Template talk:Generations of Western society

Inclusion in generational articles

I hate to be negative, but we've been through these generational info boxes several times now. Considering the lack of consensus there is regarding dates, names and succession of generations, they seem to me to give a false sense of reality to the subject. I suggest not including it in generational articles...Peregrine981 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

what if I just put generic decade ranges for all of them, and no concrete dates? Nasa-verve (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a fork of a deleted template? If not, please explain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this area, I am completely unaware of any deleted templates. Okay, what I did is take off the dates, and just leave it as a generic navigational template, without the controversial dates. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This template has been nominated for deletion, please see here for the discussion. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed deletion tag per Wikipedia:Deletion#Proposed_deletion which states: "Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag." Nasa-verve (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That only applies to the WP:PROD process, not to discussions. Please don't do that again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Honest mistake, I did not realize the difference until now. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Direction

Now that it has been decided not to delete this template we should decide how best to use it. Are we going to keep it restricted to American generations? And if so, where will we place it? I would be opposed to placing it at the front of all the generations articles that currently try to discuss generations from a global perspective, if we maintain it as an American template, which I think we should, as it would get unwieldy if we include all possible global permutations, or too minimalist if we include only those that apply globally. Also, if we are indeed using List of generations as our source, then they currently do not match. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Generations includes some which are controversial, such as recent readdition Generation Jones and perennially questionable MTV Generation. Although I suggested the deletion of this template, as eternal vigilence seems necessary to avoid questionable generations from occuring, we need to be clear as to the requirements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

So, I think we should make this into a horizontal template to put at the end of articles, to avoid giving it so much prominence, so as to avoid over-legitimizing the names it uses, and because of its US focus.Peregrine981 (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

Generation Jones certainly needs to be included on any list of current cultural generations. It is automatically included now in scholarly, political, and pop culture discussions and lists of generations. It was on Wikipedia's list of cultural generations for a long time, as it should be. Unfortunately, one editor erroneously removed it from this list; I am now returning this list to the way it was for so long.TreadingWater (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think I voted for deletion previously. Consensus is clearly that GenJones should not be in this template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to support deleting the template, go ahead, but, per consensus, Generation Jones is not going to be in it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to delete this template, that's probably OK with me, but if it stays, it will absolutely continue to include GenJones. And you are fully aware that there isn't anything remotely resembling a consensus supporting your view.TreadingWater (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus was that the template should only contain undisputed generations. Generation Jones is disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were knowledgable about generatons, Arthur Rubin, you would know that there is dispute about all generations...their names, their birth dates, their existence, etc. Fortunately, GenJones is not a particularly disputed generation; in fact, you are one of the only editors who disputes it.TreadingWater (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to your first comment in this section; it's true that one editor removed it, but that's because no one restored it after that removal. That seems an indication of consensus that it should not be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your basis for saying there is a consensus?! Good Lord, Arthur Rubin! Why don't you study the talk pages for these generation pages and you'll see that you are very much in the minority with your obssessive anti-GenJones agenda. You are one of only very few editors who has have ever indicated any issue against GenJones at all. Most editors who have weighed in on this issue have clearly indicated their belief that GenJones is a bona fide generation which deserves equal treatment vis-a-vis the other generations. This reflects the acceptance which GenJones has achieved generally among academics, politicos, demographers, sociologists, etc., etc. Virtually every book about generations released in the last couple of years automatically includes GenJones. Yet you, and a couple of other editors who likewise obviously have very limited knowledge about generations, keep trying to bully your uninformed and biased agenda here on Wikipedia. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why you--Arthur Rubin--are typically the only Wiki user who disputes GenJones? Whether it is in the context of a ridiculous deletion nomination or any other discussion about GenJones, it is usually only you, and maybe another editor or two, who is fighting against the consensus of all the other editors. And then you have the nerve to claim that the consensus is with you?! I bet you couldn't say that with a straight face. I realize that you desperately wish that GenJones hadn't reached the level of acceptance and usage which it has, but it has, Arthur Rubin, and your continued attempts to deceive Wiki readers otherwise is frankly disgusting. And you're an administrator! This is exactly the kind of thing which hurts Wiki's reputation so much. (Again, I remind you that all my comments here are about your edits, not you as a person).TreadingWater (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote above: "You are one of only very few editors who has have ever indicated any issue against GenJones at all." Then why was there no objection to the removal of it from this template and the revision of the Generation Jones article to indicate that it's the responsibility of a single person, during the 3 months you were blocked? Are there then fewer editors who indicated any issue in favor of GenJones being a "real" generation? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "arguments" are so flimsy that it is difficult to know whether you are actually trying to make a serious point or whether this is just more Arthur Rubin-game playing. This template was basically created by just you and a couple of other editors, none of whom seem to have any particular knowledge about generations. There is no discussion whatsoever about which generations deserve to be included, the merits/notability of the different generations, what experts say about these generations, etc. And you conclude from this that there is a consensus that GenJones shouldn't be on this list??!! I find myself very curious as to whether someone actually could believe this equals anything remotely approaching any kind of consensus whatsoever. You have to be joking. Aren't you? I hope for your sake that you are joking. Hey, let's ignore the consensus of tons of experts, sociologists, pollsters, etc. who argue strenuously for including GenJones on any generation list, let's ignore all the editors on Wikipedia who have made detailed arguments on many talk pages about why GenJones should be included...let's instead just go with the opinion of three Wikipedia users on this one template page who have not shown any knowledge about this topic, and then didn't even really discuss it before making their apparently random choices! Yeah..that's consensus we can believe in!! You are joking, aren't you, Arthur Rubin?

