Talk:Silent Generation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Long essay in The Star Ledger uses this article

"David Reisman and Nathan Glazer called us, and Wikipedia, the Internet encyclopedia, characterizes us in terms that range from pitiable ("the suffocated children of war and Depression") to scornful ("too late to be war heroes and too early to be youthful free spirits")." The author quoted us and probably relied on the rest of the article for research.

Lotsofissues 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Political future

Point: This generation is arguably the weakest generation in its political influence, at least in the United States. It has been a generation or refiners and ameliators, and not (with few exceptions) leaders.

It is worth remembering that two of its most promising political stars, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, were assassinated when they were still young enough to have long political careers. Where Silents led, they led by principle more than by power. Their next-senior GIs did much well and co-opted much of the Silent agenda. Their next-juniors (Boomers) learned the conscience-and-judgment game from the Silent and took off the kid gloves.

A part of the Silent persona, one that will long outlast them because of television reruns, is that of the self-effacing comic (Johnny Carson, Andy Griffith, Dick Van Dyke, Alan King, Jerry Lewis, Don Rickles, Jonathan Winters, Don Knotts, Tim Conway, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Denver, Bob Newhart, Joan Rivers, Richard Pryor) and the conscience-laden folk singer (Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul and Mary, the Everly Brothers) that does not exude power. This persona may have caused them to be taken less seriously than GIs who had an unusually long stay in the office of the Presidency of the United States (1961-1993) and the Boomers who have followed them (so far two two-term Presidents). Barring something unusual happening, the first Silent President (should one be elected in 2008, and that is unlikely) will be at least 66 when inaugurated.

Contrast the Lost, who did not reach the Presidency until 1945 (and then by a death of a President); Harry Truman was 61 and in the first wave of the Lost, but the youngest of his generation were still in their mid-40s. At the first election in which a Lost Generation candidate ran for election as President and (barely!) won, the youngest Lost were 47 and the oldest Lost were 65. By 2008 the youngest Silent will be 65 and the oldest will be 83.

This generation is fading out, and because of its small numbers, it is fading fast in its slight influence upon politics. It seems to have let others co-opt its principles. With the rapid demise of the political influence of the GI Generation and almost-equally rapid demise of what influence the Silent have ever had, American political life will much different from what we have known in the last few decades.--66.231.41.57 00:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Another lost generation

I like this page. I can identify with it because my mother and all my aunts and uncles come from this generation. In turn, they gave birth to the "Jones Generation" (that's me) - another group that never really found an identity of its own, and which is often lumped in with the Boomers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.204.72.150 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2005

Pity the poor Silent Generation... they have had to put up with the Boomers and everything that followed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.202.213 (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You must respect this generation because it may not had a president but it did more things than the baby boomers . The thing is that if it wasnt for this generation there will not be no Martin Luther King which means racism,The beatles,Jerry Garcia,BBKing,Jimi Hendrix,Maurice White founder of EWF,Tina Turner,Frank Zappa,Ray Charles,Little Richard,Dick Clark and another thing if it wasnt for this generation there will be no Michael Jackson ok

We owe this generation respect. Know there was no president from this generation,by the way fuck politics.The worst president in U.S History is a baby boomer George W Bush

And by the way im not a pre boomer im from Generation Y and I have to admit that my generation has accomplished alot less than this generation and we are more numerous than them

Mythology

Really need footnotes for most of the new statements. Everyone finds something new about this generation but nobody seems to want to document it. The latest is the divorce rate. Both for my college and Notre Dame, class of 1957, grads did marry early, but their marriage rate after 50 years is 80%. Granted both colleges were conservative. Still, the statement that this generation invented high divorce rates needs documentation from a reliable secondary source and not top of the head thing. Student7 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

silent generation merge

I think this term is used other than Strauss and Howe , and the article reflected it. As there was in my opinion no consensus to merge on the talk page--no discussion in fact of this particular one-- I am restoring it in place of the redirect. I yield to none in my lack of enthusiasm for the Generations pseudotheory, but this one is an encyclopedic subject. DGG (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG, you're too charitable~! :) These little inventions, a la Time or Newsweek, come along with great regularity. They discover and rename some group of people, sell some magazines, and move on. Pretty rare that there's any lasting effect. Big exceptions: Beat Gen, Gen X, Lost Gen... Silent Gen is super obscure. Prove me wrong fellow editors... Otherwise, I think this baby goes by the wayside. Cheers, --Dylanfly 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK--just did the check for "silent generation" on my university's journal search, which covers the breadth of anglophone journals worldwide. Out of millions of articles there are TWO articles published with that phrase in the title, one from 2001 and one from 1973

