Talk:Generation Jones: Difference between revisions
more about why Generation Jones should obviously have an article in Wikipedia```` |
|||
| Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
The term Generation Jones has already gained a great deal of national and international acceptance and usage, and should certainly not be considered for deletion. I just googled the term, with quotation marks (ie. "Generation Jones"), and it came back with 251,000 hits, which is a far higher result count on Google than many terms with long articles in Wikipedia . I googled other categories for "Generation Jones", and found similarily high number results; for example, new blog entries are appearing about Generation Jones on Google blog search virtually every day, sometimes several a day. This term and concept has been written about, and talked about, frequently in top media outlets...for example, I found recent articles about Generation Jones in Newsweek and The New York Times, among many others. When you study the search results from top search engines, like Google and Yahoo, you find that not only has this term been used by hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio shows, but also that the clear trend is toward significantly increasing useage. I just did a book search, and found 73 books that use the term. I don't think it's a question of whether Generation Jones will get traction or develop mindshare; it already clearly has. This is a term and concept that obviously belongs in Wikipedia, and, in fact, really should have a more extensive article. I just carefully read this article, and don't understand on what basis anyone could claim that it is an advertisement, promotional of Pontell, or not neutral. And the term is clearly notable enough, and there are many reliable sources cited. The only change I see this article needing is a more expanded version to accomodate the increasing interest and use of this term. ```` <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CurrentHistoryMatters|CurrentHistoryMatters]] ([[User talk:CurrentHistoryMatters|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CurrentHistoryMatters|contribs]]) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The term Generation Jones has already gained a great deal of national and international acceptance and usage, and should certainly not be considered for deletion. I just googled the term, with quotation marks (ie. "Generation Jones"), and it came back with 251,000 hits, which is a far higher result count on Google than many terms with long articles in Wikipedia . I googled other categories for "Generation Jones", and found similarily high number results; for example, new blog entries are appearing about Generation Jones on Google blog search virtually every day, sometimes several a day. This term and concept has been written about, and talked about, frequently in top media outlets...for example, I found recent articles about Generation Jones in Newsweek and The New York Times, among many others. When you study the search results from top search engines, like Google and Yahoo, you find that not only has this term been used by hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio shows, but also that the clear trend is toward significantly increasing useage. I just did a book search, and found 73 books that use the term. I don't think it's a question of whether Generation Jones will get traction or develop mindshare; it already clearly has. This is a term and concept that obviously belongs in Wikipedia, and, in fact, really should have a more extensive article. I just carefully read this article, and don't understand on what basis anyone could claim that it is an advertisement, promotional of Pontell, or not neutral. And the term is clearly notable enough, and there are many reliable sources cited. The only change I see this article needing is a more expanded version to accomodate the increasing interest and use of this term. ```` <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:CurrentHistoryMatters|CurrentHistoryMatters]] ([[User talk:CurrentHistoryMatters|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/CurrentHistoryMatters|contribs]]) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:*Are you Jonathan Pontell [[User:Cumulus Clouds|Cumulus Clouds]] ([[User talk:Cumulus Clouds|talk]]) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
:*Are you Jonathan Pontell [[User:Cumulus Clouds|Cumulus Clouds]] ([[User talk:Cumulus Clouds|talk]]) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
I have again removed those boxes which seem so clearly innapropriate, and I did address your claims, cumulus clouds, here and on the page you created to try to delete this article. Your claim that Generation Jones is only talked about by Pontell in the media is completely innacurate, and as I wrote on that page: If you google "Generation Jones", you'll find hundreds of thousands of references to it (I just did, with 251,000 results). I just went through a bunch of them, and hardly any of them are of Pontell using the term. At least 90% of these references are third parties using the term Generation Jones. Among the third parties which I just found using this term are the magazines USNews and World Report and Newsweek, the newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post (four seperate articles in The WP), and the TV networks NBC and CBS. These are just a small fraction of the thousands of media outlets that regularly use this term...all third parties, completely unconnected to Pontell (and the Wikipedia article is obviously the result of multiple contributors). Given the large, and increasing, interest and usage of this term, it should clearly not be deleted, but rather expanded. |
|||
And the fact that you would assume that I'm Pontell again reflects this very unusual view of yours that it must only be Pontell that's talking about this. No, I'm not Pontell, cumulus clouds, and while you may not want to believe it, there are many of us Jonesers in the US and abroad who are enthusiastically embracing this generational identity. I know many people who regularly use this term...it's not just the media that uses it, but also regular people who are fed up being called Boomers or Xers (when the truth is that we are a lost generation in-between). I encourage you to really do the research, cumulus clouds, and you will find that the term Generation Jones certainly should be covered by Wikipedia. And I don't see any basis at all for your other claims, either...that this article is an advertisement, and isn't neutral (based on what?!).```` |
|||
Revision as of 22:40, 30 June 2008
"ME GENERATION" WAS ANOTHER NAME FOR BOOMERS
The "Me Generation" is a moniker that was widely used to describe the "Baby Boom Generation" in the 1970's. It is still occasionally used, and still to describe Boomers. It is not a term that has been used to describe Generation Jones.