And your comment that GenJones is "the responsibility of one person"? What on earth does that even mean? I realize that you only know very little about generations, but do you know even less than I thought? Do you even understand the most basic idea of what a generation is? How can a generation be the "responsibility" of one person? And who is that person? Are you referring to Pontell, the guy who coined the term? So then GenX is the "responsibility of one person"...Doug Coupland, who coined the term? And all the people who agree with and use the terms GenJones and GenX aren't "responsible'? What again does responsible mean here? Fortunately for you, very few people are paying attentiion to these pages and changes, so false changes often get made on Wiki pages which no one notices for awhile. If you truly want to know what consensus is about these topics, then finally do the research to see what actual experts say, and read through the many comprehensive arguments made on these Wiki talk pages by many editors.TreadingWater (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense again. I had nothing to do with editing this template; I argued for deletion. I'm now trying to support the apparent concensus from the deletion result: include only those generations which are unquestionably considered "generations". Generation Jones is not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you name an editor, other than you and your sock puppets, who has argued in favor of including Generation Jones? I don't recall any.

And Generation Jones is the creation of Pontell, although whether "inventor" or "discoverer" is more correct is unclear, as in many sciences. I went through all your references at one point, and there was at most one which was not by Pontell, or commenting on Pontell's creation of the term, which gave it any credence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Please tell me this is some kind of game you are playing. If you actually did go back and read through all these talk pages, you would see a long list of Wiki editors who are supportive of GenJones, and a long list of prominent experts who are supportive of GenJones. Who is your audience for your comment here? You know that I am very aware of what is on these pages, so you know that I know your claims are complete nonsense. Is your audience for these comments other editors who you hope you can bluff into believing you? Wiki editors, if you are interested in this please take the time to go back through the talk pages and you'll see that Arthur Rubin is trying to deceive you. And then look at the references given for GenJones, and you'll see further evidence of his sad attempt at deception. I only see one article by Pontell, while there is a long list of respected analysts who argue strongly for GenJones. I can't even guess how Arthur Rubin even thinks he could possibly support his ridiculous claims. You mean if Jonathan Alter writes a full column in Newsweek about GenJones, and happens to mention Pontell's name once, as the coiner of the term, then that means Alter's column doesn't have "credence"?! Isn't there a part of you that is embarrassed of yourself for behaving this way, Arthur Rubin? I mean, really? (As always, I am only meaning to address Arthur Rubin's edits, not him personally.)TreadingWater (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)