Profiling the silent generation: preferences for travel Pennington-Gray, Lori; Lane, Charles W Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 1-2, p. 73-95, (23p.), 2001 NATIONAL STUDENT ASSOCIATION IN 50S - FLAWED CONSCIENCE OF SILENT GENERATION ALTBACH, PG YOUTH & SOCIETY, vol.5, no.2, pp. 184-211, 1973

I submit to you that this is nearly proof of no WP:Notability, outside of Strauss and Howe and their fans.--Dylanfly 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your university's journal search isn't very good, because I found over 700 articles containing the phrase "silent generation" on mine, and several of them are clearly in reference to the generation that spent it's childhood during the great depression and WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.225.116 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

removal of lists of people

There has long been consensus on the various pages for the S&H generations, that there is no basis for putting these people into the generational categories there because it is not a specific characteristic to be born in a particular 20 year or so period, and that if he mentions them in his book this is not sufficient, since that would be excessively detailed content.

In contrast, if you intend to put them in as characteristic of the generation in its more general applicability, you will have to show that the particular people involved have been considered characteristic of the generation specifically in reliable sources, other than his book, which is considered not to be generally accepted by historians. They are being removed once again. Please do not insert them without consensus here. 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Strauss and HOwe

This page is still mostly Strauss and Howe with a few webpages thrown in. The Australia news source? Written by a corporate partner, not a journalist. The rest are PR releases and bad web pages. Let's see some real sources, please. Also, I thought we agreed that Strauss and Howe are mentioned on Generations (book). Writing them up extensively here seems to go against the consensus agreed upon. Smilo Don (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MIA

What bothers me about restricting this article so severely is that the stuff associated with the generation can't be discussed anywhere. For example, there were "too few" people in this group. This resulted in AARP dropping the minimum age to 50 instead of 55 otherwise (like the other groups mentioned hereafter) they would have to fire people. Insurer USAA admitted enlisted personnel to its program. For 75 years only officers were allowed. The social security cash flow problem could be avoided (delayed) since the number of people paying in (Baby Boomers) significantly outnumbered this group. As the WWII generation died off, it became easier to extend Medicare benefits which then became an extreme financial threat to government when the Baby Boomers turn 65 in 2011. An officers retirement association {now MOAA} was forced to admit active duty members. This is a microcosm of the problems caused, or ignored, during a small generations aging. Student7 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to look for more specific articles for these., or the article has the potential to includes about half the social problems in the contemporary US. .DGG (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, just a few caused by a small generation.Student7 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I’ve removed the Strauss and Howe chart, which belongs only on the Strauss and Howe page. By putting that chart on each generation page, it gives a false impression to readers that that chart represents an official or widely-accepted list of generations, which is certainly not the case. While Strauss and Howe have contributed to our knowledge about generations, their theories are still very controversial, and have become very discredited in some circles. Many generations experts, for example, strongly disagree with the long length of their generational constructs. In any event, it was very misleading to put that chart on other pages than theirs.Wendy 2012 (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see this generation is living up to its name. Not even one comment on this page until now. --Jpblo 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha i agree with you not a single one! I guess this generation doesn't have the romance of the titanic world wars of its previous 2 generations nor is it the crazy times during the next 2 generations but to tell you truthfully i admire this generation the most. Why? Proving yourself as victors of the world wars and "narcissists" as put in the article while i admire those people this generation was really a thinking one... using their mind almost like the thinkers of olden times like Leonardo Da Vinci and Plato, the great thinkers. They weren't caught up in the brutal primal struggle of war, nor crazed in the no-morals times of the latter 20th century. They quietly thought and created so much. Mole Man 12:43, 29 August 2005

Silents had early Gen Y Children

I know this is might be unusual, but I was born in 1985 but my dad was born in 1942(mom born in 1946, start of the boom) and he has a lot of the traits that is applied to them about that generation. He does have boomer tendencies also, since a lot of his musical records are from the late 60's-early 70's. In some ways, I feel alienated from everyone else my age because of upbringing, as my dad was very conservative and believed in family values.

