Talk:Baby Bust

The reason that the "Baby Buster" page was redirected to the "Generation X" page was because the two terms are interchangable. Someone had fraudently tried to fool Wikipedia users into thinking that the Buster term was being used in a way that it clearly isn't. The truth is that 99% of the time the Baby Buster term is used as a synonym for Generation X. There is no other usage of this term that has achieved any kind of public following at all. A quick look on Google confirms this:

"Baby Buster" is consistently used interchangably with "Generation X". I found four books written about "Baby Busters"--all four of them use this "same as GenX definition": http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1881273199 http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Hope-Understanding-Reaching-Busters/dp/0801090180 http://www.amazon.ca/Inside-Soul-New-Generation-Strategies/dp/product-description/0310205948 http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Cross-Referenced-Generations-Collective-Unconscious/dp/1572973358/sr=8-1/qid=1171905699/ref=sr_1_1/102-3045707-9084912?ie=UTF8&s=books

I went through a bunch more Google hits from "Baby Busters", and ALL of them use this term as synonmous with GenX. NOT ONE media outlet anywhere uses the Buster term in a different way. Below are the links from the first few pages from Google's "Baby Buster" results. Included are articles from malor media (e.g. Time Magazine), encyclopedias, Universities, etc. ALL equate Buster with Xer: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pYhygqidjHQJ:www.thefreedictionary.com/Baby%2BBusters+%22Baby+Busters%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5871/busters_and_boomlets.html http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen2.html http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=84 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/077/2000/00000017/00000006/art00002 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n10_v31/ai_12313341 http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/non-profit-businesses/166461-1.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,146033,00.html http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/thth/projects/thth_projects_01.htm http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DMjAgn8bfsIJ:www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm%3FPgNm%3DTCE%26Params%3DA1ARTA0000437+%22Baby+Busters%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us http://www.cflri.ca/eng/lifestyle/1997/young_90.php http://ctlibrary.com/14418 http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1993-2/1993-02-25-NBC-15.html http://www.sbishere.com/demographics-baby-boomers-planning-coach/ http://www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=4863 http://www.pma-online.org/scripts/shownews.cfm?id=382 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n20_v32/ai_14279537 http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html http://192.80.61.73/view/1994/view1194.htm http://www.newhope.bc.ca/98-02-01.htm http://www.cflri.ca/pdf/e/pip18.pdf http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=N9S3GVJDT5JQ8GBT17NKA730XC54A50E&ID=23541 http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=9044

There are many more thousands of links to sites,publications, etc. who all use Baby Busters the same way as these links above. The point is that all of us who care about Wikipedia need to watch for attempts at deception. People come to Wikipedia to find out the actual usage of terms. The Baby Buster term has a very clear meaning in US culture, and Wikipedia needs to refelct that.


 * This used to be a page on Wikipedia. What happened? It was backed-up by references to outside research and even a book which labeled and defined it. Evidently, somebody did not find it worthy enough, because they hate even partial redundancy and don't appreciate diversity. That's really sad. 12.40.34.150 User:Shanoman 20:, and 27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S.: and it was not even an article that I did! Someone else had created it, and now someone else has deleted it (and/or only very minimally "merged" it into the Generation X article. Now it's lost to everyone.


 * Anyway, I do think the concepts are at least somewhat distinct. The Baby Bust may have began as early as 1954, and may not have ended until 1976, whereas Generation X is usually held to cover the years between sometime in the 1960s and the 1980s (for example: 1960-1981; 1965-1985; 1967-1987; etc.). Generation Jones includes many of those traditionally thought of as Babyboomers (especially the "Shadow Boomers", those born ca. 1956-1964), while the term "Baby Bust" explicitly suggests those coming after the Boom. Why do some people just "delete", "delete", without pausing to consider whether they're deleting something unique or distinct? User:Shanoman12.40.34.150 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be its own article
First of all equating the concept of "a" baby bust with the western phenomenom of the "generation x" is needlessly america centric. There have been other "baby busts" in history and this should be documented here.

Baby bust, or, drastic collapse in human fertility is a very concerning trend that deserves scrutiny. And it certainly is not a good thing as most of the anti-human malthusians would have you believe (which I believe is the real reason why this article has been deleted/redirected/prevented from being made). 209.142.84.179 (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

And look up the counterpart term "baby boom" which has its own generic article not exclusively tied to the north american "baby boomer generation " 209.142.84.179 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)