Talk:Generation Jones/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What is up with the continual editing of the dates of the Baby Boomer Generation?

Wow. Wendy 2012, Certain Days Like That, CurrentHistoryMatters and 21st Century Susan: editing pages towards factual self-integrity is the opposite of vandalism. All four of these user names seem to edit this page and little to nothing else; Wendy 2012 created an account and over the space of an hour edited nine separate entries on generations so they each match Pontell's position. Cumulus Clouds is right: sock puppets. RollandWaters (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean when you say that the baby boom generation is a defined generation. There is no official definition of generations, what we try to do is accurately reflect prevailing thinking among experts. RollandWaters three times has changed the birth years of Boomers on this page to 1942-1964, which are birth years, as far as I know, that no expert anywhere uses. Please stop vandalizing this article. The birth years which have been used for many months on the Baby Boom page are 1942-1953, which are the birth years very often used nowadays; I've replaced the ridiculous 1942-1946 birth years that were mistakenly here, with the 1942-1953 birth years for Boomers so ofetn used now.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Baby Boom is a defined period and the Baby Boomers are a defined generation. If you want to change the definition on that generation, do so on that generation's page. That generation's definition does not attack the validity of the definition of this generation. For instance, here's Jonathon Alter in an article published in Newsweek; this article is referenced on Pontell's own pages: "A generational struggle is underway. What's so unusual is it's taking place within a single generation." ^[1]^[2]RollandWaters (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Generation Jones" Name Issues

Certain days like that: I disagree that I am misusing Wikipedia. I have made limited changes reflect terms as they are widely used, and provided footnotes.

My dislike of the name is irrelevant: there is no reference outside Pontell's work that supports Pontell's claims. If you have such a reference, please provide it and it will stay. Until then, it should be worded as a claim rather than as a statement of fact.

The baby boom generation is named after the Census statistics; if you want to argue the definition of baby boomer do so on that page, not this one.

I am also not the person who made the drug claims for Jonesin'. On the contrary, I provided a date and location for a non-drug usage of the term. Nor was I involved in any attempt to kill this page. Those comments are signed by other people. My comments are signed by me.RollandWaters (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RollandWaters: you are misusing Wikipedia with the changes you keep trying to make. It is obvious from your comments and approach that you have a strong emotional personal dislike of the term commonly used to describe this generation, but Wikipedia is not a utensil for you to vent your personal feelings. It does not matter whether you or I happen to like this term. This is an encyclopedia, and any edits should be in the context of promoting accuracy, not furthering personal preferences. The term Generation Jones is certainly more than established enough to be used here without your attempts to undermine it. Just in the context of the current U.S. Presidential election, for example, Generation Jones has been written about in Newsweek Magazine, The New York Times and many other mainstream publications, discussed on numerous national television shows by major prominent pundits, etc. etc....all using this specific term "Generation Jones". And anyway, you seem to misunderstand the connotations of the "jonesin'" part of the name: it is not about drug use or Hollywood life or anything like that. It is about an underlying yearning felt by a generation which was given huge expectations as children, and then confronted with a very different experience as they came of age, leaving them with a certain underlying unrequited quality. But again, this isn't about whether you or I or anyone elese's personal preference. Your threats to try to "kill" this name because you don't happen to like it is utterly inappropriate on Wikipedia. Further, you need to do research before you edit a paghe on Wikipedia; if you had here, you would know that certain "claims" are actually well-established, and don't need to be pinned to just the opinion of one person. Lastly, the U.S. Census Bureau is not the arbiter of cultural generations. The Census Bureau can point to a demographic boom in births between 1946 snd 1964, but they do not determine how many generations were born during those years, nor where generational delineations should be drawn. These days, the prevailing wisdom among generations experts is that there were two generations born during this period...Boomers from around '42-'53, and Jonesers from around '54-'65.Certain days like that (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The first description of this generation I know of is by Richard Hell & the Voidoids: The Blank Generation. Of course, Mr. Hell himself is a boomer (b. October 2, 1949.) But that's a much better name than Jones. RollandWaters (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We were the generation stripped of identification with our older siblings, simply because we didn't remember the Kennedy administration, although we remember Nixon and Kissinger well enough.

Then, we were the generation stripped of our Gen X identity - (the original "twenty-somethings" of the 1980s, when the phrase was first popularized as a riposte to boomers in their thirties.) Somehow (mainly corporate marketing) it was co-opted by those younger than us, who really wouldn't remember the 1970s. Personally, I didn't like the term Gen X, but the ideas of being lost and forgotten in the crush of humanity prior to us, is accurate. And, oddly enough, once a term is stolen, it becomes more precious.

As for the use of Generation Jones? First time I heard of it was on this wiki. I'm Canadian. Is it only an American term? The only memorable reference, to me, is "keeping up with the Jones'". I am curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.119.204 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 July 2006 UTC

I'm English and have never heard this before. I agree it is probably used by a few people in the US, but noone outside.

Not only is this term widely used in the US, it is also used extensively in many other countries, including your home country of the UK. To get a quick sense of its exposure in the UK, scroll down about a quarter of the way down this page: http://www.generationjones.com/latest.html , and you'll find tons of major UK media using the term in a political context, and then right below that, again a ton of major UK media interest in GenJones, in a non-political context. And here is a website created by the largest UK media comapny about GenJones, they spent over 100,000 UK pounds doing research on GenJones: http://www.projectbritain.co.uk/gen_jones/

The generation described here (however poorly named - Jones? We couldn't get a better label than Jones? We ALWAYS get screwed!) really exists and definitely doesn't fall into either Boomers or GenX. We were too young to have been active in protests but too old to like Nirvana and Pearl Jam. Nothing has ever really been marketed to us. And we will be the generation bankrupted by the Boomers retirements!