-JoeA

There are always going to be exceptions. There were people born in 1985 who's dad was born in 1920, and, as has been mentioned here before, there were 'silents' who were quite noisy. What matters are the statistics and overall trends.bob bobato (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Content Dispute

Compared to other generations (Boom and Greatest), I dispute that is page lacks in content. More information should be used so the generations can be compared and contrasted better. Pwalker1972 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Negativity

This article could use a few citations. I've never heard the term 'silent generation' used before, it definately sounds like something made up by the G.I. generation. Also the list of celebrities doesnt really seem to back up the assertions of a generation which is "withdrawn, cautious, unimaginative, indifferent, unadventurous and silent." I wouldn't label Jimi Hendrix, B.B. King, Chuck Berry, Jerry Garcia, and Miles Davis unimaginative, MLK certainly wasn't cautious, George Carlin definately isnt indifferent and silent, and Neil Armstrong... unadventurous???? He was the first guy on the moon for christ sakes. The list of important people also seems to be longer than any other 'generation' page, especially the baby boomer page which is, not surprisingly, devoid of names. - Jan. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.246.201 (talk • contribs) 15 January 2007

I've lived with it for fifty years. You're right about the origin - GI generation. We were born during the depression and had plenty to eat but sensed our parents concern. Then the war (WWII) and pure fright from the parents again early in the war. It stuck with us. There are exceptions, as you mentioned. Yet we are the only generation in the nations history never to elect one of our own president (unless McCain makes it!  :) Most of my classmates have plugged along doing the same job for the same people for as long as they could. Not risk takers generally. Student7 01:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

McCain lost and non-of the Likely 2012 candidates are unlikely. I don't the unimaginative label fits, Strauss and Howe called them an "Artistic" generation. Stardude82 (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

The {{unreferenced|article|date=March 2007}} tag reading This article does not cite any references or sources is now patently inaccurate... any reason it shouldn't be removed? Andrewa 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. There are still NO footnotes though the changes have occured one line at a time. No one is citing references. Student7 13:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it could be replaced by an accurate tag? It's just not true to say that the article doesn't cite any references or sources. Andrewa 02:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Prepare for Merge

This article is slated for MERGE with Generations (book). Have a look there and on the Strauss and Howe talk pages if you have any questions or concerns. --Dylanfly 15:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much discussion on the other Generations "lost" "GI" etc. So I think it should stay seperate. Stardude82 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing more than Strauss and Howe Time to merge

Time to merge this page with List of generations . It is nothing more than a hodgepodge of Strauss and Howe. It is a pointless list of people born at a given time, without any scientific backing, notability, or decent references. It could be fit into the LIST of Gens, if people feel so inclined. But the time has come to get rid of this thing.

The agreement was to let the "silent generation" stand if it could have an existence apart from Strauss and Howe. It has not. Thus, it's time to merge it away. --Smilo Don (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was very easy to find lots of sources for this topic. Sourced a lot of stuff and expanded text. Additional work can be done.--Cbradshaw (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS--the Time articles can stand, and Moran's book. the others are blogs and must be removed. Even an academic course page at a university is pretty dubious--they are not edited. As you find material from published reliable sources--books or magazine articles, online or print, then add them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I re-added much of this article. With respect, I disagree that "The Australian", a national newspaper with a 40yr history is a blog. Generally, unless it is making a wild claim, I would trust an "academic course page at a University"--I wonder why you call it "pretty dubious". Another of the sources is a blog, true, but written by a Historian. It is clear you don't really support this Generational theory, which is fine; however I'm not sure if you are asserting that the timeline didn't happen to them, because there is valuable information here. Nevertheless, I added the disputed accuracy tag to appease you. I will work on finding some stronger sources, although unlike your user page suggests, I don't work in a library at a University, so my resources are limited. Cheers.--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Think about this--it's like ASTROLOGY. Being born in Late June to Late July makes you a CANCER. Good lord--what a hoax. Consider the following, typical sentence from the article: "In college or as young adults, Silents were inspired by John F. Kennedy's 1960 challenge." Oh really??? They ALL were? What baloney. We're talking about MILLIONS of people. And one of their "endowments" is "Sesame Street?" Good gawd. On what basis. This is just too silly for words. Who uses the term beyond STrauss and HOwe? I can't understand why this stands on its own. Why not merge? Smilo Don (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. Thanks for your comments. I even appreciate what you're saying about your belief, or rather disbelief in this theory. I don't know about S/H (haven't read it), but in researching this article to get the references, clearly a lot of people do support this theory. As I'm sure you realize, WP is not a debunking site, or a place for an editor to eliminate things that s/he doesn't believe in. It is a collection of information. For example, one of the referenced websites was for people who identify themselves as Silent Generation to hobnob with their peers. I don't know if "millions" of people agree with that, but enough do to maintain that site.

