Talk:Baby-Boom Generation

This discussion is a continuation from Talk:Baby Boomer

Baby Boom Generation

I have taken a chunk of time today to try to find a solution to the problems we’ve had with the Boomer article. I think the changes I’ve made today are a vast improvement on what has been there, and will hopefully avoid the confusion this article has been causing. I’ve broken up this complicated issue into three articles, which makes logical sense to me: the demographic post-WWII birth boom, the Baby Boom Generation, and Generation Jones. I did some re-arranging of text from these articles into a more logical form (e.g. I put definitions of demographic boom years on the post-World War II baby boom article where they more logically belong), as well as writing some new text which hopefully clarifies these issues.TreadingWater (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This solution seems remarkably like a content fork. --Knulclunk (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And a cut/paste move, to boot. I should revert, to preserve GFDL, but I think I'm too involved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This solution isn't a content fork at all, these are related but distinct articles. I put some time into thinking this through, and believe this makes the most sense. The key problem we've been having with this is the thorny issue of demographic birth rates vs. cultural generations. Trying to deal with both in one article has proven endlessly problematic. The way the Boomer article opened was saying that a Boomer was anyone born 1946-1964, but then the article went on to only look at those born during the first half of that boom, and basically ignored those born in the second half.

Let me try a prior analogy again. Let’s say we were writing an article about “North Americans”, and started it this way: “North Americans are people who live in the northern continent of the Americas and include Canadians, Americans and Mexicans”. If we then wrote the entire article only about Canadians, and barely mentioned Americans and Mexicans, it would be a badly-written/inaccurate/confusing article. A good solution would be to write separate articles about Mexicans, Canadians, and Americans. This would not be content forking, it would be good encyclopedia writing about related but distinct topics.

The main reason I, and others, had such a big problem with the way the Boomer article was written was largely because of this specific issue. I've removed this problem. Now the Baby Boom Generation article mentions Jones in the beginning for clarification, and then doesn't mention it again. That's fine with me, now this is an article about the Boomer GENERATION, and it could be 5 times this length and never mention Jones again and that's fine, it's an article about the Boomer Generation. Mexicans wouldn't need an article about "Canadians" to discuss Mexicans. It was when the article was about "North Americans" that the Mexicans would have a problem being ignored.TreadingWater (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, thinking it over, it is a plausible reorganization, as there are three (probably all misnamed) concepts, except that Baby Boomer and possibly Baby boom should redirect to Post-World War II baby boom. I think we may need to kill Category:Cultural generations entirely, as there is dispute as to which of the articles belongs in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thinking it over again; Baby Boomer should be a disambigutation page; Post-World War II baby boom should also be noted as sometimes considered a cultural generation (in fact, all of them should be tagged as "sometimes" to "often" considered a cultural generation), and Baby Boom Generation should be renamed to something more clear, if we can decide on what it is. As for the cut/paste move, if there's no objection, an admin can change it to a conventional move, as there's no significant history after the redirect of Baby Boomer and before the creation of Baby Boom Generation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've returned that sentence which evolved through a collaborative process of much discussion, and is important for clarity and context. That overall lede was carefully constructed; the way it reads now is confusing because the opening was written in a way that depends on that sentence which was removed. Numerous editors agreed with this wording, and it has survived many edits. As far as the sources, there are certainly enough reliable sources listed. Arthur Rubin, if you have a problem with the sources, then please indicate specifically why any given source doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards here on the talk page. You are fully aware that there are many more reliable sources which can be added, which I will be happy to do. So please don't start yet another edit war over this, these edit wars are a waste of time and against Wikipedia's interests. Please use this talk page with a spirit of collaboration.TreadingWater (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It survived many edits because you keep adding it, regardless of reasoned arguments why it should not be there, and reasoned arguments why the article should not be here. I still see no reason why the "many analysts" comment should be in the lead, even if it were accurate. Although it is unsourced, you claim to name a number of specific analysts, so I'd consider appropriate in the body of the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it survived many edits because I, and numerous other editors, thought it should be here. Even you, in your comments above in March, agreed this construction made sense. You still haven't indicated why you have a problem with these sources. Please specifically say why you see them as faulty, since I have no idea what your problem is with them. That sentence has been there for a long time with far fewer sources. If you'd like to add anaysts/experts who are supportive of GenJones into the body of the article, that's fine with me. Just please be specific, in a collaborative spirit, in saying what it is you want.TreadingWater (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've removed it. There are three editors (including Knul) here at talk that now disagree with just you, TW. You need to stop now. Unitanode 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, the fact that you and Unitanode want to change the way it's been for a long time doesn't change the fact that many editors have been fine with it. As mentioned earlier, you've written before that it made sense, you even said earlier today that this sentence is more or less accepatble to you. This paragraph which evolved through a collaborative process doesn't work with that sentence removed. Your objection was with sources, I've asked you twice today to specifically say what's wrong with these sources, I don't see anything wrong with them.TreadingWater (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts of Gen Jones