The term could be from Dylan's Ballad of a Thin Man. -- "You know there's something happening here but you don't know what it is." For older boomers, that might be a way to define those too young to remember pivotal shared memes like JFK, summer of love, etc. Just fishing here. (Black pearl diver (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

I do take issue with the statement that Boomers weren't GenX's parents, however. If you're a firstborn or only child GenXer, you are most likely a Boomer's kid. In the late 60s and early 70s, Americans who lived in flyover country were still under social pressure to marry and have kids before 25. Only the urban segment of the Boomers really bucked that trend. The first Boomers reached marriagable age in 1964 and most had turned 25 by 1980. That would cover the GenXers birth period! Sharpvisuals (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of this either- also, where are other reputable sources that quote this well-known thinker? Google search says...plastic surgeon, film director, and a guy who has plenty of links to this page and his own site, quoted back and forth. There are less major media mentions in the first three pages of goole for him than there are for me. One on medialifenews and one on bymnews.com. Anyone who wants to take a look-but I'm not entirely sure this is noteworthy.

medialife news

bymnews

Resonanteye 23:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the claim: "ME GENERATION" WAS ANOTHER NAME FOR BOOMERS

The "Me Generation" is a moniker that was widely used to describe the "Baby Boom Generation" in the 1970's. It is still occasionally used, and still to describe Boomers. It is not a term that has been used to describe Generation Jones.

I've removed the two ridiculous generations tables/templates from this article. Whoever put them there either has a shocking lack of knowledge about generations, or is deliberately vandalizing Wikipedia. For example, the claim that the Beat Generation was born from 1948-1962, and directly preceded Generation Jones?!! Please do even the most basic of research and you will find that the Beat Generation members were born primarily in the 1920's, and came to influence in primarily the 1950's! Almost all its best-known members (Ginsburg, Kerouac, Cassady, etc.) were born in the mid-1920's (although William Burroughs was born in 1914). 1948-1962??!! The claim that Jonesers were directly succeeded by the "MTV Generation" is similarily absurd.

There have been many hundreds of articles written about Generation Jones. I've read many myself, and have never seen anybody, in any context, in any of these articles, describe your Beat/Jones/MTV chronology. In fact, every article I've read describes the Boomer/Jones/Xer chronology. Check it out yourself: look at any or all of the GenJones articles cited on this discussion page, or on the article page itself, and/or google Generation Jones yourself and read any of the many articles you'll find, and you will see that NOBODY anywhere uses your Beat/Jones/MTV chronology, and EVERYBODY uses the Boom/Jones/Xer chronology. So unless you can provide evidence that your claim is accurate and has any support whatsoever, please stop posting false information.

Also, your claim that Strauss and Howe say that Generation Jones is a "sub-generation" is complete nonsense. The Generation Jones concept was introduced and became popular after Strauss and Howe published their books, so they didn't discuss it. Regardless, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts, and if you research it, you'll see that Generation Jones has become widely viewed by generations experts as a full bona fide generation. 21st century Susan 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a bunch of citations to the article. There are many more citations that could be added, but I didn't want the citation footnotes to become cumbersomely long. I removed the ridiculous "generations" table, and corrected the "succession" table. It's quite unpleasant when people who clearly don't know much about generations nonetheless throw in names and years of generations which have no support or basis. It really undermines the credibility of Wikipedia, and is frustrating to all of us who believe in Wikipedia and are determined to make the entries true. For example, the Beat Generation was described as being born from 1948-1962, and directly preceding Generation Jones. I know of no expert, book, etc. who describes the Beat Generation that way; it's completely incorrect. Similarily, "Baby Busters" were absurdly descibed as being born 1958-1968, when the reality is that Baby Busters actually is a term used interchangably with Generation X, and is almost always defined as being born between the mid-1960's to the mid/late-1970's. Further, the MTV Generation is thrown out as the generation following Generation Jones, when the truth is that the MTV Generation is an obscure term which certainly isn't used to describe a generation born starting in the mid-1960's. Those of us who care about the viability and future of Wikipedia must be vigilant in removing these blatant errors and carefully making sure these entries are accurate. 21st century Susan 20:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I’ve re-written most of the Generation Jones article because it was so badly written

I’ve re-written most of the Generation Jones article because it was so badly written, and so full of inaccurate and unsubstantiated points. Unfortunately, I’m clueless about how to properly cite sources on Wikipedia (even though I did read through the instructions, I must confess to being rather confused), so I’ve assembled many sources below, with the hope that more experienced Wikipedia editors can help with the correct formatting. The below sources substantiate all of the points I make in the actual article (I found many more comparable sources substantiating these points, but didn’t include them here, since I fear I’ve already included an unwieldy number of sources). Also, I’ve removed the generations table, which is filled with inaccuracies (I plan on editing that soon with correct, substantiated info).

There is so much loose thinking with generations, and I’d like to help in the process of us arriving at the truth of who the generations actually are. One problem is that anyone can throw out a name, and birth years, for a generation, and then add that to, for example, a chart of “generations”, and then readers assume that this “new generation” has some kind of general currency and acceptance. Take “Baby Busters”, for example. That term has almost always been used interchangeably with “Generation X”, but there is one person (and only one person, as far as I know) who uses it to describe the lost generation between the Boomers and Xers. So even though no one except this one person has ever used “Baby Busters” this way, it appears on Wikipedia as if this term is commonly used this way. Or “The Isolation Generation”. I couldn’t find even one article about The Isolation Generation, which is apparently yet another “generation” in someone’s head, but with no support from others.

That is part of why I think it’s important to focus on the generational concepts and names that have actually gained acceptance and attention (evidenced, for example, by the major media attention that real generations, like Generation Jones have received). Of course, just because the media pays a lot of attention to an idea doesn’t mean that the idea is valid, but it seems like a good starting point.

And it seems, from the pretty extensive research I’ve done on this topic, that a consensus has been emerging among generations experts about the living generations: WWII Generation, followed by Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation Jones, Generation X, and then finally Generation Y.

Here are list of sources for the article on Generation Jones:

MEDIA INTEREST IN GENERATION JONES The major US wire services have run long features about (and articles discussing) Generation Jones, which in turn have been carried by hundreds of subscribing newspapers. Examples: KNIGHT RIDDER http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=%22Generation+Jones%22knight-ridder http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6452129_ITM GANNETT http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/11/12/loc_who_is_generation.html SCRIPPS HOWARD http://www.cincypost.com/news/2000/jones010800.html AP http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20041223-0222-ch-ch-ch-chia.html

Many website-based news organizations have written articles about Generation Jones Examples: MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15592086/ CNN http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/03/05/generation.jones/index.html

Many magazines have run articles about, and including, Generation Jones Example: Cover story in American Demographics magazine http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2000_Oct/ai_67001505