I've removed the two ridiculous generations tables/templates from this article. Whoever put them there either has a shocking lack of knowledge about generations, or is deliberately vandalizing Wikipedia. For example, the claim that the Beat Generation was born from 1948-1962, and directly preceded Generation Jones?!! Please do even the most basic of research and you will find that the Beat Generation members were born primarily in the 1920's, and came to influence in primarily the 1950's! Almost all its best-known members (Ginsburg, Kerouac, Cassady, etc.) were born in the mid-1920's (although William Burroughs was born in 1914). 1948-1962??!! The claim that Jonesers were directly succeeded by the "MTV Generation" is similarily absurd.
There have been many hundreds of articles written about Generation Jones. I've read many myself, and have never seen anybody, in any context, in any of these articles, describe your Beat/Jones/MTV chronology. In fact, every article I've read describes the Boomer/Jones/Xer chronology. Check it out yourself: look at any or all of the GenJones articles cited on this discussion page, or on the article page itself, and/or google Generation Jones yourself and read any of the many articles you'll find, and you will see that NOBODY anywhere uses your Beat/Jones/MTV chronology, and EVERYBODY uses the Boom/Jones/Xer chronology. So unless you can provide evidence that your claim is accurate and has any support whatsoever, please stop posting false information.
Also, your claim that Strauss and Howe say that Generation Jones is a "sub-generation" is complete nonsense. The Generation Jones concept was introduced and became popular after Strauss and Howe published their books, so they didn't discuss it. Regardless, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts, and if you research it, you'll see that Generation Jones has become widely viewed by generations experts as a full bona fide generation. 21st century Susan 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of citations to the article. There are many more citations that could be added, but I didn't want the citation footnotes to become cumbersomely long. I removed the ridiculous "generations" table, and corrected the "succession" table. It's quite unpleasant when people who clearly don't know much about generations nonetheless throw in names and years of generations which have no support or basis. It really undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, and is frustrating to all of us who believe in Wikipedia and are determined to make the entries true. For example, the Beat Generation was described as being born from 1948-1962, and directly preceding Generation Jones. I know of no expert, book, etc. who describes the Beat Generation that way; it's completely incorrect. Similarily, "Baby Busters" were absurdly descibed as being born 1958-1968, when the reality is that Baby Busters actually is a term used interchangably with Generation X, and is almost always defined as being born between the mid-1960's to the mid/late-1970's. Further, the MTV Generation is thrown out as the generation following Generation Jones, when the truth is that the MTV Generation is an obscure term which certainly isn't used to describe a generation born starting in the mid-1960's. Those of us who care about the viability and future of Wikipedia must be vigilant in removing these blatant errors and carefully making sure these entries are accurate. 21st century Susan 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 15/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X
Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X. (The Silent generation, and WWII vets were.) Coupland originally meant Gen X as those born in the early sixties, in the shadow of their older baby boom siblings. We were the younger baby boomers. (eg. 1964 was hardly a "bust year". Over 4 million births (U.S.) occurred, which is more than any year in the late forties though the early fifties. This didn't happen again until 1990!)
