use the old discredited 1946-1964 birth range for the Boomer Generation 2) Most experts now automatically include Generation Jones as a distinct generation 3) Numerous respected experts have conducted their own data analysis and concluded that GenJones is clearly a separate generation 4)Generation Jones is far and away the most common/popular name for this generation; no other name comes even remotely close to the level of usage of GenJones 5) A mountain of data overwhelmingly shows that Jonesers share far more with GenXers than with Boomers; virtually every expert who has studied the data has arrived at this conclusion. The differences between Jonesrs and Boomers, across a wide range of attitudinal and values categories are starkly different.TreadingWater (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I know this area of sociology, and I can tell you that 'treading water's version is pretty much all correct...I don't know why 'fonda wharton' is trying so hard to make generation jones seem much less accepted than it actually is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.133 (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is generally considered a cohort of the Baby boomers, or whether it is generally considered a succeeding generation, both versions have some justification, and should be included in this article and each of the relevant articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

ARTHUR RUBIN: PLEASE ALSO SEE DISCUSSION PAGE OF “BABY BOOMERS” ARTICLE

It is not appropriate to say that Generation Jones is sometimes considered a subdivision of the Baby Boom Generation. It is of course literally true. It also is literally true that the moon is sometimes considered to be made of cheese. In fact we could pretty much say just about anything is “sometimes considered to be…” of just about anything. If one wacko anywhere considers even the most ridiculous thought, it is then “sometimes considered” that.

But filling Wikipedia with such silliness would obviously not make sense. So we have to make judgment calls, based on variables like common usage. The central point of the Generation Jones movement is that Jonesers are not Boomers. If there is only one thing that proponents of this concept were asked to identify as the main point of this movement, it is this specific point. When you look at message boards and blogs with people discussing GenJones, this is the central point that gets focused on over and over…people who have been called Boomers their whole lives who know it’s not true, are fed up with it, and who embrace their GenJones identity as a way of saying: “We are not Boomers!”

Further, when experts write and speak about GenJones, they overwhelmingly describe it as a separate generation between the Boomers and Xer. The guy who first conceptualized this whole thing—Pontell---clearly describes it this way. Virtually all the big name journalists and experts and pollsters and pundits who write and talk about Generation Jones do so in specifically this way…as a distinct generation between Boom and X. If you look hard enough, you can find the occasional journalist who lazily refers to Jones as part of Boom. If you look hard enough, you can also find people writing that the moon is made of cheese. That doesn’t mean it should be in Wikipedia.

And the few who have said that GenJones is a division of Boomers are typically really saying that Jonesers were born during the demographic boom in births following WWII. That demographic baby boom is a very different thing than the actual cultural generations born during that demographic boom. So they are saying that Jonesers were born during the same baby boom as those born before the mid-1950s, not that Jonesers are part of the Baby Boom GENERATION.

Additionally, there is overlap with all these generations, and quite a bit of disagreement about correct birth years. So some people feel that the Silent Generation is actually a division of the WWII Generation. Some people feel that Generation Y is a subdivision of the Millennials. Others believe that GenY is a subdivision of GenX. We would literally be truthful in saying that all these generations are “sometimes considered” to be subdivisions of other generations. But being literally truthful with all possible combinations does not make good encyclopedia-writing. It would make this encyclopedia a ridiculous mess.

