Jump to content

Talk:Baby boomers: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
JBrownIII (talk | contribs)
1965?: Reply
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Baby boomers/Archive 3) (bot
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
{{old move|date=14 March 2024|destination=Boomers|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1214706251#Requested move 14 March 2024}}
{{old move|date=14 March 2024|destination=Boomers|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1214706251#Requested move 14 March 2024}}


== We should probably challenge and define, again, what "baby boom" actually means ==
== Generational Conflict, and Legacy with regards to climate-change ==


Defining generations by the year they were born is pretty silly, but so is astrology and there you go.
With climate change at hand, it's more and more important to highlight the somewhat permanent and disproportionate greenhouse gas impact this generation has had. Perhaps under legacy or with discussions of it in several places — for example, with regards to the political views, especially as they've aged. [[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] ([[User talk:Nandofan|talk]]) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:Too soon. And besides, even if you actually lived in an environmentally conscious world, whether or not people actually care is a different story. For example, some pollsters tell us Generation Z care a great deal about the environment, yet sales numbers show they love "fast fashion" delivered to their doors. Similarly, back in the 2000s and 2010s, Millennials apparently abandoned car-culture, only to catch up with their elders as time went by. It was not because of concerns about climate change, but cost. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:If you can find sources about it, I think this is a good thing to include. The economic behaviors of generations are largely irrelevant to legacy. [[User:BappleBusiness|BappleBusiness]]<sup>[[User talk:BappleBusiness|[talk]]]</sup> 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|BappleBusiness}} You might want to reconsider this one. If environment impacts are deemed significant, then economic behaviors actually matter. How else would a demographic cohort affect the environment? [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
:::Oh I'm not saying that individual economic behaviors aren't significant to environmental impacts - they absolutely are. Although it is important to keep in mind that individual choices are not the only factor; governments have enabled the economic behaviors causing climate change, and baby boomers have dominated positions of power for the past few decades. What I was saying is that if there is a significant ''conception'' of baby boomers as causing climate change, it may be worthy to include, regardless of their actual impact (but of course we wouldn't reproduce falsehoods, we would provide supplementary information if their actual impact does not align with the popular conception). [[User:BappleBusiness|BappleBusiness]]<sup>[[User talk:BappleBusiness|[talk]]]</sup> 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
::::Thank you. I think it would add a lot of important and relevant contemporary context. Collecting some resources.
::::[https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html
::::[https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts
:::::[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U
::::: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A
::::: [https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62008/ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf]https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/62008/ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-igjr-2010-1-rez-schwarzberg.pdf
::::: [https://www.jstor.org/stable/25749231]https://www.jstor.org/stable/25749231
::::I'm hoping Willet's criticisms could perhaps form the bases for wider discussion within the article with regards to whether such a generational conflict exists, and to what extent, while linking to other relevant topics within wikipedia.
::::- [[User:Nandofan|Nandofan]] ([[User talk:Nandofan|talk]]) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


I think it's time to revise the timeline a bit. Boomers may feel a bit unloved in this but that's not the point being made. the point is that people born in 1946 had a very different experience than Generation Jones who were actually born during major social unrest, societal stressors both political and economic throughout their teens and young adult lives. Their experience was completely different.
== 1965? ==


'''"Baby Boomer" Generation: 1946-1954'''
can the year 1965 be very last demographic cohort of baby boomer? [[Special:Contributions/2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE|2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE]] ([[User talk:2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE|talk]]) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
1) People tend to agree that the Baby Boomer timeline begins in 1946 when the US birth rate spiked from 20.4% in 1945 up to 26.6% by 1947.
2) After WWII men and women returned home to start families, the war was over. This was a time of national pride, parades, and getting busy at home. This period carried on for almost 8 years through the Korean Conflict (1950-1953) and was a distinct period up until 1954 when two things happened.
a) We realized we weren't invincible at war and that not all was roses and parades at home.
b) When the Supreme court ruled on Brown versus Board of Education and civil society started to tangle with each other over how we treat each other in this country, the mood had changed across the US.