Jonathan Pontell has appeared on many TV and radio shows discussing Generation Jones. Examples: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ywTXnI0LQNcJ:www.talkradionews.com/audio/index.php%3Fstart%3D150+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=93 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wb81a-gN_7UJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4507725.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=441 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:wb81a-gN_7UJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/4507725.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=441 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:-Fj3lo9BNysJ:marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2000/06/06_mpp.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=297 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ApviWaYr8MwJ:www.jimbotalk.net/page1562.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=367: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:RXHy56JwsFMJ:www.lovelife.com/Shows/+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=385 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vpNfK5eYpJ0J:www.the-seeker.com/formerradio2.htm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=386

BUSINESS INTEREST IN GENERATION JONES

Many companies and industries are now targeting Jonesers. Examples: http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2003/343.html http://www.entrepreneur.com/magazine/entrepreneur/2000/may/26424.html http://www.medialifemagazine.com/news2001/mar01/mar12/4_thurs/news3thursday.html http://www.thefuturelaboratory.com/newsletters/2005%20FutureLab%20Spring%20Newsletter.pdf http://www.marinaassociation.org/news2.cfm?NewsID=730&archive=y&inputMM=8&inputYYYY=2005 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:A_btiafpej8J:www.abbra.org/pdfs/natcon/2006_IMBC_Agenda.pdf+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=114 http://www.radioandrecords.com/Conventions/TRS2001/agenda.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&lr=&start=240&sa=N http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mkpHRvntHEMJ:www.spabusiness.com/contents2005-Q4.cfm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=429 http://www.carat.co.uk/main282.htm

Numerous industries have created new products and brands to specifically target Jonesers, like the radio industry, which has created “GenJones” radio formats. Examples: http://www.wlzq.com/advertise.htm http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:1j5kP3j0SUMJ:blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2005/09/san_franciscos_.html+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=271 http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=GENJONES-11-11-05

POLITICAL ROLE OF GENERATION JONES Generation Jones has been discussed extensively by media and pollsters as a crucial voting segment. Examples from recent elections in the US, UK, and New Zealand: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050410/ai_n13598602 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4159/is_20050417/ai_n13620284 http://www.davidrowan.com/2005/05/times-op-ed-guide-to-electionspeak.html http://rasmussenreports.com/Generation%20Jones%20Story.htm http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0509/S00161.htm http://www.research2000.us/2006/11/01/generation-jones-could-be-key-to-06-midterm-election-results/ http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2004/12/09_genjones2/ http://www.microenterprisejournal.com/podcast/archives/2006/10/mnb_podcast_spe.html http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/westburn/jmm/2005/00000021/00000009/art00016 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2000/10/15/wpres115.xml http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:xsmfWT5S1m8J:post-gazette.com/pg/04340/421595.stm+%22Generation+Jones%22,%22mason-dixon%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/elections/pollwatchers092000.htm

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR GENERATION JONES

There is considerable interest in Generation Jones internationally. Examples: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1378017,00.html http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:s0PVkCU9NT0J:www.lindenburg.nl/Juli2003.htm+%22Generation+Jones%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=556 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2004/11/24/njones24.xml

21st century Susan 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

About Resources

I have made the first group of hyperlinks into resources that show up as footnotes at the bottom of the page. This allows the reader to look at the source without having to follow the link off the page, and get a better idea of the support for the points being made in the article.

I would suggest that user:21st century Susan follow this format for the rest of the resources:

<ref>Landesman, Cosmo, “I’ve Finally Found My Generation,” The Sunday Times (London), November 28, 2004 
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-1378017,00.html Times Online] retrieved Feb 18, 2007</ref>

with the name of the author, title of the article, name of the publication, date of the article, link with some info about the link, and date you retrieved the info. If you include the <ref> and </ref> at the beginning and end of the citation it will automatically show up as a footnote. If you want to cite the same references more than one time there is a way to do that explained at Help:Footnotes. Obviously in some cases you have to make up a citation style (like with the Carat page), but the more information you can give people about the source the better. Also there are style for citing just about anything here Wikipedia:Citation templates. --Tinned Elk 00:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

usage in different countries

This article makes fairly grandiose claims about the usage of a term which appears to have been created by a single author. The ref for the term's "use" in Western Europe links to a single Danish radio program which is talking about the term's use in the US. Also, there is no link for Canada, and the UK link is to single editorial about someone "discovering" the term which was "invented last week" and a website pushing for the term's use. All in all, not compelling evidence. Peregrine981 23:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Real people do not use this term. I'm in the age range, and an informal survey of my peers revealed that half had never heard of it, and of the half that had, none used it except ironically. Pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2fs (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

definite widespread usage in different countries

The term Generation Jones is definitely used widely in many Western countries, as even a cursory Google search clearly shows. For example, I just Googled UK articles about Generation Jones and found articles about it in many major UK publications, including: The Times, The Financial Times, The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, The Independent on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Sunday Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Evening Standard, and The Observer. Reading the text of some of these articles clearly shows that the term has become widely used there. I've seen similar results for several other European countries, where the term is also widely used (one can get an initial sense of this simply by looking at some of the references on this talk page under "INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT FOR GENERATION JONES"). The term is even more widely used in the U.S. I have expertise in international cultural generations, and know that Generation Jones is a term that definitely has gained wide usage, as any reasonable level of research makes obvious. 21st century Susan 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

well, its hard to define what exactly "widely used" means... just because a bunch of newspapers have used the term here and there hardly proves anything, although it does justify the inclusion of this term in wikipedia. however, I still take issue with the idea that this term is "used" in western Europe, as there seem to be very few real refs in continental languages. I'm not exactly sure what to use as a burden of proof in that regard though. I'm not really that concerned anyway, as long as its made clear that this is a relatively new term, and where it comes from. Peregrine981 06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"jonesin"

Doesn't the term jonesin refer to jonesin for a fix, e.g. a heroin addict, and not so much about the unrequited craving felt by this generation of unfulfilled expectations? Galo1969X 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Jonesin'" is commonly used in US to convey a strong craving or yearning for someone or something; its use to convey a drug addiction is only a very minor usage--it is typically used much more broadly.

