Talk:List of Presidents of the United States by date and place of birth

Corrections
Should Barack Obama be listed as "X" under "Generation", considering he was born in 1961? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.174.65 (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Some idiot replaced George Washington with "Dick Rosetti", so I corrected it.

Since we now have tabelaric functions that allow sorting by date or place or any other parameter, we don't actually need two separate articles here. --Tone 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely agree. Using sortable tables these become completely redundant. --JayHenry 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, what should be the name of the article? Do you think it can be all incorporated into the main list of presidents? --Tone 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi... there seems to be some disagreement - and a bit of turf war - over whether to designate Obama as an X'er. Strauss and Howe do not recognize the Jones generation. Because these generational designations are taken from Strauss and Howe, it only makes sense to list Obama as an X'er. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScholarWriter (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not a Strauss and Howe chart, it is list of generations. S&H's opinions are a minority view and not accepted by most generation experts. Virtually no experts have said Obama is an GenXer, while a long list of experts have said Obama is a GenJoneser. And please see note on your talk page, ScolarWriter, about the fact that you have broken the Wiki 3RR rule. Please self-revert your fourth edit today so that it is back to Jones. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TreadingWater. Thank you for your response, but everything you have listed is quite arguable. I don't know what "experts" you are referring to, but Strauss and Howe are, indeed, respected in the area of cultural studies. That said, I strongly disagree with the validity of Generation Jones. It is not theoretically seated and refutes Raymond William's notion of "structures of feeling." I, and other scholars in my area, don't agree that Generation Jones is a grounded enough concept to use as an unmitigated fact. Strauss and Howe historically grounded the notions of the Baby Boom Generation and Generation X, so I will argue - according to that definition - that Obama should be placed under the "Generation X" category. Some might also argue that he should be placed under the "Baby Boom" category, but that's a matter of birth year. Generation Jones, because of its brevity and ahistoricism, is akin to the Beat, Rat Pack, MTV, or hip-hop generations that describe very specific subcultures, but not generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScholarWriter (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that Generation Jones is already established--by many influential experts, organizations, pollsters, and media outlets--as a valid full distinct generation between the Boomers and Xers. Strauss and Howe's views are certainly not accepted by the majority of generation of experts; many experts have strongly disagreed with S&H since they first introduced their views in 1991. Even Neil Howe referred to Obama as part of Generation Jones in a piece he wrote in The Washington Post in December. Virtually no experts have said that Obama is a GenXer. By contrast, many have said that he is a GenJoneser. Here are just some of the many prominent experts who have publicly said Obama is part of Generation Jones: David Brooks (New York Times), Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine), Roland Martin (CNN), Michael Steele (Chairman, GOPAC), Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC), Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Juan Williams (Fox News Channel), Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor), Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]), Carl Leubsdorf (Dallas Morning News), Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), and Peter Fenn (MSNBC).


 * You still have not self-reverted your fourth edit (which broke Wikipedia's Three Revert Rule). Please revert ASAP. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TreadingWater. Thanks again for your response. As someone who studies sociology and cultural studies on the doctoral level, I can't agree that the people you listed are individuals who have successfully grounded Generation Jones beyond standard popular culture references. They are not experts in any scholastic sense, but radio talk-show hosts and journalists. (Again, I refer back to Williams' "structure of feeling.") I could also site an article in which Neil Howe explicitly states that Obama is the "archetypal Gen X'er": http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hNIYcOlVvU-kzjFaRvyCKszO0Izw  Nonetheless, a simple mentioning in the press doesn't historically ground the concept of "Generation Jones." Strauss and Howe are successful in their field because they took the time to historically construct generations so that they entail a certain predictability to their work. Generation X is considered a "nomadic generation" that has come of age during an awakening and is now living their middle years during a time of crisis, and are taking action, much like the Silent Generation. Generation Jones exists, because Pontell saw a group of people who had elements of both Boomers and X'er cultures, which is a fairly standard phenomenon for those caught between any other gap between generations. I'd like to understand better what social theorists Pontell uses to ground his theories, otherwise Obama is a member of Generation X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.200.183 (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, ScholarWriter, you've established that you are very strongly a fan of S&H. The reality still remains that S&H have tried very hard since 1991 to convince other experts to buy their theories, but have generally failed. Most sociologists and other experts certainly don't agree with S&H.


 * You seem to prefer a very narrow view of these matters (e.g. only S&H's theories matter, only academics, not prominent journalists, have valid opinions, etc.). But here on Wikipedia, we go with consensus and mainstream opinion, and it is innapropriate to try to impose minority views into articles. It is not your opinion, or my opinion, that matters here. What matters is the consensus of experts, and the overwhelming evidence is that far more experts view Obama as a Joneser than an Xer. For that matter, far more experts view Obama as a Boomer than an Xer. Almost no experts have said Obama is an Xer. It is entirely against Wikipedia's interests for you to try to push your personal view into this article when the consensus of experts is so strongly against it.