Referring to above, you may be correct but I have seen statistics showing 1957 as a peak year for births within the USA. Data I saw may be faulty, of course.68.13.191.153 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
We were the generation stripped of identification with our older siblings, simply because we didn't remember the Kennedy administration, although we remember Nixon and Kissinger well enough.
Then, we were the generation stripped of our Gen X identity - (the original "twenty-somethings" of the 1980s, when the phrase was first popularized as a riposte to boomers in their thirties.) Somehow (mainly corporate marketing) it was co-opted by those younger than us, who really wouldn't remember the 1970s. Personally, I didn't like the term Gen X, but the ideas of being lost and forgotten in the crush of humanity prior to us, is accurate. And, oddly enough, once a term is stolen, it becomes more precious.
As for the use of Generation Jones? First time I heard of it was on this wiki. I'm Canadian. Is it only an American term? The only memorable reference, to me, is "keeping up with the Jones'". I am curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.119.204 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 July 2006 UTC (UTC)
- I've never heard of this either- also, where are other reputable sources that quote this well-known thinker? Google search says...plastic surgeon, film director, and a guy who has plenty of links to this page and his own site, quoted back and forth. There are less major media mentions in the first three pages of goole for him than there are for me. One on medialifenews and one on bymnews.com. Anyone who wants to take a look-but I'm not entirely sure this is noteworthy.
- Just went and read the discussion for deletion page. If only someone would add sources and take out some of the advert content, we could at least get that tag off it.
- Resonanteye 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The generation described here (however poorly named - Jones? We couldn't get a better label than Jones? We ALWAYS get screwed!) really exists and definitely doesn't fall into either Boomers or GenX. We were too young to have been active in protests but too old to like Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Nothing has ever really been marketed to us. And we will be the generation bankrupted by the Boomers retirements!
- I do take issue with the statement that Boomers weren't GenX's parents, however. If you're a firstborn or only child GenXer, you are most likely a Boomer's kid. In the late 60s and early 70s, Americans who lived in flyover country were still under social pressure to marry and have kids before 25. Only the urban segment of the Boomers really bucked that trend. The first Boomers reached marriagable age in 1964 and most had turned 25 by 1980. That would cover the GenXers birth period! Sharpvisuals (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve re-written most of the Generation Jones article because it was so badly written
I’ve re-written most of the Generation Jones article because it was so badly written, and so full of inaccurate and unsubstantiated points. Unfortunately, I’m clueless about how to properly cite sources on Wikipedia (even though I did read through the instructions, I must confess to being rather confused), so I’ve assembled many sources below, with the hope that more experienced Wikipedia editors can help with the correct formatting. The below sources substantiate all of the points I make in the actual article (I found many more comparable sources substantiating these points, but didn’t include them here, since I fear I’ve already included an unwieldy number of sources). Also, I’ve removed the generations table, which is filled with inaccuracies (I plan on editing that soon with correct, substantiated info).
There is so much loose thinking with generations, and I’d like to help in the process of us arriving at the truth of who the generations actually are. One problem is that anyone can throw out a name, and birth years, for a generation, and then add that to, for example, a chart of “generations”, and then readers assume that this “new generation” has some kind of general currency and acceptance. Take “Baby Busters”, for example. That term has almost always been used interchangeably with “Generation X”, but there is one person (and only one person, as far as I know) who uses it to describe the lost generation between the Boomers and Xers. So even though no one except this one person has ever used “Baby Busters” this way, it appears on Wikipedia as if this term is commonly used this way. Or “The Isolation Generation”. I couldn’t find even one article about The Isolation Generation, which is apparently yet another “generation” in someone’s head, but with no support from others.
That is part of why I think it’s important to focus on the generational concepts and names that have actually gained acceptance and attention (evidenced, for example, by the major media attention that real generations, like Generation Jones have received). Of course, just because the media pays a lot of attention to an idea doesn’t mean that the idea is valid, but it seems like a good starting point.
