Talk:Generation Jones

This article is bogus

It puts the so-called "Jones Generation" as running from 1954-1964 and defines it as something separate from the boomers. That's nonsense. My parents were born in 1954 and '55. They're 100% boomers. I think we can safely say the boomer generation goes up to 1957 and this transitional "Jones Generation" covers 1958-64. 208.101.138.126 (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin pattern of edits against the interests of Wikipedia

Again, Arthur Rubin, you continue to try through your edits to down play and misrepresent GenJones to Wikipedia readers, even though the consensus of other editors is repeatedly against you. (My criticism is about your repeated bad edits, not against you personally). Putting the person who coined the term in the lede is your way to try to play down its popularity, as you well know. No way it belongs there. None of the other articles about generations have the coiner in the lede. Why haven’t you changed the other generation articles to include this information if you are just objectively trying to improve articles? We both know the answer to that, don’t we, Arthur?TreadingWater (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For most of the other generations, it's difficult to determine who coined the term; and there are frequently multiple terms for the generation (such as millennial generation). For GenJones, Pontell is clearly the one who coined it, and there are no other terms for the generation, so the coiner is relevant. I think it should clearly be in the lead, although not necessarily in the first sentence. As for the title, there is no doubt that your patern of edits is against the interests of Wikipedia, even if all the edits were justified, because you don't attempt to justify your edits until after the 2nd time they are reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As the term can be specifically attributed to Pontell, and most mainstream uses of the term directly reference him as the creator of the term, it seem appropriate to have it in the lead.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith edits attempting to circumvent Wikipedia consensus

The following comments are not criticisms of the relevant editors, but rather are criticisms of the their edits:

This is an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia consensus by a few editors who are now trying to edit this article to reflect a view which was recently overwhelmingly rejected by a large consensus of editors. The main argument by these rogue editors (in the deletion discussion which just ended less than a week ago) was that the GenJones term is primarily used just by the term’s creator—Pontell—with little following otherwise. Fifteen editors voted against this, with most of them specifically and emphatically rejecting this specific claim. Instead of accepting the consensus of editors, a couple of the rebuffed editors are now trying to write into the lede of this article this view which was specifically rejected by the consensus.

In trying to pretend that their attempt to circumvent consensus is something else, these editors claim that other generation articles don’t have the term’s coiner in the lede because it’s unclear who the coiner is. This is, of course, completely untrue. Generation X and the Beat Generation are just two examples of generational monikers whose coiners are unequivocally known but whose articles do not reference the coiners in the lede.

Pontell is clearly referenced as the coiner of the term in the second paragraph of this article. That is entriely appropriate. Refusing to accept the consensus of editors by trying to sneak a rejected view into an article is shameful.TreadingWater (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the only established editor who thinks there is a Wikipedia consensus, although some seem to agree with you that there is a mainstream consensus. (For what it's worth, I do not. It may be a majority of the relevant experts (if we could agree what what relevant means in this context), but there are still experts who refer to the traditional Baby Boomer Generation as a "generation".) That being said, The Beat Generation (which is not, nor was intended to be, a "Generation", if you believe the Wikipedia article) almost certainly should have the coiner in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No Wikipedia consensus, Arthur Rubin?! Less than a week ago, a deletion discussion was closed about this article. The deletion nomination was based on the claim that “Article is Original Research of Jonathan Pontell, unsupported by others.” You were one of ony three editors who concurred with the nominator. Fifteen editors rejected this claim. That’s not a consensus?! I’m the only “established editor who thinks there is Wikipedia consensus”?! Not only is fifteen to three an obvious consensus, but several other editors specifically noted how big the consensus is.