 * The list of prominent journalists I've already cited is strong enough evidence to support Obama being listed as a Joneser here, as he has been for some time. These are very credible thinkers, who in most cases, have made detailed supported arguments for Obama as a Joneser. In addition to journalists, many academics and respected pollsters and other credible organizations and individuals have made strong data-backed arguments for the existence of Generation Jones. For example: Big polling firm Mason-Dixon’s major study of GenJones voters which was covered by many top media outlets. Pollster Scott Rasmussen’s study of over 20,000 voters which made important conclusions about GenJones voters. The large media company Carat’s huge research study (reportedly costing over 100,000 UK pounds) about GenJones consumers which was covered by over 20 large newspapers. The qualitative research (focus groups) done by the large UK newspaper The Independent on UK GenJones voters. Mountains of data have shown over and over that GenJones is a clearly seperate generation with demonstarbly different attitudes, values, consumer behavior, voting behavior, etc.


 * YOU HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKED TODAY TO SELF-REVERT YOUR FOURTH EDIT ON THIS PAGE. YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS REQUEST. FOR THE LAST TIME, ARE YOU GOING TO VOLUNTARILY COMPLY WITH WIKIPEDIA RULES AND SELF-REVERT YOUR LAST EDIT? TreadingWater (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no consensus here for Jones. I apologize for switching it to Boom, and have changed it to X, per the scholarly research, and common sense. Unitanode  16:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unitanode, I have asked you over and over on several pages in the last 24 hours to please research this topic rather than making uninformed and innaccurate edits. I don't understand why you continue to apparently ignore this reasonable request. If you would research it, you'd find that very few experts/scholars/analyts have said that Obama is a Boomer or Xer. By contrast, many experts/scholars/analysts have said he is a member of Generation Jones. In my contributions above, I've gone into great detail with a long list of specific prominent experts who have said Obama is a GenJoneser.TreadingWater (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have researched it, as has the editor above, and there's little, if any, scholarly research on GJ, more or less research placing it on the same level as the scholar-recognized generational splits. You have no conesus for it here, and reinserting it without consensus to do so would not be wise. Unitanode  18:38, 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) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the bigger question is whether or not we should be including these generationalist classifications at all. Generationalists like Strauss and Howe and others  are not really accepted by any main stream sociologists or historians.  They have some popular appeal, but when you classify presidents along generationalist categories it gives a stamp of legitimacy to a field of study that I don't think any serious presidential historians actually adhere to.  Frankly I'm concerned that the generations category is basically a violation of WP:FRINGE.  I would propose removing this altogether and, if there's actually generationalist literature on US presidents, perhaps including that in the generationalist articles. --JayHenry (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I could actually support this as well. What bothers me most, though, is that something (GJ) that is fringe-y within the generationalist circles is being forced into list like this. I would have no problem at all with completely removing that column. Unitanode  02:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed Obama back to GenJones, which is how it has been on this page for a long time. The fact that it has survived so many edits says something in itself. More to the point, however, is the fact that virtually no experts have said that Obama is a GenXer, while many have said that he is a GenJoneser. Finding real consensus with generational matters doesn't happen often, so I think we're left with more of a "preponderence of evidence" standard. The couple editors who have suggested that we change Jones to X here have not produced any list of experts who say Obama is an Xer. I, however, have provided a long list of experts who have said Obama is a GenJoneser, including the following: David Brooks (New York Times), Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine), Roland Martin (CNN), Michael Steele (Chairman, GOPAC), Chris Van Hollen (Chairman, DCCC), Stuart Rothenberg (Roll Call), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune), Juan Williams (Fox News Channel), Howard Wolfson (Political Advisor), Mel Martinez (U.S. Senator [R-Florida]), Carl Leubsdorf (Dallas Morning News), Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), and Peter Fenn (MSNBC).TreadingWater (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that this is all unacademic pop-sociology. The relevant authorities here are presidential historians (this list goes back to George Washington), and the examples above are just journalists using a sort of loose shorthand to talk about someone's age and cultural milieu.  I'm unaware of any presidential historians who assign a whit of meaning to these generation classifications, or have actually identified presidents along the lines described in the article.  Since it's not an accepted academic theory to begin with, it's really problematic to mix Strauss and Howe with other random generationalist ideas, labels, etc.  The pop theory about Generation Jones seems to be notable, and it would be appropriate in that article to mention that Obama is sometimes included as a GenJoneser.  Whatever.  But to make a list of presidential births include these theories gives an authority that is uncalled for.  It does a disservice to our readers. --JayHenry (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Obama is definitely NOT gen-x. The vast consensus is 1965+ is gen-x.  --Sgtkabuki (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Millard Fillmore
The table has him being born Jan 7, 1800 but also listed as being 19th century. Technically the 18th century continues through Dec 31, 1800 and the 19th century begins Jan 1, 1801. This would put him as the last President born in the 18th century instead of the first born in the 19th century. JH443 (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-editing Needed
This list is particularly inaccurate - many of the items are in the wrong order - I changed one and then noticed many others. Perhaps the editors should restrict or delay changes? (97.100.106.248 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