And it seems, from the pretty extensive research I’ve done on this topic, that a consensus has been emerging among generations experts about the living generations: WWII Generation, followed by Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, Generation X, and then finally Generation Y.
Here are list of sources for the article on Generation Jones:
MEDIA INTEREST IN GENERATION JONES
The major US wire services have run long features about (and articles discussing) Generation Jones, which in turn have been carried by hundreds of subscribing newspapers. Examples:
KNIGHT RIDDER
http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22Generation+Jones%22knight-ridder
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6452129_ITM
GANNETT
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/11/12/loc_who_is_generation.html
SCRIPPS HOWARD
http://www.cincypost.com/news/2000/jones010800.html
AP
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20041223-0222-ch-ch-ch-chia.html
Many website-based news organizations have written articles about Generation Jones Examples: MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15592086/ CNN http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/05/generation.jones/index.html
Many magazines have run articles about, and including, Generation Jones Example: Cover story in American Demographics magazine http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2000_Oct/ai_67001505
Jonathan Pontell has appeared on many TV and radio shows discussing Generation Jones. Examples: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ywTXnI0LQNcJ:www.talkradionews.com/audio/index.php%3Fstart%3D150+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=93 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wb81a-gN_7UJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4507725.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=441 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wb81a-gN_7UJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4507725.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=441 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:-Fj3lo9BNysJ:marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2000/06/06_mpp.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=297 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ApviWaYr8MwJ:www.jimbotalk.net/page1562.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=367: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:RXHy56JwsFMJ:www.lovelife.com/Shows/+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=385 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vpNfK5eYpJ0J:www.the-seeker.com/formerradio2.htm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=386
BUSINESS INTEREST IN GENERATION JONES
Many companies and industries are now targeting Jonesers. Examples: http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2003/343.html http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2000/may/26424.html http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/mar01/mar12/4_thurs/news3thursday.html http://www.thefuturelaboratory.com/newsletters/2005%20FutureLab%20Spring%20Newsletter.pdf http://www.marinaassociation.org/news2.cfm?NewsID=730&archive=y&inputMM=8&inputYYYY=2005 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:A_btiafpej8J:www.abbra.org/pdfs/natcon/2006_IMBC_Agenda.pdf+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=114 http://www.radioandrecords.com/Conventions/TRS2001/agenda.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&lr=&start=240&sa=N http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mkpHRvntHEMJ:www.spabusiness.com/contents2005-Q4.cfm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=429 http://www.carat.co.uk/main282.htm
Numerous industries have created new products and brands to specifically target Jonesers, like the radio industry, which has created “GenJones” radio formats. Examples:
http://www.wlzq.com/advertise.htm
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1j5kP3j0SUMJ:blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/09/san_franciscos_.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=271
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=GENJONES-11-11-05
POLITICAL ROLE OF GENERATION JONES Generation Jones has been discussed extensively by media and pollsters as a crucial voting segment. Examples from recent elections in the US, UK, and New Zealand: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050410/ai_n13598602 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050417/ai_n13620284 http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html http://rasmussenreports.com/Generation%20Jones%20Story.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0509/S00161.htm http://www.research2000.us/2006/11/01/generation-jones-could-be-key-to-06-midterm-election-results/ http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/ http://www.microenterprisejournal.com/podcast/archives/2006/10/mnb_podcast_spe.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/westburn/jmm/2005/00000021/00000009/art00016 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/15/wpres115.xml http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:xsmfWT5S1m8J:post-gazette.com/pg/04340/421595.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22,%22mason-dixon%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/pollwatchers092000.htm
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR GENERATION JONES
There is considerable interest in Generation Jones internationally. Examples: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1378017,00.html http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:s0PVkCU9NT0J:www.lindenburg.nl/Juli2003.htm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=556 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2004/11/24/njones24.xml