So we need to stick with common usage by the public, the intentions of initial formulators of concepts, the educated opinions of experts, etc. Based on these criteria, if Wikipedia is to paint an accurate picture, this “sometimes considered to be a subdivision of Boomers” must not be here.TreadingWater (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jonesers are not boomers, but, as cultural generations, they overlap; boomers running from 1946 or so to 1960, and Jonesers from 1953 to 1965 or so. "Cultural generations" are not a matter of years; or, to be precise, the years differ in different subcultures existing at the same time. If the articles were corrected to reflect that reality, I wouldn't object to the characterization. (For that matter, I'm probably culturally closer to GenX than GenJones, even though I was born in what I still consider to be in the Baby Boom Generation, in spite of GenJones moving in to it. But individuals and subcultures may have different "generations".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur: again, it paints an innacurate picture to Wiki readers to single out Generation Jones as not being universally agreed with. Almost every generation on this list is a source of controversy. If a caveat like this is indicated with the GenJones listing, than it should be listed with each of these generations (e.g. 'some researchers believe the Silent Generation is a sub-division of The WWII Generation", etc.). It seems to me that that would make this list very clumsy and confusing.TreadingWater (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It does, and it doesn't, paint an inaccurate picture to single out Generation Jones. It does, in that there is overlap and readjustments of all "generations" between researchers. It doesn't in that all the previous ones, and GenX are recognized by almost all researchers. GenY/Z or Millennials or ... is even less consistent in recognition. For what it's worth, GenJones is not recognized by our stated primary source for the table. That's another reason for the {{Synthesis}} tag I added to the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A list of generations should not be based on Strauss and Howe, whose views certainly don’t reflect mainstream thinking among generations experts. S&H’s theory of generations has some following, but less of a following than they used to, partly because they still use old traditional long birth year spans for generations while most experts now use shorter (e.g. 10-15 year) spans.

S&H still have pretty strong credibility with generation experts when it comes to much older generations, especially from the 1700s-1800s. But the birth year ranges they use for modern generations, particularly those in the last 65 years or so, are considered a joke among many serious researchers.

It badly misrepresents mainstream expert opinion to use a S&H table on this page. Most Wiki readers coming to this page presumably aren’t experts and depend on Wiki editors to accurately represent how generations are generally viewed these days by experts. Why would we use a table that represents a narrow, minority view on this page?! An article titled “List of Generations” should obviously reflect mainstream, not narrow, opinion.

Further, this table is filled with discrepancies re. S&H’s work on generations, so it’s not even fair to them to title this table with their names. Moreover, S&H have their own pages on Wiki, which is exactly where their work should be. The more I think about this, the more I realize how outrageous it is that this table has been here with their names on the title. I wish I had noticed this earlier. Thank you, Arthur, for drawing my attention to this. We can’t go backwards and re-educate Wiki readers who have gotten a mistaken view of generations from this table, but we can certainly prevent future readers from this misrepresentation.

And it is certainly not true to say that all these generations are widely accepted, except for GenJones. Completely untrue. It is unequivocally inaccurate to single out Generation Jones, given all the conflicting opinions about other generations here.TreadingWater (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the correct way to run the list is probably to include multiple overlapping "generations", including those which have a significant degree of coverage. This includes the Baby Boomers extending to 1960, as well as the overlapping GenJones. And the table probably needs to be killed entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article gives far too much weight to Straus & Howe's definitions and bracketing. It'll take a lot more work to present all the different scholarly views on the subject, although it is work that sooner or later must be done. Maybe the easiest way to approach it is to break the article into sections sorted by scholar, and to present their analyses separately.--Father Goose (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think is the best way to present this list in an acccurate way to Wiki readers. No perfect solution immediately presents itself to me. I'll give it some thought.TreadingWater (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Generation jones

Where did generation jones come from? This is where history always gets things turned around. You've got baby boomers starting in 1942?????????? The bomb was dropped on december 7 1941??????? You've got baby boomers being born during the war????? Baby boomers were born AFTER WWII. Which means 1946 not 1942. WOW.!!! I almost fell off my chair when i saw this. Barack Obama is part of the SECOND TIER BABY BOOMERS!!!! History is nearly impossible to follow because of inaccuracy and intrepretation & control by others. WOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.54.60.34 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ask TreadingWater (talk · contribs). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to reflect the current prevailing thinking among experts

If you would do proper research, you would see that a consensus of sorts has more or less emerged about the delineations of these generations. It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. Many experts now believe it breaks down this way, contrary to the mistaken changes made on this list:

DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964 Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953 Generation Jones: 1954-1965 Generation X: 1966-1978 Silent Generation: 1925-1941

And Generation Jones is by no means a "sub-generation" of the Baby Boom Generation.TreadingWater (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the very, very first time I have ever seen a classification that excludes me from the Baby Boom generation, and I have never in my life heard of "Generation Jones". I see now from the reference that it is one person's coinage from less than 10 years ago, 35 years after the fact, and thus after decades of unswerving use of "Baby Boom" to refer to the cohort that had been born at least through the end of the 1950s and usually several years into the 1960s. Perhaps others have adopted this usage; that doesn't alter common usage. At most it highlights the folly in attempting to cast these generational designations as being more solidly defined that they are.

