Talk:Generation Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

This article was nominated for deletion on 15/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] 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!)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.119.204 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 17 July 2006 UTC (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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/n/Talk%7EGeneration_Jones_7e3f.html"

Talk:Generation Jones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X

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

[edit] About Resources

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search