By 1954 the changing times were now bold headlines, and the US was transitioning as a society with big generational change. By 1954 the birthrate declined from the boom of 26.6% down to 25% and held there for several years there after only to decline further over time. Enter the next generation:
::Not at all, the last year of Generation Jones for sure but not the last Baby Boomer year. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5|2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5]] ([[User talk:2600:1002:B026:BDAA:5D54:D2C5:3808:F8C5#top|talk]]) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Shouldn't there be sources cited for the graphs? Not having any implies that there is some kind of consensus for the numbers involved, which of course there isn't. So I think the graphs should be labeled with whatever group or individual created them. [[User:JBrownIII|JBrownIII]] ([[User talk:JBrownIII|talk]]) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


'''"Generation Jones": 1955-1964'''
== Picking a parent term and using it consistently ==
3) Between 1956 and 1964 Generation Jones is either a distinct generation of its own, or it is a new branch of the Boomers. Gen Jones is the group that was born during major civil unrest in the US, they experienced as children and teens, assassinations, political unrest, social unrest, and a major division in the country. They aren't really part of the WWII boom because birthrates are dropping. The birthrate is slowly declining year over year during this period, and By 1964 the birth rate has declined almost to where it was just before the baby boom of 1946.


'''"Generation X": 1965-1980''' Where is all of this concern coming from?
Hey @[[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]]. Regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baby_boomers&diff=prev&oldid=1209887441 this revert]: I notice you reverted my attempts to add the term "Western world [[social generation]]" to the leads of these articles. Honestly I don't really care what term we pick, but I do think we need to coalesce around one term and then add them to these articles and be consistent.
Some would like to see the Gen X group start in 1961. Others say it starts in 1965 and try to cite all kinds of sources to prove that the dates are accurate. Of the Gen Xers that challenges the idea that 1965 is the start date, one idea that infrequently rises to the top is that the Boomer generation simply cannot be the Prince's, the George Michaels, the REM's, the U2's, or the Police's of their music collections. It may seem overly simplified as an argument, but it makes sense when you really look at how we have not only over looked Gen X, worse the Generation Jones was completely assimilated and all their efforts were claimed by the "Me Generation". Hmmm [[User:TraderJohn3000|TraderJohn3000]] ([[User talk:TraderJohn3000|talk]]) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)


:Wikipedia doesn't define things; it reports what sources say. AFAICT all the sources still say that the baby boom was 1946-1964 and Generation Jones is (most commonly) defined as the younger half of the Baby Boomers. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 15:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I picked "Western world social generation" because it is the title of the sidebar [[Template:Generations Sidebar]], and because it is used at [[Generation#Social generation]] and [[Generation#Western world]]. If you don't like that name, let's pick another one and be consistent with it. This concept needs a name, and maybe even its own article (although for now it is a big chunk of the [[Generation]] article). Something with "cohort" might also be a good choice. Thoughts? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

:The first problem is that "Western world" is not an adjective. Note that the sidebar says, "Social generations of the Western world." The articles in this category can all be started in a fairly uniform manner. All articles on social generations have been fixed. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

::"Western world social generation" sounds fluent to me. But no biggie. Would changing it to "[[social generation]] of the Western world" be better? –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

:::I fixed all the articles. They all start pretty much the same way now. I don't think we need to make further changes in this regard. I have been editing these articles (especially Baby Boomers, Millennials, Generation Z, and Generation Alpha) since the late 2010s. The starts of these articles are fairly stable by this time. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 03:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

::::My idea is that whatever Generation X, Generation Y, Baby Boomer, Millennial, etc. are is a term that needs a name and perhaps even its own article. Then we mention it in the intro of all these articles and we wikilink to the term. Looks like you changed everything back to "demographic cohort". That might work as a term if you and others warm up to this idea. If not no biggie. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

:::::Click on the link to "social generation" and see what happens. It links you to a specific section of the article on generations. A social generation or a demographic cohort is not to be confused with a biological generation. [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move 14 March 2024 ==

<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''

The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' [[WP:SNOW]] closing, consensus against the proposed move is unanimous. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
----

[[:Baby boomers]] → {{no redirect|Boomers}} – per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], sources which omit the "baby" are more common. For example [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/14/boomers-small-business-owners-us-economy The Guardian], [https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-am-a-boomer-parent-and-no-one-wishes-me-dead-in-this-house-do-they-deborah-ross-column-32xx8sl55 The Times], [https://www.insider.co.uk/news/companies-must-able-attract-both-32336179 Insider], [https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/week-drinking-boomer-aged-ten-years-2790056 i], [https://www.wsj.com/us-news/boomers-retirees-appalachia-georgia-retirement-9bf8e61f Wall Street Journal]. [[User:Chessrat|<b style="color: #c90; font-family: comic sans ms">Chessrat</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]])</sup> 06:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