As for the demographic boom: it sure is of cultural significance, given that it marks majors adjustments that have been made in our economy and our social infrastructure as this surge has made its way through schools, though employment, and, now, into retirement.

Please don't cast a late-breaking fashion that some are going along with or perhaps only even commenting on with some kind of new development that overrides what came before. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Largoplazo...your comments here suggest that you feel that expert opinion can't change over time? You place a great deal of importance on the fact that in the past, people born during the demographic birth boom were all called one generation. But the reality is that we are dealing here with social science, which is filled with examples of evolving and changing expert consensus. This is one of those examples. For quite a few years, experts have increasingly argued that the original definiton of the Baby Boom Generation was flawed. Very few experts at this point believe that only one generation was born during the demographic birth boom. If you look at books about generations published in recent years, you'll find that they typically include Generation Jones now. The acceptance of Generation Jones isn't "late-breaking fashion", it's the result of many experts studying mountains of data and concluding that this generation does in fact exist. Within sociological and related academic circles, the acceptance of the Generation Jones construct is a done deal; it's just that it isn't as well known yet by the general public, but that is changing quickly, given how many major media outlets now use the term. You are certainly right about the importance of the demographic birth boom, I don't see anyone arguing that it isn't important. But this is a list of generations, which is an entirely different issue than demographic population numbers.TreadingWater (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

"Concluding that this generation does in fact exist"? People exist; naming of "generations" is a labeling device that facilitates discussion, as long as one doesn't confuse the labels for immanent properties. Somehow people existed in 1447 and 852 and 329 BC without anyone imagining that they comprised objectively delimitable "generations" that could somehow be discovered and discretely categorized. It's like someone deciding in 2009 that "Valley Girl" has some firm definition but then uncovering "research" that leads to some inescapable conclusion that the criteria that distinguish "Valley Girls" from everyone else now must be different from what they were once conceived to be, or that some of what used to be called Valley Girls have now been scientifically determined not to have been Valley Girls, but in fact something called "Canyon Girls". —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I've assumed all along that you're using the term "generation" in a non-literal sense, to describe a birth cohort who have come of age during period distinguished by a particular set of cultural conditions. The demographic birth boom inherently has carried with it, and continues to carry with it, one particular set of cultural and economic influences. Hence, it is meaningful to call it a generation, in the non-literal sense. I assume you're using it in the non-literal sense, because if you're using it in the literal sense it would be absurd: on the average, Westerners are not reproducing at the age of 15 or even 20. Successive generations are more than 20 years apart. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Case in point: Washington Post archive search, 1987 to today.

• Uses of "baby boomers": 4903
• Uses of "Generation Jones": 2 (once in 2000, once in 2008; even in the latter article, after the term had had years to sink in, the sole reference is: The political consultant Jonathan Pontell labels them "Generation Jones.". In other words, the author doesn't even use the term or say it's in common usage; he just notes that Jonathan Pontell uses it.

The New York Times, in its entire archive, has five occurrences of "Generation Jones", of which one is a press release from some company; one is a blog posting by someone who's scratching his head wondering what "Generation Jones" means, knowing only that he read somewhere that his birth year falls into the range given for it; two others are also blog pages, but the website won't bring them up so I can't see the references; and finally, one is a genuine article—which, like the Washington Post article, uses the term only insofar as it notes that Jonathan Pontell uses the term.

I'm sorry, but this is not coming across as a solidly ingrained term. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You check two newspapers, and don't find a lot on either so you believe you can draw definitive conclusions from that? I would encourage you to check this out further, and you will quickly see that there are lots and lots of major media treatments of Generation Jones...lots of long articles...cover stories in magazines like "American Demographics"...check out Nexus and yopu will see pages and pages of many transcripts of national radio and television discussions of Generation Jones...this term has become very established in a relatively short time...many high profile commentators regularly use the term...books about generations now automatically include Generation Jones as a separate generation...if you don't have time to really check it out at a book store or on search engines, then just look at these following pages...the stuff on this page is all from roughly just the last year: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html and the stuff on this page is a little bit older: http://www.generationjones.com/latest.html ...even if one doesn't do any further research of this term, any reasonable person would have to admit that just these two pages have more than enough to justify this cohort's existence and inclusion on any credible list of generations as a distinct generation between the Boomers and Gen X'ers...