Possibly the drug culture meaning (needing a fix) pre-dates more general usage, and like a lot of dope/jazz/street language it migrated into the straight world over time.(Black pearl diver (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

This term isn't widely used by the people it purports to describe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. I've never heard the term used outside of a Hollywood depiction of life... and I'm a member of this generation. I find it wholly out of place... and will likely kill it here shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.249.71 (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've heard the "jones" term used in the rock climbing community (specifically in the late 1980's at the Gunks in NY) to refer to a casual approach: "Looking for a climbing partner to jones through the classics." [where classics == the easy but intimidating routes at the Gunks]. Basically meaning to "cruise", in the sense "easy" sense of cruise. But this term for this generation does not fit. RollandWaters (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The term "jonesing" is still used in this article. I've never heard the word used in English, in my 56 years of English being my primary language (I live in Australia). As a previous Wikipedian suggests, it is probably specifically an American slang term, and as such, I think it should be changed. Alpheus (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

succession box

The years used in the succession box before I just changed them were certainly not years that are commonly used. First of all, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts; many experts disagree with their generational birth years, and further, the years used in that succession box didn't even accurately reflect Strauss and Howe's proposed birth years. Secondly, I can't imagine where those birth years could have come from (I've never seen anyone start GenX as early as the 1950's, I've never seen anyone use 1955-1962 for GenJones, etc.) C'mon...for Wikipedia to work, we all need to focus on accuracy, and the birth years in the succession box now reflect the emerging concensus most commonly used for these three generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st century Susan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to article that has been there for quite awhile, and has generally been seen to be accurate...the changes made in the last day or two do not accurately reflect the Generation Jones story...CurrentHistoryMatters (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Many generational labels have been proposed over the years for a variety of different age cohorts by many people, but almost all of those monikers end up being used by only the person inventing the term, and maybe a few of his or her friends. Very few generational names actually generate a following in the public. Generation Jones is one of those rare names that has developed such a following, and millions of people in the U.S. and abroad use the term. For this Wikipedia article to stay accurate, it needs to reflect that large following and useage, rather than be written in a way that grossly underplays the level of acceptance this term has now achieved.

PUSHING ACCURACY VS. PERSONAL AGENDAS ON WIKIPEDIA

You seem to have some kind of personal agenda against Pontell, or Generation Jones, Foogus; wikipedia isn't the place for you to act that out. For some reason, you seem to have some desire to make the Generation Jones movement seem smaller than it is, but the reality is that this concept/term has gained a lot of popularity, and wikipedia should show that. It's completely inappropriate for you to accuse those of us that care about the Generation Jones movement to be puppets of Pontell; that is a completely ridiculous claim. Is it so incomprehensible to you that there are many of us that are Jonesers, that are sick and tired of being innacurately lumped in with Boomers, that care about our generation finally having our voice factored into the national and international debate?! And where do you come off saying that Generation Jones is a "product"?! Generation Jones is no more a product than Generation X or the WWII Generation or any other generation. I don't see anything in this entry that involves any selling of products (books, etc.) And you have no basis to say that the information in this entry is hyped! Everything I see here is true and supportable by clear facts (e.g. I've seen Pontell many times talking about Generation Jones on talking head networks like CNN. On what basis do you claim that's not true?! How would you know how often he appears on these TV shows?!).

Even if for some personal and/or professional reasons you're not happy that Generation Jones has become so popular, wikipedia is not the place to try to pretend it hasn't become this popular. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; the focus neeeds to be on accurate entries, not pushing personal agendas. Research Generation Jones, and you'll see that this entry is very accurate. Just look, for example, at the citations on this talk page (above). For example, you can see that numerous wire services have run long articles about Generation Jones, which in turn get picked up by hundreds of subscribing newspapers. When you add this to all of the other newspaper coverage, it's obvious that Generation Jones has been covered in hundreds of papers. Yet you remove this reference to make it seem smaller. Your revisions pretty much all come from this same place: deliberately trying to make Generation Jones seem less popular than it is by innaccurately downplaying the truth. Hey, it's the holiday season, let's come from a place of concilliation and mutual respect and care about wikipedia being as accurate an encyclopedia as we can all make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 21st century Susan (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful self-promotion does not equal expertise

I am glad to see that the generation chronolgy attached to the Gen X entry does not include this bogus marketing ploy. The idea of a quantifiable generational chronology that "really exists" is suspect in and of itself, but I don't think that the popular culture - which is the only arbiter of such categories - has or will embrace this notion. Pontell may have carved a niche for himself as a talking head and presenter, but his idea has no traction. Just another opinion from a 1963 baby, but I need to put it out there. No one I know had heard of this, and when exposed to the idea it gets a universal "ugh." signed John Beekman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.158.179.194 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd concur. (born in '62.) I've never heard of Gen Jones until reading the related Wikipedia entries. I discussed this in a chat room with a bunch of other similarly aged folks--no one there had heard of it either. That doesn't make it any less academically valid, it's just not something I'd use in conversation. It doesn't have mindshare and this article is very unlikely to generate mindshare. However as the other poster has indicated, there may certainly be valid academic reasons for retaining it, so I wouldn't delete the article. If this were slashdot though, I'd certainly mod it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.249.70 (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article appears to have been written by and substantially promotes Jonathan Pontell. It probably qualifies for CSD, but I'll send it to AFD to achieve community consensus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The term Generation Jones has already gained a great deal of national and international acceptance and usage, and should certainly not be considered for deletion. I just googled the term, with quotation marks (ie. "Generation Jones"), and it came back with 251,000 hits, which is a far higher result count on Google than many terms with long articles in Wikipedia . I googled other categories for "Generation Jones", and found similarily high number results; for example, new blog entries are appearing about Generation Jones on Google blog search virtually every day, sometimes several a day. This term and concept has been written about, and talked about, frequently in top media outlets...for example, I found recent articles about Generation Jones in Newsweek and The New York Times, among many others. When you study the search results from top search engines, like Google and Yahoo, you find that not only has this term been used by hundreds of newspapers, magazines, and TV/radio shows, but also that the clear trend is toward significantly increasing useage. I just did a book search, and found 73 books that use the term. I don't think it's a question of whether Generation Jones will get traction or develop mindshare; it already clearly has. This is a term and concept that obviously belongs in Wikipedia, and, in fact, really should have a more extensive article. I just carefully read this article, and don't understand on what basis anyone could claim that it is an advertisement, promotional of Pontell, or not neutral. And the term is clearly notable enough, and there are many reliable sources cited. The only change I see this article needing is a more expanded version to accomodate the increasing interest and use of this term. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 20:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you Jonathan Pontell Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed those boxes which seem so clearly innapropriate, and I did address your claims, cumulus clouds, here and on the page you created to try to delete this article. Your claim that Generation Jones is only talked about by Pontell in the media is completely innacurate, and as I wrote on that page: If you google "Generation Jones", you'll find hundreds of thousands of references to it (I just did, with 251,000 results). I just went through a bunch of them, and hardly any of them are of Pontell using the term. At least 90% of these references are third parties using the term Generation Jones. Among the third parties which I just found using this term are the magazines USNews and World Report and Newsweek, the newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post (four seperate articles in The WP), and the TV networks NBC and CBS. These are just a small fraction of the thousands of media outlets that regularly use this term...all third parties, completely unconnected to Pontell (and the Wikipedia article is obviously the result of multiple contributors). Given the large, and increasing, interest and usage of this term, it should clearly not be deleted, but rather expanded.