And what on earth are you talking about with“Leaving the confusion of definition out of the lede”? There is no confusion of definition. It doesn’t matter to me, however, whether there is a “Etymology” heading or not.TreadingWater (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Memorable Events

• Memorable events: Watergate, Nixon resigns, the Cold War, lowered drinking age to 18 in many states 1970-1976 (followed by raising), the oil embargo, raging inflation, gasoline shortages, Jimmy Carter's imposition of registration for the draft

I brought this across from the main page, as I don't see the link between these events and Gen Jones. These are more a history item. The added Ref seems irrelevent, talking about conscription and for the relevent time period the end of the Vietnam war. How do these events affect the description of the cultural generation jones? A. Yager (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • States of *which* countries changed their laws about drinking? No state of Australia as far as I recall. Also, I must say, Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation were not particularly memorable in Australia -- not compared with other newsworthy matters important in this country. Are these further examples of a rather prevalent Americocentric tendency in Wikipedia? Alpheus (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

End of an era

After years of watching the Vietnam Conflict on the TV and the many MANY affects upon USA society Generation Jonesers performed their part in that melee by being a large portion of those aboard the ships present to "turn out the lights" via the Vietnam Evacuation and the Mayaguez Incident occurring towards the end of the evacuation. Many historians are linking the Mayaguez Incident with the Vietnam Conflict for various reasons.

Thus, the Jonesers were not only impacted by cultural and foreign affairs during a critical part of our mental development years... what may have been mere fads and trends for earlier/older Boomers was a very influential process of Joneser maturation and psychological development and acculturation with long-term impact not seen in the earlier Boomers. Obbop (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC) Obbop

The pessimistic 1970s??

The article refers to "the pessimistic 1970s" and I must say, I'm quite astonished. This is very Point of View (POV) and my opinion is that it should go. I think my experience of the 1970s and that of my friends was exactly the opposite -- it was an extraordinarily optimistic time, here in Australia. But even that opinion of mine is subjective, POV, and not worthy of an encyclopedic article. I hope that if anyone agrees they will change that expression. Alpheus (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I honestly had never heard of the term until I saw it in a thread at AN/I, and frankly most people in the subject group (myself included) consider ourselves to be “Boomers” and are comfortable with that. “Keeping up with the Joneses” was an attribution made more to our parents’ generation during that time; our generation was seen as rebelling against that, not yearning to imitate it. Frankly, the description of the term provided in the article’s lede seems to make this neologism sound like a pejorative. I think there should be more focus on better explaining the term and perhaps who uses it (press pundits, advertising strategists, or whatever) since it is clearly not in common parlance. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Askani, the name isn't meant to be pejorative at all, but rather quite positive. Maybe the description of it in the lede needs to be reworked. here's an op-ed in USA TODAY by the coiner of the term which gives a good description of the origins of the term:http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm TreadingWater (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the description in this article’s lede is a poor rendering of Pontell’s explanation in that link. While it’s good that he recognizes there is a difference between the “bow-wave” Boomers and us “tail-end” Boomers, he comes across more evangelical than convincing. His assertion that “Jonesers” are “non-ideological” is balderdash; we are considerably less ideological and more pragmatic than the early Boomers, but also more rejecting of the excesses of “flower-power” early Boomers (aka the “Me Generation”). In fact, the early Boomers were actually more idealistic than we tail-enders; ours is more of a realistic, pragmatic idealism and the one where the passions of racism and anti-semitism fizzled out. Indeed, it seems that Pontell is taking Obama’s left-of-center idealism and applying it across the whole of the group he calls “Joneses”; while this no doubt truly applies to the liberal side of that generation, it is a mistake to apply it broadly to the whole “Jones Generation”. It’s hard for me to understand how sociologists and perceptive social commentators can get wrong what has been fairly well-known – if unlabeled – for a long time. A more apt name for this generation might be “The Clean-up Generation.” After all, that’s what we’re faced with, cleaning up the excesses of the “Me Generation” (with us and the X’ers and Y’ers paying for it). This is what frustrates the idealism of our generation: that we have to mop up our predecessors’ narcissistic mess instead of making our own special, constructive contributions. Perhaps, indeed, our greatest contribution will be what we don’t leave behind. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good contribution, Askari. I agree with much of what you wrote here, and appreciate the quality of your writing, both in terms of content and style.TreadingWater (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar

This is quite interesting. The only mention I can find on Google Scholar is the Pontell piece, where he created this term. In my view, because of the widespread media coverage the neologism has received, it should have an article discussing it as a term. However, until and unless it receives significant scholarly coverage, it should not be treated, for wikilinking purposes, as equal to the generations recognized by an overwhelming majority of scholars. If Pontell's neologism gains more scholarly (not popular, scholarly) recognition, then it can be treated similary to the Boomers, Gen X, etc. Unitanode 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please discuss the mass insertions into other articles here. It's ludicrous that this fringe-y theory by a "social commentator" is being treated as being on the same scholarly level as the Baby Boomers. Unitanode 03:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this, but I again ask you to please do research on this topic because as long as you continue to insist that only one person supports the GenJones concept, I'm not sure where we can go with this. There are lots and lots of prominent and credible people who support GenJones. Are you against spending some time to confirm this with research?TreadingWater (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about scholars, TW. The pundits who discuss it make it notable enough for an article of its own. But that doesn't mean it has attained the scholarly standing of the more-recognized generations, so you need to stop trying to force it in as if it were. Unitanode 04:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't how you define scholar, but I know that there has been much serious research done on Generation Jones; lots of money has been sunk into market research, political polling, attitudinal research etc. by serious institutions and organizations and individuals into understanding Jonesers, numerous universities have done research into GenJones, etc. Again, I don't understand why you seem so against doing research on this.TreadingWater (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're counting market research by advertising agencies as "scholarly"? I'm sorry, but no. The media coverage makes the term "Generation Jones" notable, but it doesn't make it scholarly at all. I'm off on a wikibreak now. You've worn me out. Unitanode 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, your edits over the last 24 hours are frankly the worst I’ve seen on Wikipedia. I’d like to offer a few more thoughts here, in a constructive spirit, with the hope that you can be open minded and stop making bad edits which are against the interests of Wikipedia readers. Please be aware that I’m not personally attacking you, but rather focusing on your edits. Since you have begun the practice of erasing my discussion contributions, I will place these thoughts in a few relevant places.

You edit in a way that suggests that you have difficulty accepting that your opinion isn’t the only opinion. You apparently have an extremely narrow definition of the word “scholarly”, and believe anything that doesn’t fit your definition should be ignored. But that’s not the way Wikipedia works.

The truth is that Generation Jones has gained much widespread acceptance by very reliable sources. You dismiss the opinion of “pundits” as not being of value. But there are many pundits who are supportive of GenJones who are very credible and scholarly, like Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), David Brooks (New York Times), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune) and Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine). They are widely viewed as deep thinkers, and their analysis is respected at the highest levels. Huge market research companies have invested many resources into researching GenJones, firms like Saatchi & Saatchi and Carat and Scarborough Research. Several of the largest political polling firms now regularly break out their voting data to include GenJones voters separately from Boomers and Xers. Big polling firms like Mason Dixon, and Rasmussen have spent time and money doing special research studies about GenJones. Many of these references can be found in the Wiki GenJones article, and other related Wiki pages. Many more of these can be found through Google.

Yet you somehow dismiss all this, and keep insisting that if experts don’t fit into Unitanode’s definition of “scholarly”, their opinions don’t count. On what possible basis did you arrive at the notion that you are the arbiter of what is considered credible on Wikipedia?

Further, you seem to think that if GenJones is mentioned in an article, that that must mean it is being equated at the same level as Boomers or Xer. Obviously, the terms Boomers and Xers have been around much longer and are much better known than GenJones. Saying, for example, that GenYers are the offspring of Boomers and Jonesers doesn’t imply that the GenJones term is as established as the Boomer term. But if accurate and relevant, the Jones reference should still be included.TreadingWater (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting walls of text in a discussion is not helpful at all. You're simply repeating the same things again and again about marketing firms, pundits, and the like. That's fine to prove that this article should exist. It doesn't explain why wikilinks to it need to be shoehorned into every article you can find the most tangential connection to GJ. I'm now disengaging from both you and this mess. The pages are on my watchlist, and if you keep trying to overlink to this article, I'll make another report about it. You simply can not try to insert links to this article all over Wikipedia. (And by the way, if my reversions of your "warnings" and "contributions" to my talkpage haven't given you the message yet, I'm really not interested in taking our "discussions", such as they are, there. Unitanode 20:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

sigh. history is written by the most determined.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tags removed

I took off the tags as there has been no movement on them. Currently the page seems both neutral and coherent. Please discuss the needed improvement here before retagging.--Knulclunk (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Coming Of Age In The 1980s, As Well As The 1970s!