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:iu1w0igLP58J:www.svb.nl/Images/Generatiemarketing_tcm47-53029.pdf+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=576 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1O0omo42rykJ:www.radiodays.dk/arkiv/radiodaysprogram%25202003.pdf+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=378 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:oMPfZ4XUUA8J:johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/02/04/the-greatest-generation/+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=500 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_1TpsYq9_mEJ:crystal-link.typepad.com/une_nouvelle_vie/2006/04/cest_quoi_etre_.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=547 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:hlEGzZo0EZYJ:www.gdi.ch/Thesen_und_Erkenntnisse_der.1174.0.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=550 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:stKVXomJCLgJ:www.marukoshiki.net/2006/06/y200265.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=509 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:cbM6IeDFe1YJ:www.geocities.co.jp/HeartLand-Kaede/9076/index3-0201.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=463 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Cl05cG7QyvsJ:www.jamjapan.com/jp/columns/i_media/Xgames.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=537 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:IzPSrA4giZ0J:www.berg-marketing.dk/segmenteringer.htm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=467 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:w_x2G3LLFGQJ:www.fohns.dk/default.php%3Farchive%3Dtrue%26month%3D2%26year%3D2003+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=494 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:fCCr4x7ZeMsJ:www.wsfm.com.au/ARNClassic/djschedules/djschedule.asp+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=106
21st century Susan 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
About Resources
I have made the first group of hyperlinks into resources that show up as footnotes at the bottom of the page. This allows the reader to look at the source without having to follow the link off the page, and get a better idea of the support for the points being made in the article.
I would suggest that user:21st century Susan follow this format for the rest of the resources:
<ref>Landesman, Cosmo, “I’ve Finally Found My Generation,” The Sunday Times (London), November 28, 2004 [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1378017,00.html Times Online] retrieved Feb 18, 2007</ref>
with the name of the author, title of the article, name of the publication, date of the article, link with some info about the link, and date you retrieved the info. If you include the <ref> and </ref> at the beginning and end of the citation it will automatically show up as a footnote. If you want to cite the same references more than one time there is a way to do that explained at Help:Footnotes. Obviously in some cases you have to make up a citation style (like with the Carat page), but the more information you can give people about the source the better. Also there are style for citing just about anything here Wikipedia:Citation templates. --Tinned Elk 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
usage in different countries
This article makes fairly grandiose claims about the usage of a term which appears to have been created by a single author. The ref for the term's "use" in Western Europe links to a single Danish radio program which is talking about the term's use in the US. Also, there is no link for Canada, and the UK link is to single editorial about someone "discovering" the term which was "invented last week" and a website pushing for the term's use. All in all, not compelling evidence. Peregrine981 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Real people do not use this term. I'm in the age range, and an informal survey of my peers revealed that half had never heard of it, and of the half that had, none used it except ironically. Pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2fs (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
definite widespread usage in different countries
The term Generation Jones is definitely used widely in many Western countries, as even a cursory Google search clearly shows. For example, I just Googled UK articles about Generation Jones and found articles about it in many major UK publications, including: The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, and The Observer. Reading the text of some of these articles clearly shows that the term has become widely used there. I've seen similar results for several other European countries, where the term is also widely used (one can get an initial sense of this simply by looking at some of the references on this talk page under "INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR GENERATION JONES"). The term is even more widely used in the U.S. I have expertise in international cultural generations, and know that Generation Jones is a term that definitely has gained wide usage, as any reasonable level of research makes obvious. 21st century Susan 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- well, its hard to define what exactly "widely used" means... just because a bunch of newspapers have used the term here and there hardly proves anything, although it does justify the inclusion of this term in wikipedia. however, I still take issue with the idea that this term is "used" in western Europe, as there seem to be very few real refs in continental languages. I'm not exactly sure what to use as a burden of proof in that regard though. I'm not really that concerned anyway, as long as its made clear that this is a relatively new term, and where it comes from. Peregrine981 06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
"jonesin"
Doesn't the term jonesin refer to jonesin for a fix, e.g. a heroin addict, and not so much about the unrequited craving felt by this generation of unfulfilled expectations? Galo1969X 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The term "Jonesin'" is commonly used in US to convey a strong craving or yearning for someone or something; its use to convey a drug addiction is only a very minor usage--it is typically used much more broadly.
