Talk:Baby boomers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.

I’ve also changed the text a bit to reflect the reality that while there is no real disagreement about the years of the ’46-’64 demographic post-war boom in births, the birth years of the Baby Boom GENERATION are very controversial. Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

External links cleanup

I have removed all external links to commercial sites, blog, forum, and networking sites per WP:EL and WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a directory or a link farm. Please review WP:EL and WP:NOT before adding more links. --CliffC (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to restore external link to The Boomer Show

( Following message copied from User talk:CliffC )

I take great exception to your categorization of The Boomer Show link as SPAM.

The Boomer Show is a television show specifically geared towards Baby Boomer family, health, fitness, finances, relationships, retirement, lifestyle, work, changing careers, travel, music, movies and celebrity guests including Ed McMahon, Rita Coolidge, Mike Love of the Beach Boys, Jocko from Sha-Na-Na and other celebrities of interest to Baby Boomers.

It’s a TV show seen by millions of people who use cable or satellite services

The Boomer Show is the #1 Google search result for “Boomer Show” legitimatizing its stance as a site of interest to Baby Boomers.

The Boomer Show webpage/s has NO BANNER ADS The Boomer Show webpage/s have NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SPAM SITES The Video on the webpage can be viewed for free and HAS NO ADVERTISEMENTS All the content on the webpage BELONGS TO THE SITE OWNER The link was ADDED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LINKS QUEUE

If the above standards were set to all the other links in the article we would be the only one left! I’m sure you have made many legitimate corrections in the past but with that comes a percentage of false positives.

I will thank you in advance for rectifying your oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScholarlyInSoCal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link to The Boomer Show posted by 64.73.226.194 when I saw that 64.73.226.194, presumably you, had a dozen edits to Wealth TV, commercial site of The Boomer Show, giving the appearance of a conflict of interest. I put a copy of template {{uw-spam2}} on your user page; {{uw-spam2}} says in part "Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product". Granted, your site could be a resource, so I'm asking here on the talk page if there is a consensus among the regular editors of Baby boomer to add a link to it. This is always the best approach. --CliffC (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Boomer Icons

I have been updating this page with people I believe have added greatly to modern culture. The entries for Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp were removed, the reason given was vandalism! Pitt and Depp are two of the most successful and versatille actors of the boomer generation, their inclusion in no way represents vandalism, please restore them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.152.248 (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Baby boomers?!?

Um, Wikipedia not a directory, or a random collection of information. I just don't see that these lists add to the article. It seems that 84.70.152.248 has done a lot of work, so I am loathe to revert it, but I just don't see the point. Consensus? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not adding names at random, only people that I believe have added greatly to modern culture, the question is how much is enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.217.20 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I still don't see how that is relevant to the article Baby boomer. I have moved your entire list to List of notable baby boomers. You can edit it there if you want. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou a good solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.11.223 (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

news

this just in: 18% of baby boomers might suffer from alzheimers in the future. probably should be included. more info: all over the news. ps: the list with people should be trimmed, specially as not only names, but the work of those people is mentioned (i.e. spielberg's movies listed) 24.232.74.200 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

link to www.americangeezers.com

To whom it may concern:

I have started a social website geared towards Baby Boomers, Geezers, the fifties, and that era. It allows that group to share memories, pictures, and conversations. It also has content about music, tv, cars, and other general memories from that era.

I would very much appreciate a link from your site to mine and I would gladly do the same.

Thank you for you consideration. Dan Smith 68.11.180.21 (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

link to www.nabbw.com

The National Association of Baby Boomer Women (NABBW) - I thought this site might be fitting, but I'm not sure. Most of the content is free and relevant to the subject of the article, but there are some ads on the page. I will leave it up to the more experienced editors because I am new to WikiPedia. Rbcarter (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Wow. This article is the biggest puddle of poo. Ever. Poppafuze (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerous statements and sections in this article appear to be biased heavily toward or against the Boomer Generation. Locke9k (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Locke9k

Removal of table

I have removed the table formerly included in this article. It listed in a disorganized manner a variety of people / events that lived / occured while boomers were alive. However, since the individuals were not boomers and the events / technological advancements were not generally the result of the actions of baby boomers, the table did not really apply. For example, Nixon was president while any number of generations were alive and thus should not be linked explicitly to baby boomers. The same could be said for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was actually born in the 1920's and was in no way a baby boomer. Similarly, the development of the big bang theory in the 1940's certainly is not attributable to baby boomers. This table contained little to no relevant content and did not improve the article. Locke9k (talk)Locke9k —Preceding comment was added at 04:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GFDL essay may be helpful

This essay was uploaded to Wikipedia and is obviously inappropriate for the wiki but now that its GFDL, it's fair game to cut out any useful parts and add them here. Please attribute to the author's acct. if you lift any prose wholesale. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tags