It is illogical to write that all Jonesers came of age in the 1970s! Those born in 1965, for instance, would have only turned fifteen in 1980! I have altered the text to reflect this.

(Solidsandie (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

As a member of said group, born in 1960, I agree with much of the perspective of this author, Jonathan Pontell, but feel compelled to lay claim to the notion that a great deal of the discussion needs a clarification of simple semantics. The true confusion lies in what I view to be a misunderstanding of the difference between a “generation” and a “peer group.” In my case, my eldest sister was born in 1947 and felt somewhat offended on more than one occasion being lumped into the same generational category as the so-called “hippies” who are the most commonly compared with the “Baby Boom Generation.” She feels that she is older than this group and is somewhat affronted by the comparison. An elder brother of mine born in 1955 more adequately grew up in the era dominated by the radical changes in appearance and of the trumping of traditional mores that accompanied the late 1960s to early 1970s. He was also eligible for combat service in the Vietnam War, a very common dividing line between those older and those younger members of the “Baby Boom.” Finally are people my age, born in the very late 50s and early 60s, who comprise the group of people referred to in the article with the unflattering name “Generation Jones.” We were not old enough to be eligible to be drafted into combat in Vietnam, having come of age after the cease-fire, and had little impact on the societal changes that occurred during the 60s since we were under our parents’ control at the time and had little opportunity to affect change. We do, however, remember the difference between the mid-60s, with vague but still formed memories of this final age before the revolutionary changes that were to come shortly thereafter. Clear memories exist of how frustrated and somewhat frightened and angry our parent’s generation was of the changes that were undermining most of the values which they espoused and had been raised with. We were and will remain undoubtedly the youngest people who still carry memories of the difference between what the world was like before and after the 60s changes. Now the three different eras involved all constitute members of the “Baby Boom Generation” as we were all raised by the “Greatest Generation” of people who grew up during the Great Depression and fought victoriously in World War II. This by definition makes us all members of the same “generation.” The difference, however, is that we all belonged to different “peer groups.” The oldest, born in the late 40s, mostly distanced themselves from the “hippie” counterculture and retained the values of their parents—although there were clear exceptions. Those born in the early to mid-50s would be those who were mostly deeply effected and affecting of the cultural changes that occurred when we were young. People of our peer group, born in the late 50s to early 60s, as previously stated, remember the changes but for the most could not actively participate in them. The three different “peer groups” mentioned as being part of the “Baby Boom Generation” could be realistically compared with a television family that was being broadcast during the era, namely “Lost in Space.” Daughter Judy, portrayed by actress Marta Kristen, born in 1945, represents the eldest of the generation who carried their parents’ traditions, and in only the rarest of cases emulated the mores of the “hippie” counter-culture. Middle daughter Penny, played by Angela Cartright, born in 1952, would be a teenager during the 60s, members of the peer group who challenged their elders values and became part of the counter-culture during the early 70s. Young son Will Robinson, played by Bill Mummy and born in 1954, represented what is here called “Generation Jones,” being little more than a child during the 60s, under his parents dominion and, mostly likely, being warned by parents of “Danger Will Robinson, Danger!” about the revolutionary changes occurring. ````Ribberboy 7 --Ribberboy (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Shawn J. Higgins—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ribberboy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Parents of Generation Y

It should be noted that most Generation Y'ers have parents belonging to this generation. I was born in 1989 and though my parents were from another cultural sphere than North America/Western Europe (Pashtuns from Pakistan) they were still babies of 1958 and 1962 respectively. All of my peers had parents born in the same time frame, between 1955 and 1964, with some coming from the core Boomer group and some even belonging to Generation X (mostly X'ers born between 65 and 69). I know they say boomers are the parents of the Y'ers but most of our parents were not Woodstock teens. They were teenagers of the mid-late 70's and early 80's, teens who grew up on disco, classic rock, punk rock, new wave and cheap dance music. Thus why their role as millennial parents ought to be acknowledged. Afghan Historian (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)