Gen Jones should be a part of Boomers

this isn't really a complete generation - i suggest mentioning the cohort in Boomers, but not making it a full gen between Boomers and X - boomer is quite clearly 1946-1963/64 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnieDicko (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. Unfortunately, there is a serial single-purpose-account (he only uses one account at a time) which insists otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

very few sociologists at this point still use that old '46-'64 birth boom as the years of the boomer generation...and you've got to be kidding if you think there is just one wikipedia editor who thinks Generation Jones should be treated as distinct between Boomers and X'ers...there are many of us who know this to be true...there may only be a couple of editors who are doing the heavy lifting with editing this, but there are a lot more of us who watch these pages...if those who do most of the editing stopped doing it, there are plenty more of us who would pick up the slack...and those who don't like the fact that generation jones is becoming so ingrained in our culture are out of luck because it's just going to become more and more ingrained as this meme spreads...

This list should only have widely used names or it will be unwieldy, and as a result counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia. The Baby Boom Generation, for example, has at least a dozen other names, but it is the only name listed here, as it should be. Generation Jones is the only name that has developed a public following for those born from the mid-1950s to mid-1960s. Names like younger or trailing boomers have no following so should not be here. This issue has been discussed at length here before and the consensus was to only list names with significant public followings.TreadingWater (talk) 00:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

boomer 1942-1953 is wrong

this might be the hippie generation, but boomers are generally considered to be starting in 1946 and ending somewhere between 1959 and 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supergeekfreak (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

cites for each generation on list

I think it is not appropriate to put a bunch of cites on this simple list of generations, but an editor has requested cites, so I’ll provide some. It is certainly not appropriate to single out Generation Jones only for citations, so I’ve included the other generations as well with this requirement for citations. It is the nature of generations that each has controversial boundaries; this is social science, not physical science. Also, it’s entirely natural for someone writing about a generation to mention the name of the person who identified or named that generation; that doesn’t change the fact that the writer of the article also believes in the existence of that generation. I’ve added a few cites of Generation Jones from this month which don’t mention the guy who coined the term, but again, there is nothing less credible about an article which does mention the coiner of a generational moniker.TreadingWater (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

First: the Census Bureau has nothing to do whatsoever with defining generations. The 1946-1964 reference from them has to do exclusively with the demographic birth boom, not with the cultural Baby Boom Generation. They are not using the word "generation" in the way that word is used in this list of generations, and in fact the Bureau doesn't offer any definition for any other generation. The Bureau's interest here is purely with population size, and they cannont be accurately be used as a reference for cultural generations.

Second: I can see now where this will lead with these cites--nothing but another round of pointless edit wars. These generational boundaries continue to be controversial and anyone can find cites with various conflicting years. I am removing these cite requirements, which mostly came from me today. I think we should leave it as it has been for a long time without cites and with what appeared to be more or less consensus...or maybe we should delete this page altogether. Either of those options seem preferable to more edit wars which will not lead to resolution.TreadingWater (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones and MTV Generation are subsets at best, Boomer dates are TOTALLY WRONG

