This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theGeneration Jones article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article must adhere to thebiographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced orpoorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentiallylibellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue tothis noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please seethis help page.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofsociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
After seeing this edit, I searched for "Trailing-Edge Boomers" on Google, and a few other search engines. It has very little usage; much less than "Generation Jones". So I removed it for accuracy sake.-- 23:48, 11 June 2021 69.3.119.202
This an encyclopedia article, and for terms to be appropriately included, there needs to be a basic level of notability. The terms Baby X's, Tweeners and Boomerex are used by virtually nobody. Google them and you will quickly see that these names have not caught on in even the tiniest way. Tweeners is a term usually used to describe young people between childhood and adolescence. It is ocassionally used for cusp generations but not specifically for Gen Jones. The Stone article referenced is from 30 years ago (!) and the term never caught on for Gen Jones at all. The other two terms have no actual usage other than a small handful of people, if that. Sure, you can always find a term used by a couple people, but to be appropriate for a Wiki article, the usage needs to be much more than that (like Generation Jones, a term used by millions of people worldwide). Please check the notability rules for Wiki. Thank you.— Precedingunsigned comment added by98.152.247.170 (talk)18:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tail-end baby boomers had different experiences from middle-of-the-bulge baby boomers -- they were in elementary school or junior high during the 1960s etc. etc.AnonMoos (talk)07:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generation Jones was sort-of seen as a compromise to moving early '60s births to Generation X. A sub-Generation was created to connect them to those born in the late '50s which they likely have things in common with. Either way Generation Jones is a sub-Generation and not a Generation of it's own.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2600:1002:B00A:CD93:71AA:8F9D:1307:F3C3 (talk)05:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Moving early '60s births to Generation X"? AFAICR, that was theoriginal definitionof Generation X!
For one thing, that was what all the talk was about when Coupland's original novel of the same name came out. Can't recall if it was mentioned in the novel itself, or some collateral material like back-of-cover blurbs or interviews with the author, or whatever, but that was how the then-new concept was originally defined. For another, as I recall it back in 2008-09, the media were full of articles hailing Obama as "the first Gen-X President". He was born in, what, 1961? 62?
So, whether there is a "Generation Jones" or not, if it is a sub-Generation of anything, it's of Generation X, not the Baby Boomers. And if it doesn't exist, then we're just plain Generation X-ers like the rest of them -- certainly not fucking Boomers.
Many of these responses were not written by Jonesy's. You have to be a jonesy to understand how we cannont be associated with the baby boommers. I was born in 1961.98.109.109.95 (talk)16:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you research Generation Jones, you find that it is almost always described as a distinct generation, NOT a cusp generation. Easily over 90% of articles and other reliable sources refer to Gen Jones as a generation. That there are a few rare, isolated examples of Gen Jones referred to as a cusp generation doesn’t change the clear and unequivocal fact that almost all experts, writers, sociologists, demographers, journalists, etc., etc., refer to Gen Jones as a distinct generation. I could list literally hundreds of articles here describing Gen Jones as a generation, while very few credible publications ever refer to it as a cusp generation. Here are just a few examples of major mainstream credible publications referring to Gen Jones as a generation. The word “cusp” doesn’t appear in any of these articles:
The articlehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers cites many references for 1946-1964. Of all the generational ranges, that one is the least controversial and really is the one from which all others use as a reference. Since "cusper" is controversial, the controversy and the differing opinions should be laid out in this article.Michaelmalak (talk)23:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 1946-1964 traditional baby boom birth years have become very controversial in recent years. Among the top experts, like sociologists who specialize in generations, those birth years are widely-discredited because they were based on birth rates. But generations stem from shared formative experiences, not head counts. No generation before or since the Boomers was ever based on birth rates. Most experts see gens now as approximately 10 to 15 years long. Most of these experts see Gen Jones (12 years, 1954-1965) as a bona fide distinct gen, but there are some in the media who see Gen Jones differently. In the lead paragraph of this article, it accurately explains the options: distinct gen, subset of Boomers, or micro/cusp gen.