I made a minor tweak in language to place the facts on the analysts. That can not be misinterpreted. Also, the sentence prior:"the only time a generation had been defined by the fertility rates" needs help, but we can get back to that.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Knulclunk, it feels like you are never satisfied, no matter how much compromise is attempted, it's never enough for you. Of course, many analysts "believe" in GenJones, that's why they say they do. And Generation Jones is unequivocally the name that is "usually" used for this younger generation. Why you feel the need to constantly try to weaken the language about Generation Jones to paint a picture which innacurately describes it is beyond me.TreadingWater (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the concept of a distinct cultural generation has been proposed does not make it fact. Even if "many analysts" believe it... How do you know what they believe? If they propose it, that's what they do. The term "usually" is inaccurate because it neglects the fact that many analysts don't distinguish a separation at all! Even the first source, the excellent 2008 Newsweek article by Jonathan Alter, suggests the concept of two distinct cultural generations within the Baby Boom Generation without naming Gen Jones. If the concept is still being suggested and defined as recently as 2008 and 2009, than it is hardly accurate to portray it otherwise.--Knulclunk (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

sources for definition of generation

I have an issue with sources for this statement:

"However, as numerous experts have pointed out, generations have always been based on the shared formative experiences of its members; this was the only time a generation had been defined by the fertility rates of its members’ parents."

HOwever, those sources do not seem to make any grand claims of that sort. In fact they don't seem to discuss any generations other than boom, jones, and X. Maybe I'm reading them wrong, but these don't seem to be appropriate sources for the assertion. Any other opinions? Peregrine981 (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Also, the assertion is incorrect. The derivation of the term Baby Boomer has little to do with the definition of its members, it is just a word. An the word refers to fertility rates of its parents, not its members.--Knulclunk (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ok, well I think it is safe to remove this fairly broad assertion... However, the sources should probably be maintained somewhere. I don't have time just at the moment to do that though. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that it is obvious from reading comments here that at least some editors here know very little about these topics. I don't make that comment to be insulting, but rather to mention it as relevant context for the back and forth here. I happen to be very knowledgeable about these topics, and I'm finding it difficult to be patient sometimes with some of the blatantly incorrect info that gets passed off as correct. I do not question anybody's right to edit anything they want on Wikipedia, but is it unreasonable for me to expect people to only make changes if they know, by possessing the appropriate knowledge, those changes are correct?

There are many experts who have clearly said they believe in the GenJones construct. This isn't an opinion, it is a clear fact, which can easily be determined with research. I don't understand why some editors keep quibbling about this fact. Knulklunk asks how do I know that they believe in it. Uh...because they say they believe in it. That's the value of having knowledge or doing research, Knulclunk. At least one editor objects when I suggest that some here have an agenda to minimize the reality of GenJones' increasing popularity. But if it's not this, what else can account for these constant attempts to distort the truth? Knulclunk says: "The derivation of the term Baby Boomer has little to do with the definition of its members, it is just a word. An the word refers to fertility rates of its parents, not its members". That is all so far from the truth, that I don't even know where to begin to address it. He also questions whether it's true that The Boomers are the only generation which was determined by birth rates. Can you name another generation in the entirety of US history that was based on birth/fertility rates? You certainly cannot, since there isn't one. Again, research can quickly confirm that.

Along with what is often a lack of knowledge at even the most fundamental level, is the fuzzy thinking that has accompanied changes and comments here. Knulclunk says: "The term "usually" is inaccurate because it neglects the fact that many analysts don't distinguish a separation at all!". But the sentence only says that the younger generation is usually called GenJones. Those who aren't referring to a younger generation aren't relevant to that sentence. It is saying that when people do refer to a younger generation, they usually call it Jones, which is certainly true. And then there is the lack of care that seems to go into really looking at this. Knulclunk says that Jonathan Alter never mentions GenJones in that Newsweek article. But Alter certainly does; is that difficult to read a one page article in Newsweek and be able to identify what it says?