And the fact that you would assume that I'm Pontell again reflects this very unusual view of yours that it must only be Pontell that's talking about this. No, I'm not Pontell, cumulus clouds, and while you may not want to believe it, there are many of us Jonesers in the US and abroad who are enthusiastically embracing this generational identity. I know many people who regularly use this term...it's not just the media that uses it, but also regular people who are fed up being called Boomers or Xers (when the truth is that we are a lost generation in-between). I encourage you to really do the research, cumulus clouds, and you will find that the term Generation Jones certainly should be covered by Wikipedia. And I don't see any basis at all for your other claims, either...that this article is an advertisement, and isn't neutral (based on what?!).```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by CurrentHistoryMatters (talk • contribs) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

References to YouTube

While I've managed to properly source only three YouTube videos with relevant data and transcripts, the other two I couldn't — one seemed to be a mashup and the other one from MSNBC just didn't have enough quality information to source within reasonable time.

Notice that all of those YouTube videos are from the GenerationJonesTV user account. While people make reference to that generation, one of the videos (if memory serves me right, now) also has someone (in good faith) sneak in the name of Jonathan Pontell.

While trying to make a story about changes of generations in the electoral makeup, then I am sure that the talking heads check out the Wikipedia, too. In effect, the Generation Jones mème has (through appearing in Wikipedia) in part become a self-perpetuating idea, whether true, then, or not. -Mardus (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that media people use Wikipedia, so see references here, but Generation Jones has, separate from Wikipedia, been discussed in many different credible contexts. I'm removing the 2001 reference because I'm almost sure that is not the year that Pontell coined the Generation Jones term. I'll do some research soon to find out when exactly that was. I'm also adding back a section that was removed for apparently no good reason; the section which mentions the media attention which Generation Jones has received--an entirely relevant and well-sourced section. I also clarified the original GenX referenceWendy 2012 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan Pontell, the TV producer

Why does the Jonathan Pontell wikilink go to a television producer? Is it the same person?--Knulclunk (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed reference to 2001 coining of this term, since I believe that to be incorrect, will research when get a chance soon to determine actual year he coined it. Also, Generation Jones has certainly been referred to many times as a heretofore lost generation, not just by one person, so made that clear as well.Wendy 2012 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Article revert

When reverting an article, User:TreadingWater also reverted to a version that didn't yet have my additions with proper citation templates which are very necessary when there's an article with weak notability and sources that are weak or in the end refer to only one point of source (one Jonathan Pontell). If the article of such notability is to hold any truth, it _has_ at least to be properly referenced, with citation templates and all.

Because of time constraints, I will in time return citation templates and information lost therein back to references. -Mardus (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

IS it part of the Baby Boomers?

In the absence of clear scientific consensus, both it being a cohort of the Baby Boomers and it being a successive generation should be included in this article, Baby Boomers, and List of Generations.

Actually, I'm not sure the sources for it being considered a "generation" are at all reliable, but I'm still willing to give User:TreadingWater the benefit of the doubt, in spite of overwhelming evidence that he does not believe in the Wikipedia model of WP:CONSENSUS and collaboration. From my generational diversity training at work (which I also don't think reliable), one could conjecture what generation he belongs to, but that would be an inappropriate personal attack. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The article now defines Generation Jones as by birth years in the lead, which can be sourced. In the first section, we mention that prior to Pontel, Generation Jones was considered either Baby Boomer or Generation X, also true. I think is a superb compromise of language. I am much more concerned how the Baby Boomer article handles Jones. I would be happy to discuss further over there.

ARTHUR RUBIN: PLEASE ALSO SEE DISCUSSION PAGE OF “BABY BOOMERS” ARTICLE

Arthur Rubin: You have no basis to say that I don’t compromise, the truth is that I’ve gone along with a lot of language here, in the spirit of compromise, which is far weaker than I think it should be in conveying to readers how established GenJones has become. I know that several of the other editors here believe that this article presents an inaccurately weak picture of GenJones as well.

To address the issue you raise: it is not appropriate here to say that Generation Jones is sometimes considered a subdivision of the Baby Boom Generation. It is of course literally true. It also is literally true that the moon is sometimes considered to be made of cheese. In fact we could pretty much say just about anything is “sometimes considered to be…” of just about anything. If one wacko anywhere considers even the most ridiculous thought, it is then “sometimes considered” that.

But filling Wikipedia with such silliness would obviously not make sense. So we have to make judgment calls, based on variables like common usage. The central point of the Generation Jones movement is that Jonesers are not Boomers. If there is only one thing that proponents of this concept were asked to identify as the main point of this movement, it is this specific point. When you look at message boards and blogs with people discussing GenJones, this is the central point that gets focused on over and over…people who have been called Boomers their whole lives who know it’s not true, are fed up with it, and who embrace their GenJones identity as a way of saying: “We are not Boomers!”

Further, when experts write and speak about GenJones, they overwhelmingly describe it as a separate generation between the Boomers and Xer. The guy who first conceptualized this whole thing—Pontell---clearly describes it this way. Virtually all the big name journalists and experts and pollsters and pundits who write and talk about Generation Jones do so in specifically this way…as a distinct generation between Boom and X. If you look hard enough, you can find the occasional journalist who lazily refers to Jones as part of Boom. If you look hard enough, you can also find people writing that the moon is made of cheese. That doesn’t mean it should be in Wikipedia.

And the few who have said that GenJones is a division of Boomers are typically really saying that Jonesers were born during the demographic boom in births following WWII. That demographic baby boom is a very different thing than the actual cultural generations born during that demographic boom. So they are saying that Jonesers were born during the same baby boom as those born before the mid-1950s, not that Jonesers are part of the Baby Boom GENERATION.

