This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)
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))
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
To editor AmYisroelChai: 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)
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)
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)
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)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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)
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))
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
To editor AmYisroelChai: 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)
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)
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)
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)