George Bush
Sorry I was wrong, for some reason George W. Bush is on there twice! Someone needs to fix this! I tried to-but I messed up the table (I didn't save it though) so I need someone else too! The Robot 2000 (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mine [sic; author means 'never mind']-I fixed it! The Robot 2000 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the order, but not dates
Many Presidents were out of order. Probably by someone who was bored and had nothing else to do! Didn't look through the dates, but order should be correct! January 27, 2009

Not Sorting Properly
Sort the list by OB (order of birth). Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th president. He is listed twice with the same birth date, but Benjamin Harrison, born on a different date, is sorted between the two entries for Grover Cleveland. 69.72.111.112 (talk) 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC) It is sorting the OB entries properly. The OB column entries are wrong. Try sorting by "Date of Birth". 69.72.111.112 (talk) 05:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And actually, the order of birth columns are listed incorrectly. Those born before others should have a lower number, but the numbers in that column just follow the order of office exactly for some reason - maybe carelessness produced this error - please fix! (take 1924-born Carter and Bush 41 for example) ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OB Fixed
I fixed all the OB numbers to conform to the birthdates listed. I also gave the two Grover Clevelands different Order-of-Office numbers. Do we really need two Grover Clevelands, though? This list focuses on the Presidents' births, not their tenures in office. Maybe we could just have one Cleveland with "22/24" in the Order of Office column. 68.55.166.45 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion
I wonder whether it would be helpful to add a column to the table indicating each president's presidency (e.g., Jefferson = 3; Obama = 44). This column would be closely correlated with the order of birth and years in office, but would be slightly different. See, for example, the difference at J.Q. Adams (#6, but 7th in BO) versus Jackson (#7, but 6th in BO). JohnL (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The table has a sortable column, titled "In office", which shows the dates of each president's presidency and that sorts in chronological order.Drdpw (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Title should not include place of birth
Place of birth is just one of the secondary pieces of information available. The primary sort is by date of birth, and that is the only thing that should figure in the title. I tried to move it but it needs someone with administrator-like powers. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to add visible ordinals for presidential administrations?
Please see WP:BRD. You do not have consensus. Besides, we have one president that served two non-consecutive terms. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 16:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * so we give him 2 numbers as he has it already i just want to make it easier to see which presidency it is instead of just having it tell you which came first AmYisroelChai (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I think we do as now you can't tell which presidency anyone corresponds to all you see are his years of service which doesn't tell you that unless you put it in time order and than count. 148.77.10.25 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC) — 148.77.10.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If you have a valid argument against adding visible ordinals to the existing column please state it or let the revision through. AmYisroelChai (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While the fact that "X" was "Yth" POTUS is rather irrelevant here in this article, having it within ellipses in the cells of the "In office" is fine by me. Drdpw (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)!
 * That's all I wanted AmYisroelChai (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

'The First Presidents not born at home'
I changed the sentence in this header so that it reads 'the first president born outside a home was Bill Clinton'. I then included information on every other president born in a hospital. this was reverted. Current state of the article arbitrarily considers Donald Trump a senior as president to Barack Obama, just because hes older. By that logic, if Sarah Palin became president, and then Hillary Clinton, Hillary would be the first woman president because she's older. It's just not a chronological methodology that's used at all, anywhere. Also, user who reverted removed reference to Obama birthplace. What's the point of that? And why are only the 'first three,' or rather 'first two and fourth,' presidents the 'first'? Why not the first four or five? To be grammatically correct, it should say these are the oldest presidents not born on a private residence, not the 'first'. But still, very arbitrary wording; sensibly, Clinton was the first president not born in a private residence, and all others after him were NOT the first. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your insights IronMaidenRocks. The header clearly trips over fact that 3 of the 4 most recent presidents were born in 1946 and that those 3 have served in reverse–chronological order. In doing so, it thus obscures the more important fact that Bill Clinton was the first president not to be born "at home". (BTW, Obama's inclusion was reverted because he is "the one not like the others".) The heading's attempt to employ a purely chronological methodology does indeed fall down. I taken a stab at fine-tuning the paragraph. It now states that all presidents born after World War II (Bill Clinton and every president since) have been born in a hospital. I also added a sentence (for historical context) about the shift in childbirth from home to hospital in the U.S. in the early 20th century. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a good edit. I think, though, the actual list should be reconsidered now that this edit has been made. If the list should only contain houses where presidents were born and lived (with the exception of Clinton), includes only childhood houses, or houses or hospitals where the presidents were born. The section's name, after all, is "Presidential birthplace and early childhood historic sites", not simply "childhood historic sites". I think excluding the last three presidents from the list diminishes its informative value. There's now also source data being unused by their exclusion; it would almost be easier to site these homes/hospitals than exclude them. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Trump missing
This page is out of date. It does not include President Donald Trump. It also needs to be updated to mention President Obama's forthcoming library. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManimal66 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The article does indeed include President Trump. He is #41 on the list, as he was born before 3 of his predecessors. Also, this article will not be including any mention of President Obama's forthcoming library, as it was not the site of his birth. Drdpw (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I see Trump now and understand the library situation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManimal66 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)