Additionally, there is overlap with all these generations, and quite a bit of disagreement about correct birth years. So some people feel that the Silent Generation is actually a division of the WWII Generation. Some people feel that Generation Y is a subdivision of the Millennials. Others believe that GenY is a subdivision of GenX. We would literally be truthful in saying that all these generations are “sometimes considered” to be subdivisions of other generations. But being literally truthful with all possible combinations does not make good encyclopedia-writing. It would make this encyclopedia a ridiculous mess.

So we need to stick with common usage by the public, the intentions of initial formulators of concepts, the educated opinions of experts, etc. Based on these criteria, if Wikipedia is to paint an accurate picture, this “sometimes considered to be a subdivision of Boomers” must not be here.TreadingWater (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the definition of Generation Jones as a distinct entity from the "baby boomers" is a fairly recent development. I would have thought it would at least bear mention that in the past they were widely considered one and the same. It is not like saying "in the past the moon was considered made of cheese" since that is demonstrably false, while this deals entirely with (essentially arbitrary) terminology, which is quite capable of changing with time. TastyCakes (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion here of "faulty logic". And to address Tasty Cake's comments here, it already clearly states in the second paragraph that Jonesers used to be considered part of the Boomers (and Xers).TreadingWater (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic was "the moon is also considered made of cheese by some people, but they're wrong". This is obviously faulty logic since that is dealing with scientific fact while this is dealing with sociological terminology, which is obviously vaguely defined. Also your suggestion that your argument was "irrefutable" was irritating. TastyCakes (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences in terms of certainty, but I don't see the relevance of that difference here. I was just making a rough analogy, and I think the point I was trying to make (that practically anything can be said to be "sometimes considered as...") still stands. I don't see where I used the word "irrefutable", but if I did, I understand how that could be irritating.TreadingWater (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it seems quite possible to find literature that considers Generation Jones to be part of the baby boomers. It isn't Wikipedia's role to judge a particular terminology correct if there is controversy or disagreement over the definition. It seems a better course to spell out this obvious discrepancy in the introduction. Further, because so called "expert" opinion has only recently decided on the existence of Generation Jones, it seems important to spell out, in the introduction, the generation's relationship with, to most people, a much more familiar concept: the baby boomers. TastyCakes (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up needed per past threads

This seems to be a common theme over the past few months. How can we improve this article? I made some copy edits but was told to buzz off since I am no expert. I am no expert, but I am a Generation Jones-er :) Seriously, maybe we can take baby steps that have consensus among a few of us and proceed that way? I don't know why folk(s) would have an agenda, or what it would be at this point, or what the deal is here, but it seems that this article can be improved and hopefully that is what we all want. Anyways, Tom 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ve removed the succession chart for now from this article; it’s not that important to me whether it is here, although I think, on balance, it makes sense to be here. I’ve also added a bit from the Boomer article as part of an attempt to improve these related articles. Threeafterthree, I didn’t tell you to “buzz off”, but I would ask you to do research before editing articles. You’ve twice changed from “many” to “some” the number of journalists, etc. who have referred to Obama as a Joneser, when the fact is that there is a long list of such journalists, more than enough to justify the use of the word “many”. Here again, are just some of the many on this list: David Brooks (New York Times), Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), Roland Martin (CNN), Michael Steele (Chairman, RNC), Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC), Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call), Juan Williams (Fox News Channel), Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor), Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]), Carl Leubsdorf (Dallas Morning News), and Peter Fenn (MSNBC).TreadingWater (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually feel the less I "know" about an article subject, the better and more "fair" my editing is :) You sure do seem to "know" alot about this subject. Anyways, Tom (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

MetLife Sudy

That MetLife reference doesn't meet Wikipedia's sources criteria. It also reminds me of a Newsweek poll showing 91% of GenXers didn't like the name Generation X. Also, names like late or trailing boomers do not have any find of national following and are used not to separate out a distinct generation, but rather just to describe a segment of boomers.TreadingWater (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the MetLife study meet Wikipedia's sources criteria? --Knulclunk (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That MetLife report doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s criteria in several ways. For sake of time, I’ll focus at the moment on the most obvious problem: it doesn’t come close to passing Wiki’s requirement for Neutral Point of View.

This “report” is a promotional piece for an insurance company. Its purpose is to support the business goals of this company; it is intended to be persuasive, not informational. It is heavily biased. MetLife has invested significant resources into supporting the traditional argument that everyone born during the post-WWII bith boom are all part of one generation. Before the Generation Jones theory was introduced, they had already spent significant money supporting this view. They released multiple reports bolstering this view. They advised their clients in the context of this perspective. When the Generation Jones theory was introduced and started to gain traction, it created a problem for them. For MetLife to acknowledge the truth of the GenJones construct, they would need to acknowledge that they had been wrong for years in advancing the theory that everyone born 1946-1964 was part of one generation.

So MetLife scrambled to try to thwart the increaing popularity of GenJones. Within the industry, they are widely seen to have a clearly biased agenda against the GenJones construct, and have attempted in numerous ways to undermine its spread. In this report, they don’t even give the actual questions asked about respondents views of generational names, instead referring vaguely to “characterize their perception of a generational identifier”. What does that mean? And what other questions were asked about this by them? And what was the context and placement of these questions? Was any explanation offered to respondents re.the meaning of this or other generational names? Were the questions asked in a leading way? Anyone sophisticated with polling knows that polls can be manipulated in a way to elicit more or less whatever answer a biased pollster wants to hear. This is why credible polls typically include the actual questions asked to combat claims of bias.

Given that this “poll’s” “results” are so different than other polls on this question (which have consistently shown that “Generation Jones” is a very popular name among its members), plus the clear ongoing bias of these MetLife reports, there is no way that it even comes close to passing Wikipedia’s justifiable requirement for Neutral Point of View.