If you look at the first (1951) Time Magazine article, the author even acknowledges in the intro that not "all people" will meet all requirements of Generational theory; but many of them will, and therefore fit general patterns that are being described. I'm a Gen X person, and not all adjectives used to describe them fit me, but I still consider myself Gen X. As for your specific critiques, well, I believe Sesame Street was a pretty influential show for people of my generation. I didn't add that to the article, but I agree with it. Were not the first rush of people in the influential Peace Corps of this generation? Has that particular phenomenon been so important before or since? I don't think so. And does anyone other than S/H use this term: an unequivocal yes. Many may be using it because of some vague knowledge of S/H, but nevertheless, they use it.

Let's look at this another way: Are you deleting all the articles on Astrology? If not, you should get on it. My advice to you is if you feel so strongly about it, write a section or article documenting critical debunking of the theory. You will have to ...ahem...source that of course. In my first 70 or so articles, I didn't see any discourse to that effect, but I'm sure someone's written about that somewhere. There were hundreds more hits.

One more thing, for you, I looked into the possibility of merging, but I found that article to have inadequate information. I'm not going to bother with that article, but why don't you just not come to this page rather than constantly trying to delete it? Anyway, I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree, but I admire your tenacity. Cheers,Cbradshaw (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I thought these might be useful to review. Thanks again and cheers--Cbradshaw (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• NPOV: Pseudoscience
• NPOV: Undue weight
• NPOV: Making necessary assumptions
• NPOV: Giving "equal validity"

well,the only conventional reliable source you seem to have for the S&H material is an article in The Australian, and that is not enough to carry the weight of the material being related to S&H, since it does not even mention them. I have no objection to a paragraph on S&H, but you will have to remove the material supported only by blogs and the like. But on the other hand the list of icons should go--we do not usually have such content. Integrate a few into the paragraph if you can find sources. I find it if anything rather ironically amusing that these extremely distinctive people are associated with anything called a "silent" generation--a reason why i personally think such theories drastic oversimplifications. But go by the sources -- good reliable published sources. Published, not self-published.DGG (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm going to work on this article in the next few days, but I won't have time for a day or two. --Cbradshaw (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Silent Generation Article article discussion continued:

You removed an entire article about the Silent Generation. Please restore it or we'll need to go to the admin board. Thanks.172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is there a particular reason we need dozens of lengthy articles repeating Strauss & Howe's ideas as fact? Do you some reason to believe that "the admin board" will automatically restore reams of crappy content? Alas, sometimes the best quality-control tool is an axe. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

More pragmatically, the neutral point of view noticeboard might be a better place to discuss this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe did not create the term "Silent Generation". Time magazine in 1951 ran an important story about it -- and you removed it completely. You can't just remove an article (and all the references) by merging the term into another article (why didn't you add the references too?).

If you want to move the reference to Strauss and Howe in the first sentence then go ahead. That answers you're NPOV claim. But the term has been in use for many decades. In fact, Google shows about 94,000,000 results for the term Silent Generation. By merging it you're claiming it's just part of the S&H theory -- which it is not. Please restore it immediately. Thank you. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello?172.250.31.151 (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've unredirected it on the basis of the Time article, without any Strauss/Howe. Is that better? However, it would benefit from coverage from other angles. bobrayner (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.250.31.151 (talk)

Nonsensical

"Silent Generation is a label for the generation of Americans born from 1925–1942 notably during the Great Depression (1929–1939) and World War II (1939–1945).[1]"

The third time interval doesn't lie within the first.

Also, I've never heard the term "silent generation".

There seems to be no name for babies born after WWII, but before 1946. They are not Silent Generation, not War Babies, not Baby Boomers...then what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77Mike77 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Y.Woodman.Brown (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Great Generation

The 'generation' of people born between the ends of World Wars I and II (1920 - 1945) have always been known as the 'Great Generation'. This is because they are children of those men who procreated following the Great War...a great deal of whom were WWI veterans. The term, 'silent' is a pure Strauss-Howe construct and holds no validity outside of their mind-set. That the authors of this page, thus far, haven't generational experience or education enough to realize this amounts to an ignorance that ought never have been the basis for changing the title of both this generation and this page.