* '''Strong oppose.''' The nomination doesn't provide any evidence for the claim that boomer is more common. All the links are to just a single occurrence of boomer, that is, a total of five occurrences. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Comment''' [https://trends.google.co.uk/trends/explore?q=boomer,baby%20boomer#cmpt=q Google Trends] shows "boomer" as being by far the more commonly searched for term. I'm not sure what other evidence you would want if multiple well-known newspapers aren't enough? [[User:Chessrat|<b style="color: #c90; font-family: comic sans ms">Chessrat</b>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]])</sup> 09:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*::The multiple well-known newspapers all use both "boomer" and "baby boomer". It's up to you as the nominator to show that boomer is more common, and I don't see it. For example Google searches of the Guardian for [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22baby+boomers%22 "baby boomers"] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atheguardian.com+%22boomers%22+-%22baby+boomers%22 "boomers" -"baby boomers"] show a preponderance for baby boomers. The Google Trends data is surprising, but not conclusive.
*::But more to the point, as others have said below, baby boomers would still be preferred for use in an encyclopedia. To give a nearby example, "Gen X" is more commonly used than "Generation X", but Generation X is still the primary topic, with Gen X being a redirect. [[User:Danbloch|Dan Bloch]] ([[User talk:Danbloch|talk]]) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Strong oppose''' per Danbloch. '''[[User:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">O.N.R.</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Old Naval Rooftops|<span style="color:#002244">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Not convinced by only five news sources. In addition to [https://www.britannica.com/topic/baby-boomers Britannica], there is probably sociology and other academic works on this subject as well that may still use "baby boomers". [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] ([[User talk:Zzyzx11|talk]]) 08:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. "Boomers" in this context is just short for "Baby Boomers." [[User:Nerd271|Nerd271]] ([[User talk:Nerd271|talk]]) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' 'Baby boomers' is the "official"/COMMONNAME for this generation; 'Boomers' is just short for Baby boomers. [[User:Some1|Some1]] ([[User talk:Some1|talk]]) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', Baby Boomers is the historically significant common name and the "official" name. The history of the term did not start out by the public and sources naming the generation "Boomers", which would have had little meaning and still doesn't, except as slang ("Okay! Boomers!") as a short form of the term. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Baby boomers is most definitely the [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 15:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Context is relevant here. [[User:Dympies|Dympies]] ([[User talk:Dympies|talk]]) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>

Latest revision as of 12:26, 24 August 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Walkman316 (article contribs).

We should probably challenge and define, again, what "baby boom" actually means

[edit]

Defining generations by the year they were born is pretty silly, but so is astrology and there you go.

I think it's time to revise the timeline a bit. Boomers may feel a bit unloved in this but that's not the point being made. the point is that people born in 1946 had a very different experience than Generation Jones who were actually born during major social unrest, societal stressors both political and economic throughout their teens and young adult lives. Their experience was completely different.

"Baby Boomer" Generation: 1946-1954 1) People tend to agree that the Baby Boomer timeline begins in 1946 when the US birth rate spiked from 20.4% in 1945 up to 26.6% by 1947.

2) After WWII men and women returned home to start families, the war was over. This was a time of national pride, parades, and getting busy at home. This period carried on for almost 8 years through the Korean Conflict (1950-1953) and was a distinct period up until 1954 when two things happened. a) We realized we weren't invincible at war and that not all was roses and parades at home. b) When the Supreme court ruled on Brown versus Board of Education and civil society started to tangle with each other over how we treat each other in this country, the mood had changed across the US.

By 1954 the changing times were now bold headlines, and the US was transitioning as a society with big generational change. By 1954 the birthrate declined from the boom of 26.6% down to 25% and held there for several years there after only to decline further over time. Enter the next generation:

"Generation Jones": 1955-1964 3) Between 1956 and 1964 Generation Jones is either a distinct generation of its own, or it is a new branch of the Boomers. Gen Jones is the group that was born during major civil unrest in the US, they experienced as children and teens, assassinations, political unrest, social unrest, and a major division in the country. They aren't really part of the WWII boom because birthrates are dropping. The birthrate is slowly declining year over year during this period, and By 1964 the birth rate has declined almost to where it was just before the baby boom of 1946.

"Generation X": 1965-1980 Where is all of this concern coming from? Some would like to see the Gen X group start in 1961. Others say it starts in 1965 and try to cite all kinds of sources to prove that the dates are accurate. Of the Gen Xers that challenges the idea that 1965 is the start date, one idea that infrequently rises to the top is that the Boomer generation simply cannot be the Prince's, the George Michaels, the REM's, the U2's, or the Police's of their music collections. It may seem overly simplified as an argument, but it makes sense when you really look at how we have not only over looked Gen X, worse the Generation Jones was completely assimilated and all their efforts were claimed by the "Me Generation". Hmmm TraderJohn3000 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't define things; it reports what sources say. AFAICT all the sources still say that the baby boom was 1946-1964 and Generation Jones is (most commonly) defined as the younger half of the Baby Boomers. Dan Bloch (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]