By contrast, at least when Newsweek published their famous poll about GenXers hating that name, it was done by a credible publication by a credible pollster, with no obvious bias. In that poll, done soon after the name “Generation X” had become widely used, 91% of GenXers told pollsters they didn’t like the name “Generation X”.TreadingWater (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

By that argument, anything from Pontell or his GenerationJones.com website would also not meet Wikipedia’s criteria for NPOV. Pontell, far more than MetLife, has an ongoing bias in the acceptance of the GenJones construct.--Knulclunk (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, for many reasons. Among these reasons: being an advocate for a position doesn't mean you aren't capable of addressing that topic in an objective way. I don't see any history of Pontell misrepresenting facts or producing inherently biased content. And anyway, there are virtually no references/citations on these generations pages that are "from Pontell or his GenerationJones.com website". When his name is mentioned, it's by third party media talking about him. The one page from GenerationJones.com which is referenced here isn't of original material, but is rather just essentially a page which lists a bunch of third party media references and links.TreadingWater (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The MetLife source is fine and does not conflict with WP policy, it is hardly fringe. We can modify the language to be more neutral than when first introduced, tho. Perhaps we should also add the "Third Age" poll [[1]] from Pontell's website? --Knulclunk (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

--Knulclunk (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

That MetLife Study absolutely conflicts with WP policy and I feel extremely strongly about it not being here. I also don't think that Third Age study particularly belongs here either, although I would be willing to compromise with that one; definitely not with the MetLife one. FYI, almost every generation's name does poorly, in its initial years, with polling among its members. GenX, Baby Boomers, GenY, Silent Generation, etc. have all done very poorly with this kind of polling. None of these polls, however, appear on any of the Wikipedia articles for these generations, and there is similarily no need for such a poll to appear in this article (even if it had appeared in a source that didn't conflict with WP policy, like this one). It would create a false impression in any of these articles about these various generations about the real nature of moniker acceptance/popularity without a detailed explanation about this kind of polling. But in this case, with blatant conflicts with WP policy, there is no question that MetLife promotional piece does not belong here.TreadingWater (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That study is nothing but self-serving propoganda by MetLife, their clients may buy it, but those of us in this field look at sales pieces like this as a joke... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

NO ACADEMIC OR SERIOUS SCHOLAR OF GENERATIONS WOULD GIVE THIS MET LIFE NONSENSE ANY SERIOUS CONSIDERATION; IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF CREDIBLE OBJECTIVE RESEARCH. AND WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THAT FONDA EDITOR, I CONCUR WITH THE OTHER EDITORS WHO SAY THAT EDITOR FONDA HAS SOME AXE TO GRIND. FONDA'S TAKE ON GENERATION JONES DOES APPEAR TO BE AN OVER-THE-TOP ATTEMPT TO DOWNPLAY THE CONTINUING ACCETANCE OF GENERATION JONES IN THE POPULAR AND ACADEMIC PRESS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.139 (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Birthdates Issue

I think it's easily solvable.

In order to be classified as Generation Jones, you have to be too young to serve in the Vietnam war. Since U.S. involvement in Vietnam ceased on 1973, The starting point for this generation should be marked as 1955.

On the other hand, you have to be old enough to remember 1968, The peak of the war. Thus setting 1964 as the ending point for Generation Jones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.22.46 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This is NOT a full generation

Xers have ALWAYS followed Boomers. There is not an entire generation between them, how can there be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There was confusion from the beginning about the proper birth dates for GenX. They were called "twentysomethings" in 1991 when the GenX moniker first became popular, and were still being called "twentsomethings" ten years later. There were heated debates about where to draw the line between Boom and X. Over time, numerous experts concluded that this controversy was happening because there were actually three, not two, generations born during these years; ie. there was a distinct generation between the Boomers and Xers. Part of the subtext for this was the increasing popularity in academic circles of the idea that generations are getting shorter (approx. 10-15 years vs. the traditional 20 years), partly because of the acceleration of culture. Another part of the subtext was the growing realization that a distinction needed to be made between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era (Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents).

Since then, numerous credible organizations and individuals have cross-tabulated data and shown there is clearly a separate generation between the Boomers and Xers. Across a wide range of attitudinal, consumer behavior, values, and electoral voting categories, the data makes a compelling case for the existence of Generation Jones. Recent books about generations automatically treat GenJones as a distinct full bona fide generation. Sociologists and other social scientists regularly include GenJones as a full generation in their work. The popular press was a little slower in picking up this change in generational thinking because the concept of a 1946-1964 Boomer Generation was so entrenched in the national mindset, but over time, the GenJones concept has gained much traction, and is now often cited in the mainstream media. The old formulation of a 1946-1964 Boomer Generation is now widely discredited among experts, and while there are exceptions, generations experts now generally agree with the existence of GenJones as a full distinct generation.TreadingWater (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Generation Jones is as valid a generation as Boomers and X'ers

I follow social science trends with generations and agree with the other editors who say that most academics now see Generation Jones as a full valid generation between Boomers and X'ers. I don't understand why this article has been tagged for factual and neutrality issues, I just read it carefully and don't see anything that academics who study and write about generations would have a problem with.MMBBTT (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

^ From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Feb 11, 2008
^ http://www.newsweek.com/id/107583

Scholarly references

With all due respect to MMBBTT, would you include some scholarly references, instead of the all the popular media references, currently in the article.

On that point I have had to remove the reference to Schuman and Scott^[1] as the Wikipedia entry states the Schuman article list events of Jones but having read the article it does not

Memorable events:

Watergate, (Only listed as a memorable event by 35 people with no reference to the age of those people)
Nixon resigns, (Only listed with Watergate)
the Cold War, (listed as a memorable event by 21 people only one is identifed as being born in 1949 - a baby boomer)
lowered drinking age to 18 in many states 1970-1976 (followed by raising), (Not identified at all)
the oil embargo, (not listed - Oil Crisis listed by 9 people, statistically insignificant)
raging inflation, ( listed as memorable by 34 people no identification of age)
gasoline shortages, ( only reference is to shortages in WWII by a pre baby boomer)
Jimmy Carter's imposition of registration for the draft, (a reference to the draft by someone body in 1922)
punk or new wave from Deborah Harry and techno pop to Annie Lennox and disco (no reference to music at all)

^ Schuman, H. (1989). "Generations and collective memories". American Sociological Review. vol. 54, (No. 3): pp 359-81. Retrieved 2009-05-24. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

A. Yager (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Generation Jones

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddha24: We've just gone through an extended period with many tags on this article and an extensive deletion discussion. The outcome was that editors overwhelmingly supported this article. The tags were unhelpful, did not elcit edits, and given the issue of template/tag creep which many Wikipedians have complained about, were not in the interests of Wikipedia. I don't know what issues you have with the factual accuracy or tone of this article, but please indicate what issues you have on this talk page, and they will be addressed. I regularly monitor this article, as do others, so your concerns will be given prompt attention.TreadingWater (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X

Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X. (The Silent generation, and WWII vets were.) Coupland originally meant Gen X as those born in the early sixties, in the shadow of their older baby boom siblings. We were the younger baby boomers. (eg. 1964 was hardly a "bust year". Over 4 million births (U.S.) occurred, which is more than any year in the late forties though the early fifties. This didn't happen again until 1990!)