The beauty of Wikipedia is that truth wins in the end. As long as those who know what the truth is are determined to make sure that Wiki reflects truth, truth wins. I can assure you that I am extremely determined to make sure that these pages reflect truth. I will alert several people I know who are knowledgeable about generations about this situation here, and I know they also will monitor this to make sure Wiki paints an accurate picture about these topics. I had hoped that by investing my time into re-doing these articles in the spirit of compromise that we could be past this, but apparently not. Again, I respectfully ask editors here who are not knowledgeable to research before making changes. But either way, these pages are going to tell the truth to Wiki readers, no matter how many times you make uninformed and innaccurate changes.TreadingWater (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see "experts believe" supported by the existing sources. If you want to state that, please provide more sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake... You are correct about Alter mentioning Gen Jones; "Late Boomers, dubbed "Generation Jones" by activist Jonathan Pontell". The second source is by Pontell himself. As most sources for Gen Jones, Pontell is mentioned. Perhaps Wikipedia should mention Pontell as well?--Knulclunk (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Can you name another generation in the entirety of US history that was based on birth/fertility rates? You certainly cannot, since there isn't one. " I don't have to... it's original research, any way you cut it.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You Tube Clip

Arthur Rubin, You threaten others, including me, about 3RR...but it's OK for you to do, as you have today?

The video that you removed can be used; those are famous faces and voices which can easily be authenticated. Official Wikipedia policy: "video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher"

And there are many other video clips of famous people talking about Generation Jones on CNN, MSNBC, etc. These are acceptable sources as well, as referenced in policy above, and in following official Wikipedia policy: "What's the official word on news reports that are posted to YouTube by users, i.e., not by the news agency that broadcast the report in the first place? The source in this case is not YouTube, but the original news agency. So the cite is actually to the news agency, although WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires the YouTube link." Plus, there are corresponding written transcripts for CNN, MSNBC et al.TreadingWater (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but a promotional video from www.GenerationJones.com is not really reliable source. We can do better.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines suggest that YouTube videos can be used as a courtesy link, if not a clear copyright violation, although there are other precedents which suggest that they can't, as we really can't verify the clips weren't edited. I would agree to that, but they need to be wrapped in a {{cite news}} template to be acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones = Pontell

Perhaps we only need one Johnathan Pontell/www.generationjones.com source? You know, since the concept is so widely regarded...--Knulclunk (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed those changes because they were filled with problems. For starters, most of that was unsourced, so not appropriate for Wikipedia. Further, referring to Jonesers as young or trailing Boomers defeats the whole point of how this article was carefully crafted to deal with this complicated issue. The point is looking at those born during the 1946-1964 demographic birth boom as belonging to two distinct generations; this article deal with the Baby Boom Generation. Further, terms like young or trailing boomers have no public following at all, so shouldn't be here. Moreover, there are many names which have been used for the Baby Boom Generation...like The Me Generation, The Woodstock Generation, The 68ers, etc., etc. None of those are used here, nor should they be, since the Baby Boom Generation is clearly the most used, and part of what makes good Wikipedia articles is simplicity and relevance.TreadingWater (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Knulclunk?! This paragraph was carefully written in the spirit of compromise. I know, I wrote it. At your urging, Knulclunk. We all reviewed it, discussed it, and agreed to leave it that way. This change now is bad writing, it doesn't flow nearly as well this way, and worse, it makes a somewhat complicated concept less clear. Editing this paragraph to make it less clear is a bad idea.TreadingWater (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Editing this paragraph to make it less clear, which is exactly what you are doing, is a bad idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Members

Does anyone have access to the paper used to cite this section? Most seems uncontroversial, but this seems dubious:

"**Key members: Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, U.S. President Bill Clinton, Freddie Mercury, Joey Ramone, Hulk Hogan, Kirstie Alley, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and George W. Bush."