I have a real beef with these so-called generations, they are not standalone generations but possible subsets within others (sorry, Jones are Boomers on the younger end of the spectrum, MTV Generation was a fad term that has outlasted its usefulness and does not seem to fit well in either X or Y). The heading states a generation lasts roughly 15-20 years, which I definitely agree with. Neither Jones nor MTV fit this definition. Also, Gen X generally runs 1965 to about 1980, I've heard it can go as late as 1982. I was born Jan 2, 1980, and frankly have little if anything in common with someone born in 1995. Regarding the small window attributed to the Boomers: Silent Generation must end in about 1945, Boomers must follow in about 1946, marking the start of the explosion of births following the end of the war, one of the generation's defining features. This is a huge, robust generation spanning the longest amount of time in the 20th century, oh yes, all the way through to 1964. Whoever is positing the end of the Boomers in 1954 just so they can shoehorn in "Generation Jones" is sorely mistaken. Obama's a younger boomer, I wish people would stop inventing new generations for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelamp (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with much of what Bluelamp has commented here. I hadn't noticed before the heading which Bluelamp refers to ("15 or 20 years (more or less the length of a childhood"), but now that I have I will remove it, since it is clearly inaccurate. Whoever wrote it obviously confused familial (eg. grandparents/parents/children) with cultural (eg. Boomers/Jonesers/Xers) generations. Length of childhood is directly relevant to familial, but completely irrelevant to cultural generations, which is what this list is about.

The comment that the Silent Generation "must end in about 1945" is wrong; most experts now end the Silents (and begin the Boomer Gen) in the early 1940s. It is important to not confuse the post-war demographic birth boom with the two cultural generations born during that era. And no one is inventing a generation for Obama; GenJones (which is certainly not a “sub-generation”) had already garnered significant mainstream credibility before Obama ever entered the national scene.TreadingWater (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

List of generations

We must either use a single reliable source for the list, or source each entry. In the latter case, it's probably a WP:SYN violation. (There is no list with GenJones on it, as far as I and User:TreadingWater can tell.) I think it's probably better to kill (at least the years) of the list entirely, but the Baby Boom Generation probably ends around 1965, rather than around 1953. User:TreadingWater has supplied only one source for Generation Jones not obviously dependent on the creator of the term, and has not supplied any source for the Baby Boom Generation ending in '53. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with the statement "There is no list with GenJones on it, as far as I and User:TreadingWater can tell." I also completely disagree with the outdated concept of the Boomer GENERATION ending in the mid-1960s, although I do believe that the demographic birth boom ended in the mid 1960s. Further, there are many reliable sources for Generation Jones which are not in any way "dependent on the creator of the term", any many credible sources believe that the Boomer GENERATION ends around 1953. However, the suggestion to kill the birth years on this list might make sense.TreadingWater (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: again you are editing here without researching this topic? I've urged you before to please find out what current thinking is without blindly editing. I know you have the right to edit any topic even though you may know only very little about that topic, but is that really fair to Wikipedia readers? Your style of editing many many articles without really knowing much about each feels very unfair to me for people who depend on Wikipedia's accuracy. You say that in this list "the information is clearly not accurate". According to who? Your guesses? Old outdated concepts? If you would take the time to actually research what experts these days say about the correct generational delineations, you'd discover what is actually accurate. And there is no need for multiple tags in the same article saying the same thing. One tag indicating dispute is enough.TreadingWater (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be deleting all the dispute tags. If you left one (not one of the ones I inserted), I apologize for the reverts. Even though you're clearly wrong, it would be improper to edit war about it if the tags remain. Without the disputed lead sentence, it's a WP:SYNTH violation. Added tag. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. GenJones is arguably a subgeneration. There is no doubt that some reliable sources call it a subgeneration, and that many reliable sources don't mention GenJones at all in their list of generations. You may tag it disputed, but removing it is nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GenJones is not conceptualized as a "subgeneration" by experts; there is no real argument about this point. There is some argument about whether it is a generation at all, but not really whether it is a "subgeneration" (and the idea of "subgenerations" generally is not one with much currency). Of course, any one can say that any topic is "arguably" a certain way, but without standards, the meaning of "arguably" becomes irretrievably dilluted.