— Precedingunsigned comment added byGlassLadyBug (talk •contribs)21:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A similar chart was on this page awhile ago, and the consensus was that it should be removed. It doesn't include Generation Jones on the main chart which creates immediate confusion. Further, it reduces Gen Jones to a mini or cusp generation, which most experts disagree with. Most actual generation experts (sociologists, et al) clearly see Generation Jones as a full bona fide generation. If you research this, you'll quickly see it's true. This chart is flawed and should be changed to include Generation Jones. In the meantime, this flawed chart should not be on this page. This is why it was removed before. I think it makes sense to remove it now (given the controversy, and the fact that most experts don't agree with it) and then there should be a discussion about the chart itself, which will likely result in updating the chart to reflect current expert opinion in including Generation Jones.GlassLadyBug (talk)17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, see above section titled "Gen Jones is definitely NOT a cusp generation" for many examples of reliable sources emphatically saying that Gen Jones is not a cusp or mini generation, but rather a full generation, like Boomers or Xers.GlassLadyBug (talk)17:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "chart" you removed isn't a chart; it's a sidebar for the series of articles about social generations. The graphic for that sidebar doesn't show any of the cusp generations.Should you ever get consensus here that Generation Jones is now considered a main generation rather than a cusp or micro-generation, you can suggest changes to the sidebar atTemplate talk:Generations sidebar. (I think you're more likely to gain that consensus by providing academic sources that have reached that conclusion. Popular use (especially social media) won't be enough.) Or you could suggest on that sidebar talk page that the graphic be modified to include the cusp generations.Schazjmd(talk)18:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a good argument and I'm inclined to agree that Gen Jones is a full generation, but I don't see any consensus here about removing the chart much less the entire sidebar which I believe provides useful context. The best course of action is to get the graphic modified or produced in an alternate version containing Gen Jones, and you are best equipped to lead that discussion atTemplate talk:Generations sidebar. Otherwise you'll be forever playing Whack-A-Mole trying to keep the current chart off this page. Meanwhile I think we should at least restore the sidebar with only the generations wikilinks list, adding the name of Gen Jones in the appropriate spot.Jōkepedia (talk)18:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your approach here is generally appropriate, Jokepedia. I just started a discussion about this here: Template talk:Generations sidebar. Hopefully, this can be resolved soon. I tried but couldn't figure out how to add Gen Jones to the generations wikilinks list. In the meantime, it seems clear to me, and the few people I discussed this with, that this sidebar shouldn't be on the Generation Jones page until this gets fixed. I respectfully ask any editor to not get into a Whack-A-Mole with this sidebar on this page, deleting it/adding it/ etc. Let's get the sidebar fixed per a consensus. In the meantime, let's not have a sidebar on this page that is inaccurate and confusing. Thanks.72.104.125.35 (talk)21:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will keep coming back, and most of the editors doing that won't even join this discussion. And honestly, although I suggested manually recreating the sidebar with a custom list, someone will always replace that with the official sidebar too. Thanks for starting the discussion on the template page. Since Gen Jones is listed there under Cusp Groups, you'll have an uphill battle but there is plenty of ammunition in the article and in the long list of links in the previous Talk topic here.Jōkepedia (talk)02:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that the discussion on the template talk page will progress. Its heading talks about "omission", when it isn't omitted. Any editor seeing that discussion without being aware of the previous discussions on this talk page will simply see an editor saying Jones should be listed and someone else pointing out it's listed in the cusp generations. It looks asked-and-answered.The discussion on the template talk page needs to explicitly suggestmoving Jones from cusp to full generation, AND provide sufficient academic sources supporting that classification to convince other editors.Schazjmd(talk)13:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A new topic should be started there, and a serious reference-laden argument needs to be made. But for the record I do not object to leaving the existing sidebar on this page in the meantime, and as I've said removing it now is not productive because it will be back within a week or two at most.Jōkepedia (talk)16:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those who say that generations sidebar should include Gen Jones, but until it does, that sidebar should not be on the Generation Jones page.12.55.184.238 (talk)21:04, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree as well that this sidebar does not belong on the Generation Jones page in its current iteration. I'm not particularly concerned about a wack-a-mole situation evolving in which it keeps going up and down, because when I just reviewed the history of this page, it looks like there have not been many attempts to put that sidebar on this page. Ideally, we can get Generation Jones added to that sidebar where it belongs. I just poked around a bit trying to figure out where the talk page is for that sidebar, but I haven't found it and need to deal with other stuff right now. I'll look another time for that and hopefully, I, along with others, can fix that sidebar so it includes Generation Jones. When you review the current state of thinking among the top generational experts, it is obvious that Generation Jones has become accepted widely enough at this point that it should, for accuracy, be included on this sidebar.172.251.58.0 (talk)14:53, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That sidebar is ridiculous. Anyone who is knowledgeable about generations knows that Generation Jones is now widely accepted by experts as a distinct generation. That sidebar needs to be changed to include Generation Jones. Without Generation Jones, that sidebar can't be taken seriously. And further... that sidebar should definitely not be included in this Generation Jones article until it includes Generation Jones.199.36.244.156 (talk)22:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