Are these people listed in the paper? People really think of Kirstie Alley as a key member of this generation? It needs checking i think, as my first thought was that people have made addition simply based on birth years.YobMod 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform

The retirement and aging of the Boomers is an important cause of our health-care troubles, as well as the fact that health care inflation appears to have been above other inflation (although this may have to do with the Boomer health market as well). Any solution to the health-care problems would need to find some way to tackle the unprecedented prevalence of old age in our population. We ought to work something about health care and issues surrounding it into the Baby Boom Generation article. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. It should be in the Post-World War II baby boom article, as it's a function of the demographic generation rather than of the cultural generation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Health care reform is just a bunch of hype, sure the baby boomers are putting inflation pressure on it a little bit.. South Bay (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but the hype about it is encyclopedic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect - to Baby Boomer

I see no reason not to send this back to the Baby Boomer article. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. In reverting the sockpuppet's edits, I mistakenly did this one. I'll do it myself. Unitanode 04:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait, this isn't the article I was thinking about. I'll have to go back in my contribs and find it. Unitanode 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones

GJ article should not be mentioned in the lead of this article, per WP:UNDUE. GJ is a FRINGE-y theory, without wide scholarly acceptance. Treating it as if it somehow on the same plane as Boom and X is not tenable, in my view. Unitanode 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to adding the line that exists on the Baby Boomer page:"The term Generation Jones has gained popularity to distinguish those born 1954-1965 from the earlier Baby Boomers." But only here, not in all the other articles that GenJones seems to creeps into.--Knulclunk (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is with placing it in the lead portion of the article, as it seems to be UNDUE. What are your thoughts on where it might best be placed? Unitanode 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging it on the end of the lead would be fine for me. The language I suggest implies that the term is both recent and limited. It acknowledges the term's popularity while not ascribing any more weight than a simple definition. (The GJ article can cover all that.) This language does not imply that the 1954-1965 cohort are no longer considered members of Boomer or GenX, simply that there is a common, more nuanced definition that is also accepted. --Knulclunk (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me, then. I may tweak the language a bit after you place it, but I have no real issues with a mention here, given your explanation. Unitanode 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of POV tag

In light of the recent removal of the POV tag from the Generation Jones article, I see no reason for the tag to still be on this page. In the absence of a targeted discussion of this article's POV status, I am deleting the tag. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Why Generation Jones needs to be included in any discussion of Baby Boomers

If you read recent books about Boomers, you'll find that they almost always now include a discussion about GenJones. It would certainly create a false impression for Wikipedia readers to not include GenJones, and to pretend that the old, now widely-discredited definition of the Boomers is still what is used by experts. Wiki readers should know what current thinking is among experts, and then they can decide for themselves what they believe. In fact, the way this article was originally written (I should know since I wrote it) was specifically to give Wiki readers this current take. The opening is confusing and doesn't even make sense with the GenJones reference removed.

The concept and name “Generation Jones” has achieved widespread acceptance and usage, especially in the last year or so. The Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose The Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Many very influential experts, pundits, and analysts have publicly supported the GenJones constructs, from media outlets including The New York Times, Newsweek, NBC, Time Magazine, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Books about generations now almost always automatically treat GenJones as a full bona fide generation.

If interested in exploring some of the major support GenJones has gotten, you may want to check some of these links out…

This 6 minute video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ta_Du5K0jk) features over 20 top pundits expressing support for GenJones, including : David Brooks (New York Times) Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine) Dick Morris (Political Advisor) Roland Martin (CNN) Jeff Greenfield (CBS) Michael Steele (Chairman, GOPAC) Doyle McManus ( Los Angeles Times) Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC) Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call) Karen Brown (CBS) Michael Barone (U.S. News & World Report) Juan Williams (Fox News Channel) Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor) Susan Page ( USA Today) Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]) Lynn Sweet ( Chicago Sun-Times) Bill Press (Fox News Channel) Carl Leubsdorf ( Dallas Morning News) Al Sharpton (Activist, Minister)

Here is a full page column about GenJones by Jonathan Alter in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107583

Here is a column about GenJones by Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Clarence Page in The Chicago Tribune: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/oct/22/news/chi-oped1022pageoct22 And here is video of Clarence Page bringing up GenJones on NBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uZSiKd0B54

All of the above are recent (in the last year or so,) and there are many more recent ones, as well as many more from earlier years. You can find many more on this page: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html ,as well as in the reference section of the Generation Jones article, as well as in the talk pages of the various generation pages on Wikipedia, as well as many thousands of GenJones references on Google.

If for any reason, you disagree with this edit, please don't start an edit war, but rather please give your specific reasons o this talk page why you think my edit doesn't work. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)