So, I quite correctly restored the proper title.

The info within this page needs step outside of the Strauss-Howe spectrum...as their book is essentially based on their opinions and these opinions are both widely disputed and fill only a very narrow range of generational knowledge. The content of this page needs be academically deepened and expanded to answer a few basic questions:

1) What are the global commonalities or characteristics of people born into the Great Generation?

2) What is the point of listing famous people of this generation without showing how the characteristics of that generation contributed to their rise to prominence?

3) Why are they also known as 'the lucky few'?

4) What was their major contribution to civilization? In what direction did they move global society.

5) So then, in what condition did they seek to shape the world at the time that the Boomer generation decided that this was not the condition they desired and began to usurp and redirect the Great Generation's 'accomplishments' via their booming numbers and consumer dollars?

I have, of course, more work to do herein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y.Woodman.Brown (talk • contribs)

We already have a Greatest Generation article. If you think the two articles should be merged, please start a merge discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Name addition

We have two sources on the article page who write that the Silent Generation's last birth dates are either 1942 or 1946. Does anyone have objections to adding Joe Biden's name who was born in 1942 to the discussion about U.S. Vice Presidents? See Joe Biden.64.183.42.42 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

unreferenced notable people section

I've added the unreferenced template to the notable people section. As wikipedia editors, we shouldn't decide who are the notable people of this generation, based on personal opinions. We should rely on reliable sources. This is harder with older generations, but Strauss & Howe and others have written multiple books about the older generations and make reference to many notable people and I will try to add references as I go through these books. Please do not remove this tag unless the issue is resolved. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. I think you're misunderstanding the situation, but the terms used in the article aren't helping. In Wikipedia parlance, notability is something determined by a sometimes complex metric to determine who gets an article and who doesn't. This is frequently carried over into "List of..."-type articles, where eligibility for inclusion is based on having an article. As I see it, this is slightly different, since it's in paragraph form, not a list exactly. If your rationale for the tag is that the people listed there aren't notable unless a source meeting WP:RS says they are, then we have a problem because few sources will use the exact word "notable", so you end up using a different standard for what the word means. What I think we're after in this article is a short list (in paragraph form) of people who happen to be extremely noteworthy, i.e., well-known and historically important. There's bound to be some subjectivity involved in keeping that list to a manageable size, and I don't see one or more sources helping with that. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 00:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the reliable sources have to include the word "notable", I'm saying the section should be based on reliable sources. This is basic Wikipedia policy. The section is currently completely unreferenced. I think you make a good point about the paragraph format, and I think the way to correct this is to utilize reliable sources to expand these paragraphs into informative paragraphs, rather than little more than unreferenced lists in paragraph format. We can expand these paragraphs to include what reliable sources say is distinct about the Silent Generation, with respect to the various categories of notable people listed. For example, there's much written about the Silent Generation with respect to the civil rights movement and politics, with specific examples provided--DynaGirl (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

removed exact ages from lead

Seems we shouldn't add exact current ages of those in Silent Generation to the lead, because the exact dates used by researchers and demographers vary. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Current ages should never be added (except in a template where it will change automatically). If we don't list any dates at all, then it's going to be impossible to control who gets added by way of example. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

There has never been an issue with not listing any dates at all. Date ranges are currently included in the lead and have been included in lead longterm. The text addressing this is "demographers and researchers typically use starting dates ranging from the mid-to-late 1920s and ending dates ranging from the early-to-mid-1940s."--DynaGirl (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a horribly US centric article

This article is a typical example of US centrism. The lead claims this is merely "the demographic cohort" of a certain era and does not restrict it to a particular country, but then the body of the article continues in-universe "While there were many civil rights leaders, [...] As young adults during the McCarthy Era" and so on and so forth, with reference to an exclusively US context that is not relevant to any other country. --Tataral (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Please don't add to lead that this topic is limited to the US, as this is an international topic I added the Globalize template to encourage editors to add more international content to the article.--DynaGirl (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of referenced content

Could the IPs who geolocate to same location, please stop removing Joe Biden from the notable people section. There's no explanation for this removal and you're removing the only referenced content in that section. Also, please stop removing section maintenance templates without explanation or discussion. Additionally, because section is no longer completely unreferenced, I changed unreferenced section template to the Refimprove template. --DynaGirl (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Completely Disagree with this Designation