This term isn't widely used by the people it purports to describe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. I've never heard the term used outside of a Hollywood depiction of life... and I'm a member of this generation. I find it wholly out of place... and will likely kill it here shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.249.71 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
succession box
The years used in the succession box before I just changed them were certainly not years that are commonly used. First of all, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts; many experts disagree with their generational birth years, and further, the years used in that succession box didn't even accurately reflect Strauss and Howe's proposed birth years. Secondly, I can't imagine where those birth years could have come from (I've never seen anyone start GenX as early as the 1950's, I've never seen anyone use 1955-1962 for GenJones, etc.) C'mon...for Wikipedia to work, we all need to focus on accuracy, and the birth years in the succession box now reflect the emerging concensus most commonly used for these three generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st century Susan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted to article that has been there for quite awhile, and has generally been seen to be accurate...the changes made in the last day or two do not accurately reflect the Generation Jones story...CurrentHistoryMatters (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Many generational labels have been proposed over the years for a variety of different age cohorts by many people, but almost all of those monikers end up being used by only the person inventing the term, and maybe a few of his or her friends. Very few generational names actually generate a following in the public. Generation Jones is one of those rare names that has developed such a following, and millions of people in the U.S. and abroad use the term. For this Wikipedia article to stay accurate, it needs to reflect that large following and useage, rather than be written in a way that grossly underplays the level of acceptance this term has now achieved.
PUSHING ACCURACY VS. PERSONAL AGENDAS ON WIKIPEDIA
You seem to have some kind of personal agenda against Pontell, or Generation Jones, Foogus; wikipedia isn't the place for you to act that out. For some reason, you seem to have some desire to make the Generation Jones movement seem smaller than it is, but the reality is that this concept/term has gained a lot of popularity, and wikipedia should show that. It's completely inappropriate for you to accuse those of us that care about the Generation Jones movement to be puppets of Pontell; that is a completely ridiculous claim. Is it so incomprehensible to you that there are many of us that are Jonesers, that are sick and tired of being innacurately lumped in with Boomers, that care about our generation finally having our voice factored into the national and international debate?! And where do you come off saying that Generation Jones is a "product"?! Generation Jones is no more a product than Generation X or the WWII Generation or any other generation. I don't see anything in this entry that involves any selling of products (books, etc.) And you have no basis to say that the information in this entry is hyped! Everything I see here is true and supportable by clear facts (e.g. I've seen Pontell many times talking about Generation Jones on talking head networks like CNN. On what basis do you claim that's not true?! How would you know how often he appears on these TV shows?!).
Even if for some personal and/or professional reasons you're not happy that Generation Jones has become so popular, wikipedia is not the place to try to pretend it hasn't become this popular. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the focus neeeds to be on accurate entries, not pushing personal agendas. Research Generation Jones, and you'll see that this entry is very accurate. Just look, for example, at the citations on this talk page (above). For example, you can see that numerous wire services have run long articles about Generation Jones, which in turn get picked up by hundreds of subscribing newspapers. When you add this to all of the other newspaper coverage, it's obvious that Generation Jones has been covered in hundreds of papers. Yet you remove this reference to make it seem smaller. Your revisions pretty much all come from this same place: deliberately trying to make Generation Jones seem less popular than it is by innaccurately downplaying the truth. Hey, it's the holiday season, let's come from a place of concilliation and mutual respect and care about wikipedia being as accurate an encyclopedia as we can all make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st century Susan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
STOP VANDALIZING THIS ARTICLE
What is your problem, Foogus??!! You obviously have something against Pontell or Generation Jones but Wikipedia is not about indulging your personal feelings, but rather an encyclopedia which strives for accuracy. So stop vandalizing this article with your completely baseless assertions. If you have any interest in accuracy, learn how to research, and you'll see that Pontell regularly appears on national TV, including CNN, FOX News Channel, MSNBC, etc....not eight years ago (!), but rather currently and frequently. 21st century Susan (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Successful self-promotion does not equal expertise
