Talk:Baby boomers

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Baby boomers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 3 months

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Demographics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Demographics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DemographicsWikipedia:WikiProject DemographicsTemplate:WikiProject DemographicsDemographics

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).

Generational Conflict, and Legacy with regards to climate-change

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. Nandofan (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nerd271 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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? Nerd271 (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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). BappleBusiness^[talk] 19:07, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think it would add a lot of important and relevant contemporary context. Collecting some resources.

[1]https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/baby-boomers-greenhouse-gas-emissions-b2043755.html

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/07/the-pinch-david-willetts

[3]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIxvX_8Gr3U

[4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuXzvjBYW8A

[5]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

[6]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.

- Nandofan (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1965?

can the year 1965 be very last demographic cohort of baby boomer? 2404:8000:1027:B639:DDA6:3ACB:E0D9:33AE (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picking a parent term and using it consistently

Hey @Nerd271. Regarding 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.

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? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nerd271 (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Western world social generation" sounds fluent to me. But no biggie. Would changing it to "social generation of the Western world" be better? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nerd271 (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nerd271 (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 March 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Baby boomers be renamed and moved to Boomers.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Baby boomers → Boomers – per WP:COMMONNAME, sources which omit the "baby" are more common. For example The Guardian, The Times, Insider, i, Wall Street Journal. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Dan Bloch (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 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? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 "baby boomers" and "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. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Danbloch. O.N.R. ^(talk) 07:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not convinced by only five news sources. In addition to Britannica, there is probably sociology and other academic works on this subject as well that may still use "baby boomers". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Boomers" in this context is just short for "Baby Boomers." Nerd271 (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Baby boomers' is the "official"/COMMONNAME for this generation; 'Boomers' is just short for Baby boomers. Some1 (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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!"). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]