The warning tag templates belong at the top of the page, not the bottom. Their purpose is for readers to understand the limitations of the article they are about to read. There is no sense labeling an article as not having a neutral point of view (for example) and not putting it in a prominent position where readers will note the warning. They also serve to alert potential editors to the problem so that the article can be improved. Please stop moving the tags to the bottom of the article. Note that regardless of your personal opinion on tags, the relevant wikipedia page (Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes) actually does specify where the template is to be located in an article. If you believe that this policy should be changed there is an appropriate forum for debates on wikipedia guidelines and policy. I encourage you to visit that page and contribute. Locke9k (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Locke9k

Tags at the top are disruptive and make it hard for the user to read the article. It is sufficient for them to be at the bottom, where they will be seen by interested editors. Futher, there is no support on this tlak page for many of the claims made in the tags, so I am eliminating them. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that slapping tags on an article you disagree with, simply because you disagree with it, is a misuse of the tags, and that a simple claim is not sufficient to support the existence of the tag. You need to present evidence to support the claim, and a discussion needs to be started about the claims. I see no support here for the claims made in the multi-tag, so I've removed it, leaving the expert tag, which can be justified.

Please do not reinsert the tages unless you have some evidence to support your contentions. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The page has been substantially improved since some of those tags were put in place, and I agree that some of them are no longer necessary given the changes made since then. As far as tag placement, part of the purpose of a tag is to 'warn' the 'user' about potentially unreliable information. They are not merely for editors. By systematically moving tags to the bottom of a page you are reducing the reliability of Wikipedia and essentially fooling readers. While I agree that a discussion should have been started about all of the tags, please note that there were discussion threads about some of them. Also, what sort of discussion should there be about a call for cleanup expert attention? This page lacks a coherent, comprehensive view and is fragmented. That is exactly the sort of problem that an expert would be best able to solve. There does not need to be a protracted discussion about every tag. Also your claim that putting tags at the top of the page is disruptive is contrary to stated tag placement guidelines in wikipedia and is potentially contributing to the spread of misinformation from poor pages to users. Please stop. Locke9k (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Locke9k

I'm sorry, I disagree. There are only a few tags which are of a nature that the user needs to see them before they read the article, and these tags I leave at the top. Other tags are essentially memos to other editors, and actually should go on the talk page, but since people insist on having them on the article, down at the bottom is the best place for them, where they won't get in the way for the user, and still serve to give notice to other editors of an article's perceived problems. There's no reason in the world that a reader, for instance, needs to see a "cleanup" or "wikify" tag, those are internal memoranda between editors not of interest to the reader, and the reader can judge for her- or himself the quality of an article's referencing when they see the reference section, there's no reason to pre-warn them of one editor's opinion regarding it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Tags such as {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} properly warn readers that an article is not "all there" yet – there is still work to be done. Such warnings properly belong at the top of the page, and Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes confirms this. Do you really expect people to read all the way to the bottom of an article, see some tags there, and then say to themselves "Aha! that's why this article I just read all the way through to the bottom seemed rather poor!" Now, if you dispute whether a tag is correct or not, then take it up on the talk page. Placing warning tags at the bottom is just absurd. --CliffC (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well put Cliff. Putting them at the bottom defeats the purpose of having them at all. Its effect is essentially to conceal problems with a page rather than air them in the open. Also, as both Cliff and I have pointed out, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes states that they should be at the top of the page.

Ed, I appreciate that you are trying to suggest some changes to wikipedia guidelines that you think would be beneficial, but as I pointed out earlier, this is not the correct forum. Rather than singlehandedly trying to override the guidelines on every page you find with tags at the top, a better strategy might be to suggest a guideline change. You can find information about that starting here: Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance. I will point out that I happen to think that this particular suggested change is not a good one as it, in my opinion, obscures important caveat material from readers. However, you are clearly free to pursue it with the broader community.

Anyone with further input on tag positioning as it applis to *this* page, please feel free to weigh in. Unless there are further objections, the tags should be restored to the top of the page shortly. Locke9k (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Locke9k

Please at least make an attempt not to condescend to me. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Put the maintenance tags at the top of the article, or at the top of section(s), or delete them. Do not put them at the bottom of the article in their own section! See WP:LAYOUT#Lead section and WP:ACCESS#Lead section. "Distraction" is not an argument against tags. Irrelevance is. Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, massa. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to be un-WP:CIVIL! What has been going on with this article? Is it a personality dispute or political or what? -Colfer2 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I always do whatever drive-by editors imperiously command me to do, because I have no will or judgment of my own. BTW, entries in the "see also" section aren't "cats". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Colfer's recent edit summary. He removed a redundant category. Since categories are typically listed at the bottom, usually the easiest way to do add/remove/edit categories is to click the "Edit" box for the bottom-most section (this also reduces the odds of an edit conflict). In this case, that section is "See Also". Hence the edit summary that indicated the "See Also" section (because this was automatically generated by the Wikimedia software) and said "remove cat" (because Colfer described what he was doing). --Jaysweet (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting and coherent explanation, but unfortunately incorrect. What the editor removed was a duplicate entry in the "See also" list, "List of generations". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Ed is right about "cat", but it's a pretty minor point. I have filed a RfC (below) to try to get to the matter at hand, whether the maintenance tags are justified. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right you are. My fault. Sorry for not checking carefully. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