I am glad to see that the generation chronolgy attached to the Gen X entry does not include this bogus marketing ploy. The idea of a quantifiable generational chronology that "really exists" is suspect in and of itself, but I don't think that the popular culture - which is the only arbiter of such categories - has or will embrace this notion. Pontell may have carved a niche for himself as a talking head and presenter, but his idea has no traction. Just another opinion from a 1963 baby, but I need to put it out there. No one I know had heard of this, and when exposed to the idea it gets a universal "ugh." signed John Beekman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.179.194 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd concur. (born in '62.) I've never heard of Gen Jones until reading the related Wikipedia entries. I discussed this in a chat room with a bunch of other similarly aged folks--no one there had heard of it either. That doesn't make it any less academically valid, it's just not something I'd use in conversation. It doesn't have mindshare and this article is very unlikely to generate mindshare. However as the other poster has indicated, there may certainly be valid academic reasons for retaining it, so I wouldn't delete the article. If this were slashdot though, I'd certainly mod it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.249.70 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, this article appears to have been written by and substantially promotes Jonathan Pontell. It probably qualifies for CSD, but I'll send it to AFD to achieve community consensus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The term Generation Jones has already gained a great deal of national and international acceptance and usage, and should certainly not be considered for deletion. I just googled the term, with quotation marks (ie. "Generation Jones"), and it came back with 251,000 hits, which is a far higher result count on Google than many terms with long articles in Wikipedia . I googled other categories for "Generation Jones", and found similarily high number results; for example, new blog entries are appearing about Generation Jones on Google blog search virtually every day, sometimes several a day. This term and concept has been written about, and talked about, frequently in top media outlets...for example, I found recent articles about Generation Jones in Newsweek and The New York Times, among many others. When you study the search results from top search engines, like Google and Yahoo, you find that not only has this term been used by hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio shows, but also that the clear trend is toward significantly increasing useage. I just did a book search, and found 73 books that use the term. I don't think it's a question of whether Generation Jones will get traction or develop mindshare; it already clearly has. This is a term and concept that obviously belongs in Wikipedia, and, in fact, really should have a more extensive article. I just carefully read this article, and don't understand on what basis anyone could claim that it is an advertisement, promotional of Pontell, or not neutral. And the term is clearly notable enough, and there are many reliable sources cited. The only change I see this article needing is a more expanded version to accomodate the increasing interest and use of this term. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Are you Jonathan Pontell Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have again removed those boxes which seem so clearly innapropriate, and I did address your claims, cumulus clouds, here and on the page you created to try to delete this article. Your claim that Generation Jones is only talked about by Pontell in the media is completely innacurate, and as I wrote on that page: If you google "Generation Jones", you'll find hundreds of thousands of references to it (I just did, with 251,000 results). I just went through a bunch of them, and hardly any of them are of Pontell using the term. At least 90% of these references are third parties using the term Generation Jones. Among the third parties which I just found using this term are the magazines USNews and World Report and Newsweek, the newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post (four seperate articles in The WP), and the TV networks NBC and CBS. These are just a small fraction of the thousands of media outlets that regularly use this term...all third parties, completely unconnected to Pontell (and the Wikipedia article is obviously the result of multiple contributors). Given the large, and increasing, interest and usage of this term, it should clearly not be deleted, but rather expanded.
And the fact that you would assume that I'm Pontell again reflects this very unusual view of yours that it must only be Pontell that's talking about this. No, I'm not Pontell, cumulus clouds, and while you may not want to believe it, there are many of us Jonesers in the US and abroad who are enthusiastically embracing this generational identity. I know many people who regularly use this term...it's not just the media that uses it, but also regular people who are fed up being called Boomers or Xers (when the truth is that we are a lost generation in-between). I encourage you to really do the research, cumulus clouds, and you will find that the term Generation Jones certainly should be covered by Wikipedia. And I don't see any basis at all for your other claims, either...that this article is an advertisement, and isn't neutral (based on what?!).````