Some like Pew use this designation, but it makes absolutely NO sense. Splitting this generation in two by calling the older cohort (1928-1938) the "depression babies" and the later cohort the "war baby" generation (1939-1945) makes far more sense. It was the war baby cohort who was really on the forefront of the youth, antiwar, and civil rights movements of the 1960s, not the baby boomers but for the very oldest. They were hardly the "silent generation." sn 16 December 2018

Who says they are called this? On what scholarly basis and who is claiming credit for it? This designation is entirely inaccurate and inappropriate. I don't think many of them were silent, if you knew them, as I did. In my own family, I would term them the "Great Depression Babies" instead, as far more descriptive and appropriate, even outside the USA. They carried that scar, too, into every value expressed in their lives. I will begin using my more accurate designation in my own books and writings. [note for historical record]Starhistory22 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Read the article. The term was coined in 1951 by Time magazine, to refer to a new generation with supposedly limited ambitions but having the ability to "make the best of bad situations". The main problem is that most of them were still underage at the time. Several members of this generation (as adults) turned out to be not so-Silent, nor did they lack in ambition after all. The term stuck however.

For the original Time article read: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,856950,00.html

"Youth today is waiting for the hand of fate to fall on its shoulders, meanwhile working fairly hard and saying almost nothing. The most startling fact about the younger generation is its silence. With some rare exceptions, youth is nowhere near the rostrum. By comparison with the Flaming Youth of their fathers & mothers, today's younger generation is a still, small flame. It does not issue manifestoes, make speeches or carry posters. It has been called the "Silent Generation." But what does the silence mean? What, if anything, does it hide? Or are youth's elders merely hard of hearing?" Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

--It is not an accurate description of this population. The latter cohort of the war babies was anything but "silent."

Topic is not limited to US

HiLo48, please do not add to the opening section of the lead that "The Silent Generation is a name used in the United States for the population cohort following the G.I. Generation." Per sources the Silent Generation is an international topic. Please see Resolution Foundation's report Cross Countries: International comparisons of international trends [1]. Please also see talk:G.I. Generation [2].DynaGirl (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The obvious problem, which it seems I'm finding it extremely difficult to get you to comprehend, is the "GI" bit. Any mention of that makes it American. Do you actually understand? I have no problem with "Silent Generation", but we should define it globally, not in terms of something purely American. If we can't, we highlight that the definition is American. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's standard for the demographic cohort articles to list the cohort which precedes it. There are multiple non-American sources in the current Silent Generation article that make clear this topic not limited to the U.S. If you have concerns with the name "G.I. Generation" please provide suggestions on talk:G.I. Generation for possible name change based on reliable sources. DynaGirl (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have updated the article to highlight that the definition is a purely American one. That is accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

DynaGirl - I don't know what article you're referring to with your Edit summary, but it cannot be correct to use the term GI generation to describe anything outside the USA. "GI" is a purely American term. .It makes no sense to use use it in reference to those from other countries HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

End date

"There are no precise dates for when The Silent Generation starts or ends..."

Actually, the dividing line between this generation and the Boomers is probably the brightest line we have for any of these generation articles: the end of World War 2. Sound fair? Dontreadalone (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I personally very strongly agree. Though one could argue it really began nine months later, but that's a minor quibble. However, over at the Baby boomer article, and on its Talk page, you will see that there isn't such simple agreement. Apparently a couple of authors have claimed it began earlier. No idea why. HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks HiLo. I will read relevant talk pages and drop a further note before jumping in with edits.

As for the super precise starting point, 1946 began eight months after VE Day. That seems fair enough to me. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

As someone from Australia, which was more involved with Japan at the end of the war, I would go for a few months later. My dad wasn't de-mobbed until early 1946, and married the girl he met during the war in early 1947 - a very typical story. But 1946 works fine for me. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2018

Add the APOLLO ASTRONAUTS to the NOTABLE FIGURES section. 2601:183:C902:55B0:8553:E86:9353:679D (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Birth rate during World War II

This article states that America's birth rate declined during the Depression and World War II. That's true about the Depression years, but U.S. set records for highest number of births in 1942 and 1943 and had consistently high numbers of births (compared to the Depression years) throughout the 1940s, not just after World War II ended.96.242.236.8 (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Notable Figures

Can we remove the Notable Figures section? The section only has one source, and it is unlikely that we can come to a consensus on who out of the thousands of famous people from each generation is notable enough to be included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Incolor Shade, you did not give a reason for your reversion. I believe we should eliminate the Notable Figures sections to be consistent with WP Millennials, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