Referring to above, you may be correct but I have seen statistics showing 1957 as a peak year for births within the USA. Data I saw may be faulty, of course.68.13.191.153 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its kinda stupid to suggest that the parents of any generation are the parents of a given generation. My grandmother was born in 1950 (that makes her a boomer) and my dad was born in 1971 (that makes him an X'er). So, yes, the parents of the X'ers can be Boomers. In fact, it's a very likley probability that you can even have mother and child who are members of the same generation! Think about it, teen pregnancy is on the rise. If you had a girl born in 1980 (Early Gen Y) and she had a baby in 1995 (Late Gen Y). Its not that impossible. In my family at least, there is no gap between the generations they go simply: My great grandmother (born in 1929; makes her silent) gave birth to my grandmother in 1950 (baby boomer) who gave birth to my dad (1971; Gen X), who fathered me (1995; Gen Y). Think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.147.223.12 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

THE PARENTS OF GEN X WERE NOT WWII VETS!!! World War II vets were born mostly in the 1910s, while most of the X'ers were born in the '70s. That would mean that the parents of Gen X were in their sixties when they had children, sorry honey this didn't happen. In fact most children born in the 70s and 80s had parents born in the 40s and 50s; that makes the Boomers the parents of Gen X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.58 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My parents are both Boomers, unfortunately. 1950 and 1947. I am undisputed Generation X, I was just beginning school the year Elvis died. My parents were not teens, nor were they in their 40s like many first time Boomer parents. My grandparents were the WWII generation, every single one of them. The overdone speculation about the intent of some guy who didn't even coin the term meant when he used it means nothing. If you are born in the early 60s and you are American- you belong to Generation Jones.

I am not so sure that these generation groups are worldwide. A generation shares experience that shapes their coming of age; somebody on the other side of the globe doesn't experience the same cultural influences. What is an important, defining event in one part of the world may not be significant to the collective minds of another country. American movies, music and television are popular all over the world, but we are not all Americans. I've spent a lot of time on the other side of the planet from my home, and learned that news is presented in quite dissimilar ways. That alone bears markedly on one's inner assimilation of events. The common bond is missing. Someone might be my age, but certainly not influenced by things they never knew of. Along those lines, if you are not American but born in the Jones time bracket, and you've never heard the terms jonesing or jonesed used in speech, it's hard to make a case for your being part of Generation Jones. (And yes, the term was sometimes used in regards to craving drugs, but was used for other non-drug cravings as well.) The people I knew who used the term most (jonesing was fairly popular slang in the early & mid 1980s) were born in the Jones bracket. They are the kids who wore Easter-egg colored pastel tuxedos, with wide lapels, ruffled shirts and big droopy bow ties to their prom; their dates wore feathered hair and floor-length gowns with prairie necks and puffed sleeves or spaghetti straps. The boys often had longish hair. Willie Aames is GenJones. They sometimes are the young siblings of Boomers, but could also be the older siblings of Xers. Truly overlooked by the media, glad they are getting some time in the spotlight now.Gotmywaderson (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All of what you write is interesting and, quite possibly, true. However, it is all also essentially original research, which is not useful for purposes of improving the article. Unitanode 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just went and read the discussion for deletion page. If only someone would add sources and take out some of the advert content, we could at least get that tag off it.

Resonanteye 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

WORDS OF WISDOM-Regarding Parents of Jones and Xer's

"Can I offer an olive branch I come from a family of 8 and as the youngest my older siblings had children in the late 60's and early 70's so Xers the younger ones anyway do have or can have Boomer parents. But half have the Greatest generation or Korea Wa r parents.Many Boomer got married young like between 18-25 years of age and had started their families by the ealty 70's not all but the ones who finished HS and College in the lates 60's and early 70's. My Oldest brother is 60 and I grew up with his son my nephew and my brother graduated in 66 from HS and went on to college and in 70 began his family. I was born in 69; any teen of the 80's is in no way a boomer the 80's teen culture is so far away from and different from any other even the 90's. So as far as parents for those in their 30's or 40's it is really half and half. People used to have kids like at age 18, 19 and 20 many did not go to college in the 60's and 70's not until the mid to lates 70's did young women forgoe early parent hood for the workforce. Now Xers are having Millenials along with generation Jones, and Some Boomer began having babies or their second set of kids in the late 80's so their youngest are now being raised in other generations of parents. The facts are the facts just ask someone their age and the age of their parents the generation is already set.

And can I add a generation is only 10-14 years historically, scientifically and biblically. So generations lasting 18 or 21 or 25 years is really an attemot to manipulate date. Birth rates make the generational borders. And birht rates cannot be changes they are what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.84.239 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2009

Text describing the link between Gen Jones and Baby Boomer

If this text describing the possible different Generations for Baby boomers if necessary in Baby boomers why not the reflection of that in the Gen Jones. I'm a little confused, would you please explain? A. Yager (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This one part of your edit--adding the context about the demographic post-war birth boom-- is actually an improvement of this article. I’ve worded it to more closely match the language in the Boomer article.TreadingWater (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

A recent book on "media generations" by the famed integrated marketer and Northwestern University media professor Don Schultz called "Media Generations" is now out. The book chronicles the various U.S. generations and their media habits. In it, Schultz et al state that Generation Jones was born from 1965-1974. This does not even overlap with the range given in this article, 1954-1965. Which is it? http://www.media-generations.com/images/generations.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.81.45 (talk • contribs) 07:47, December 1, 2009

Why? Non-notable book, non-notable author, untracable reference (no ISBN or publisher). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2009 (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)

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)

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^[1]

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)

^ http://law.jrank.org/pages/5581/Conscription.html

- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How can wikipedia have statements like this?

"Key characteristics are less optimistic, distrust of government, general cynicism."

How can someone generalize an entire generation? 96.241.133.214 (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't Wikipedia making this generalization, but the originators of the concept Generation Jones.Martinlc (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Feb 11, 2008

[2] ttp://www.newsweek.com/id/107583

[Schuman-3] Schuman, H. (1989). "Generations and collective memories". American Sociological Review. vol. 54, (No. 3): pp 359-81. Retrieved 2009-05-24. {{cite journal}}: |issue= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

[4] ttp://law.jrank.org/pages/5581/Conscription.html

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]