Also, this article already is clearly tagged as disputed.TreadingWater (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most experts who mention GenJones don't consider it a subgeneration. However, as far as I can tell, most experts don't mention it at all. It might be {{or}} to call it a subgeneration under those circumstances, but not to say that it's arguably a subgeneration. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Most experts do now include GenJones; just look at recent books about generations published in the U.S. and you'll see that GenJones is almost always now automatically included, and virtually never as a "subgeneration". Just because a couple of editors on Wikipedia refer to GenJones with this obscure concept of "subgeneration" doesn't come close to justifying the positioning that it is "arguably" a "subgeneration". Utter nonsense.TreadingWater (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If a couple is "all the editors this year other than you", then yes, "a couple" editors oppose listing GenJones as a recognized generation. In any case, it's probably time to delete the article, as there are now no sources and no potentional sources for the article as a whole. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, only a couple of Wiki editors have used your obscure and innaccurate "subgeneration" positioning. And to say that all editors here oppose listing GenJones is, of course, complete nonsense. I think on balance that this article should stay; even with its limitations, it does serve a useful purpose. Regardless, it is under dispute and invites discussion, so we should allow a reasonable amount of time for other editors to weigh in.TreadingWater (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We have allowed a reasonable amount of time for discussion; it's been disputed even before you added GenJones to the article. And "a couple" is all (at least) 5 editors who have made substantive edits this year, other than you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was wrong. There is a significant contributor who is neutral on whether GenJones and the Baby Boomers "generations" overlap. All others who contributed this year are opposed to GenJones as a distinct generation.

And .... your inability to participate in Wikipedia's collaborative model suggests that you are in GenJones, even if some born after you are Baby Boomers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, your personal agenda against Generation Jones, which borders on obsession, is exactly the kind of editing that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Your editing clearly reveals that you have only very limited knowledge about generations, yet you continue to edit and make repeated uninformed comments. You make gratuitous disses against GenJones when GenJones isn't even the topic being discussed. You repeatedly make blatantly incorrect statements which you must know are false. You look for technicalities to avoid Wiki readers from seeing the truth. You make personal attacks against editors who you disagree with, like me, as in your personal diss against me today in the comment directly above this one. You have systematically tried to paint an innacurate picture of the level of support GenJones has achieved.

As far as deleting the List of Generations article, I could go either way. I see it as a flawed article, but not in the ways you claim. You see, I actually am knowledgable about this topic, unlike you with the huge number of articles you "edit".TreadingWater (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The terms in which this discussion is couched

"... many credible sources believe that the Boomer GENERATION ends around 1953."

"... take the time to actually research what experts these days say about the correct generational delineations ..."

[italics added]

Experts in what? Believe what? This discussion is being couched in terms applicable to external, objective phenomena, such as whether the universe is in 4 or 22 or 26 dimensions or whether childhood inoculations cause Asperger's syndrome. These "generations" are purely subjective conventions meant to encapsulate some set of objective phenomona for the purpose of facilitating sociological analyses. They cannot be right or wrong, but they make sense only insofar as they are defined in a way that is consistent with their intended use and that is consistently understood by all parties. "Experts" are not discovering these generations, they are coining these terms for convenience, and it is up to them to recognize that they cannot be defined precisely if the meaning they are intended to encapsulate varies every time the next "expert" adopts them to make a different point.

Many generalizations have been made about baby boomers over the years since the mid-1960s. What percentage of them have since then been found to be completely right for people born before 1953 and completely wrong for people born after 1953? How did it take so long for this to be discovered? Are the consequences of the demographic boom truly beside the point? Does it mean nothing that the entire demographic boom is characterized by a retired generation before them who benefited from the unusually large size of the working population to support them through Social Security taxes and so forth, while faced the whole time with the prospect of the reverse situation once their turn to retire comes (and, indeed, for some has come) up? Is it insignificant that the cohort that grew up with television but without cell phones and desktop computers runs largely from the mid-1940s to the mid-1960s?

Doesn't the definition of a "generation" really depend so finely on exactly what it is you're trying to encapsulate at the moment that it's absurd to declare in an encyclopedia, "These Are The Delimiting Years For This Generation And It Shall Not Overlap Any Other 'Generation'"? I believe it would be more helpful to list them in chronological order without explicit boundaries and summarize for each one the contemporary conditions that sociologists most commonly use to characterize them, and perhaps the traits that characterize the generation's members and that are most commonly ascribed to those conditions. At the end of each summary, it would be useful to give a realistic range for both the beginning and the end of the period involved.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There goes Knulclunk again, purposely trying to goad edit wars. Obviously this article is being considered for deletion, so now you are looking to create problems? Again? So you choose birth date ranges which you know fully well are not widely used? If you look hard enough, you can find cites for just about any birth date range somewhere. Ridiculous.TreadingWater (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There may be a way the article could be salvaged. If there is a reasonable chronological order which can be applied to all generations, subgenerations, cohorts, and other cultural time-oriented groupings, then a list of such, without dates, with claimed characteristics (more-or-less universal among those who refer to that term) might be appropriate. No comments about overlap, no specific dates, and no comments about whether the group is a generation or a cohort within a generation. Those comments would have to be left to the individual articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Overlap