British Baby Boom

The section on the British baby boom starts with a sentence stating, "In the United Kingdom, the pattern of increased birth rates was more likely to decrease within six months." Decrease within six months of what, the 1970's, WW2, 1947, having sex? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.122.175 (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Formatting and maintenance tag debate at a standstill

Several issues over formatting and maintenance tags have cropped up over the last month. Editors have been unable to reach consensus. Some uncivility may be impeding discussion. The outstanding issues are

1. justification for maintenance tags
2. non-standard placement of maintenance tags
3. non-standard spacing
4. civility on the Talk page

This report is prompted by the above section Talk:Baby boomer#Tags. I think some outside opinion would be valuable. A typical diff is this one.

I'm finding discussion stymied by off-topic personal replies. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The tags in question are Template:Expert and Template:Cleanup. -Colfer2 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the non-standard placement of the tags -- After seeing some comments from Ed F., I checked, and for at least the {{refimprove} tag (not at issue in this article, BTW), the documentation says that while either the top or the bottom is acceptable, that most people prefer it to be inside the References section. I don't believe this to be true any longer, based on my experience, but it's hard to argue with Ed when it says so in the documentation.

Checking more documentation... {{expert} is deprecated, with {{expert-subject}} preferred. Neither template's documentation gives advice on placement. However, {{expert-subject}} is part of WP:Template messages/Cleanup, which states: Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article. So there ya go.

The documentation for {{cleanup}} states:

For articles needing major clean-up, place at the top of the main page to alert readers.

For articles needing minor clean-up, place at the top of the talk page to alert editors.

I am inclined to say that this article probably needs minor clean-up, but I have not examined the issues in depth. Either way, placement at the bottom of a page is not justified by the documentation.

In any case, from a practical standpoint the "tags" subsection idea is not going to fly. I applaud Ed for his WP:BOLDness in exploring that possibility, but IMO it is even uglier than putting the tags at the top, and I just can't see community consensus developing for this approach.

I have no opinion on the other issues in this RfC (yet). --Jaysweet (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the civility issues, I had seen the "drive-by editors" comment and while I thought it was a bit snotty, I wasn't too concerned. I had not previously noticed the "Yes, massa" comment. That one is not cool. Ed, please don't do that. Everyone here (we assume) has the goal of improving the encyclopedia, and while we may at times have tremendous disagreements on the best way to do so, dealing with those disagreements via sarcasm (and racially-loaded sarcasm, at that) is not going to benefit anyone. I hope this will be the last time we'll have to discuss civility in regards to his page. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Generation Jones

This article needs to be updated to include some mention of Generation Jones, which includes those born between 1954 and 1965. Most of this group does not identify themselves as baby boomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.217.18 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that "Jones" is hype created by Jonathan Pontrell, and does not reflect a real consensus. Note how trying to use this has made the article incoherent, as the person who first identified "Generation X" in the US context, Douglas Coupland, is in the GenJones section while being identified as an X (as is President-elect Obama). Coupland gave the name Generation X to those born after 1960, though mid 70s, and the original UK context was to the Mods, who were born starting roughly 1955. Please reconsider giving credence Pontrell's commercial creation. JBeek, logging in remotely69.141.191.73 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Generation Jones is a term used by many prominent political and cultural figures in the national media. It doesn't strike me as hype at all. The Strauss and Howe fans who seem desperate to claim Obama as one of theirs need to bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia, and thus should try to reflect common usage. Generation X is widely belived to start in 1965, and the Strauss and Howe suggestion of beginning Generation X in 1961 is not remotely close to the 1965 beginning year in popularity of usage. Even though Strauss and Howe fans want Obama to be one of them, they need to be fair in admitting that 1961 is certainly not usually the first birth year used for Gen X. Doug Coupland never said that Generation X started in 1960, and he has publicly stated that his book Generation X was about the fringe of Generation Jones which became the mainstream of the next generation (Generation X). Coupland has publicly supported the Generation Jones name and conceptHenry hanging around (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency Needed with Dates

The text lists 1946-1964. The table at right lists 1943–1960. The table at the foot of the page lists 1942-1953 (to make room for the Joneses). On the other hand, maybe all this confusion should be left in place, as it reflects the incoherence of the whole theory of naming generations and the generational (self-)consciousness it reflects. JKeck (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That was actually close to my thought. These "generations" differ depending on who's doing the defining. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 02:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes this definately needs a clean up - a reader comes to the page to find out just what years of birth defines a baby boomer and they get three different dates. This is fairly crucial to the page. Jenafalt (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've clarified the Coupland controversyWendy 2012 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Years?

They have different year ranges in the body of text and in the generation box. 189.158.145.189 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. New comments generally go at the bottom of the page, where you'll find a conversation about the very subject you ask about. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 01:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any way to edit The "Generations" box in upper right. Dates are incorrect. BB extends to 1964, GenX begins 1965.