Overlap is not a bad thing. Even articles cited by Pontell's own webpage, [1] acknowledge overlap. As mentioned, editors could trot out dozens of examples that support their view. Boomer's born in 1958 WOULD also be members of Pontell's Gen Jones. Some Xer's born in 1963 may feel closer to Boomer's or Gen Jones. According to the sourced chart on Pontell's webpage, a poll by Boomer online mag ThridAge, about half may feel like they belong to a cusp generation. The NYTimes chart is actually kind of cool, but would be better served on the Gen Jones page.

Either way, the recent popularity of Gen Jones does not overrule the traditional dates of Baby Boomers. --Knulclunk (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Overlapping" generations makes no sense, and is not accepted or used by experts in this field. For the concept of generations to hold up, a person can't be a member of two generations. Again, there is confusion about demographics vs. psychographics: a GenJoneser is a Boomer in the sense that he was born during the 1946-1964 demographic birth boom, but is not a member of the Baby Boom Generation.

I've removed the birth years, per the suggestion of several editors, which may make the most sense here.TreadingWater (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, overlapping generations is the only way individuals could belong to meaningful "cultural generations". Or are you attempting to claim that someone born December 31, 1963 at 23:59 is not in the same group as someone born January 1, 1964 at 00:01? (1963 is arbitrary; I didn't check whether that's one of the years you chose as a generation boundary.) However, if we remove the years, we don't need to deal with the problem here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am knowledgable about this topic and I can assure you that generations experts definitely do not subscribe to the idea of "overlapping" generations that you suggest. And yes, someone born at the end of the year of one generational boundary is part of a different generation than someone born at the beginning of the next. Just like you can be standing just inside the border of France and simply walk five feet over the border into Germany. There really is no difference between the five feet of earth yet you are suddenly in a wholly different country. According to your idea, these countries would be overlapping? So that really you are in both France and Germany? With generations, who would determine how much overlap there is? At some point, you have to draw a line. Of course, there is a randomness to this. Of course, two people born minutes apart are going to be influenced by the same historical events and so will be more or less the same generationally. But experts determine generations by birth years, and you have to have to draw lines somewhere or it wouldn't make any sense. But as noted, without birth years on this list, all of this is moot. And the more I think about it, the more I believe it is a good solution to remove the birth years.TreadingWater (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are absolutely wrong. Experts determine "cultural generation"s by common perception of events, regardless of birth years. What the census bureau, "pop culture", or incompetent sociologists define as a generation may be defined by birth years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

you are embarrassing yourself, arthur, your comments about generations are laughable by anyone who knows about generations, have you read even one article ever about generations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If "you" are User:TreadingWater, you both need to be banned. Otherwise, just you. I haven't seen an IP address with more warnings for vandalism without a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: you have a lot of nerve continuing your personal attacks against me. Now you imply I'm sneaking around using other IP addresses. When I want to edit or comment on Wikipedia, I always sign in and use my TreadingWater name. If your goal is to goad me into making personal attacks back at you, I'm not interested. My interest is in helping make these articles as accurate as possible, and I'm frankly disgusted by your abuse of Wikipedia.

Further, it is bad enough that you have continually edited these generations pages despite your obvious very limited knowledge of the topic. Now you take it further by acting like you are actually expert in this topic with your definitive declaration that I am "absolutely wrong" about how experts see this issue. You are completely inventing this and you know it. You couldn't genuinely believe that you have knowledge that experts really say this, since they definitely don't. How about producing a list of these experts? You can't produce such a list since you know you invented this claim. You'd likley have to spend many hours of research to find even one expert who argues this. I am knowledgable about this topic and have never ever seen any expert anywhere make this argument. Every expert on this topic who I've ever read, in books, articles and speeches defines generations by birth years. I don't see how this editing by you can not be seen as bad faith editing (ie. vandalism), since you are making claims you know to not be true.TreadingWater (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"'Overlapping' generations makes no sense, and is not accepted or used by experts in this field. For the concept of generations to hold up, a person can't be a member of two generations." What makes sense isn't determined by anyone's desire to make a concept hold up. The concept, rather, is subject to what makes sense. And it's obvious that generations overlap, because the characteristics that define every generation are not of the nature that: they failed to exist until date X; they persisted from exactly date X until exactly date Y; then they disappeared permanently on date Y, at which time, by magic, the characteristics that define the next generation began to exist after never having existed before.

Another way of looking at it: if generations, for some reason, genuinely cannot overlap, then sociologists are being really sloppy in assigning generations only to ranges of years. They should be able to tell you exactly and unambiguously on what day the changeover from each generation to the next occurred. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Largoplazo, you are certainly right that all generations have overlapping characteristics. And the closer one is to the cusp of a generation, the more of that other generation's characteristics will overlap. And someone born within the birth years of one generation may actually have more of the personality of a neighboring generation. And there never is an exact day when one generation ends and the next begins. None of this is black or white, its' all shades of grey.

But nonetheless, experts always define generations by specific birth years. It's completely impractical and unworkable otherwise. If we determined generations only by shared cultural experiences, who would determine this? If a 56 year old felt like he was very influenced by grunge, etc. and had a GenX personality, then he is a GenXer? Each person decides which generation he is a part of? If you think through the logical implications, you'll see why experts always assign specific birth years to generations. The key is to recognize that these are general, and that there will always be tons of individual differences. In other words, just because you fit within the birth year boundaries of a generation, doesn't mean you necessarily fit the sterotypes of that generation. Many or most might fit, but far from all will fit.TreadingWater (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Another Cite

As pointed to by Crikey.com.au the ABS has a new Generations essay: "A PICTURE OF THE NATION: THE STATISTICIAN'S REPORT ON THE 2006 CENSUS (cat. no. 2070.0)". 4914.0.55.001 - Age Matters, May 2009. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2009-05-29. Retrieved 2009-05-29. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And that cite points to: "2070.0 - A Picture of the Nation: the Statistician's Report on the 2006 Census, 2006" (PDF). Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2009-01-29. pp. p 9. Retrieved 2009-05-29. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help) (reference points to just page 9 of the whole document) Mark Hurd (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

The sentence "the Generation Y, or the Millennials, are said to be dependent on digital technology" is a textbook use of weasel words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.192.59 (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree here. It'd be awesome if someone found the time to rewrite the MTV generation and Gen-Y sections with some references. I know this is anecdotal (but it's also a counter-example), but I'm classified as Gen-Y and can most certainly compare hard-wired and analog technologies to wireless and digital ones based on personal experiences (whereas that's supposed to be a 'feature' of the MTV generation... and I *hate* MTV). On an unrelated note I can also sing Joyride from memory. --The Extremist [User, Talk] 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

International Generations

As it presently stands this article should really be titled List of Generations (United States of America). Although the Baby Boom was a widely observed international phenomenon, some of the other generations, fx. Interbellum, and greatest generations are more or less American (although perhaps not uniquely). Even the baby boom, is not truly a global phenomenon. I suggest that we attempt to give this article more international scope, but I'm not exactly sure how is best. Should we simply list all identified "generations" in countries/regions around the world in one huge list? I'm not sure how many generations there are around the world that are identified and treated as such separate entities, as is now the vogue in the west, but they could be numerous. Or should we simply put caveats in the article stating that it deals exclusively with the US?Peregrine981 (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving new content to Generations

There's been quite a bit of new content added recently, largely by Peregrine981. While it's good to see expanded information on generations, I'm not sure this article is the right place for it. By definition, a "List of generations" article should be just that - a list. We can certainly keep some of the definitional information here, but I propose moving much of it to Generation#Cultural generation. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 20:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the whole article is merged to Generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.197.50 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should merge in all into Generation. As the list is relatively small and manageable, I think it is best to keep it all centralized on one page, rather than risk duplication of effort. Peregrine981 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)