World War 2 Babies

I think a case can be made that the Silent Generation in USA ended with start of World War 2, when many fathers started becoming absent, away at war. Then there would be this WW 2 generation of persons born during World War 2, a short period, but distinctive period, 1941-45. This group would precede the Boomers. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC))

If you find secondary sources who describe this concept, and you find that it is a popular idea, it makes sense to include it. The Pew defined generations are the most popular, and here the Silent Generation ends in 1945. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Traditionalists"

The Silent Generation is often referred to as Traditionalists, but I don't know how much weight to give the term. Some sources just group everyone older than Baby boomers under that name. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2019

The last two words of the first paragraph of the section titled TERMINOLOGY are "Silent Majority". That includes the scare quotes. Which are insufficient in this instance.

The word alleged should be placed immediately before that phrase, as the "Silent Majority" has never been shown to exist. It has only been alleged to exist. In order to use the voting power of the alleged silent masses to foist religion upon strangers. Strangers who happen to loudly protest that foisting. And thus must therefore be ignored (because godless, therefore rightless). In favor of the imaginary "silent majority", which, naturally, is patently religious.

Let us not immortalize the success of the religious right in the Wikipedia.

Thanks. Kurtis Engle (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Those words, being in blue, are a hyperlink to the article titled Silent majority. That article effectively clarifies that it isn't necessarily a majority. HiLo48 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

We can't decide how to write this article based on an article that is linked to. We need better sources than National Review to establish the connection between the Silent Generation and the "silent majority". If the word "alleged" is used in reliable sources then we may use that word. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I now have two concerns. Firstly, it seems a bit weird in a Wikipedia article to be demanding a citation right beside a citation. Secondly, use of the term "silent majority" does not explicitly mean a real majority. As the article on it says, it is more a political term used by conservatives to argue, usually without ever presenting any evidence at all, that a majority of people agree with them. There is no need for Wikipedia to play that linguistic game. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am focused on the word silent in silent majority.  Do RS make a connection with the generation?  I will try to find access to the 1951 Time article.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

That article didn't mention "silent majority". We'll have to keep looking.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019

My request is to add the following text below the "Terminology" section and above the "Date and age range definitions" section. (My reason for this is to give this oft ignored generation their due. I have researched the birth years given and all are correct.)

Contribution to the the 1960's Counterculture Many individuals who were seminal in the art and ideas of the Counterculture of the 1960’s were members of the Silent Generation, including: 1. Bob Dylan, musician (born, 1942) 2. Joan Baez, musician (born, 1941) 3. Mick Jagger, musician, the Rolling Stones (born, 1943) 4. Keith Richards, musician, the Rolling Stones (born, 1943) 5. Paul McCartney, musician, the Beatles (born, 1942) 6. George Harrison, musician, the Beatles (born, 1943) 7. Ringo Starr, musician, the Beatles (born, 1940) 8. John Lennon, musician, the Beatles (born, 1940) 9. Janis Joplin, musician (born, 1943) 10. Roger McGuin, musician, the Byrds (born, 1942) 11. Judy Collins, musician (born, 1939) 12. Joni Mitchell, musician (born, 1943) 13. Buddy Holly, musician (born, 1936) 14. Ken Kesey, novelist One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (born, 1939) 15. Baba Ram Dess, writer Be Here Now (born, 1941) 16. Allen Ginsberg, poet “Howl,” “Kaddish” (born, 1926) 17. Carlos Catenada, writer The Teachings of Don Juan (born, 1925) 18. Micheal Harrington, writer, The Other America, (born, 1928) 19. Mario Savio, student activist, The Free Speech Movement (born, 1942) 20. Dr. Martin Luther King, Civil Rights leader (born 1929) 21. Bobby Seale, Black Panthers (born, 1936) 22. Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panthers, author Soul on Ice (born, 1935) 23. Huey Newton, Black Panther, author Revolutionary Suicide (born, 1942) 24. Muhammed Ali, boxer, draft resistor (born, 1942) 25. Malcolm X, Muslim separatist leader (born, 1925) Roland.Menge (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not add lists of people to generations articles.[3]  Certain Australian IPs have been edit warring for years trying to add lists back to these articles and to change the birth range.

Roland.Menge, are you in Australia and do you have a connection to Mccrindle Research?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

lede

removed original research statement in the lede, if anyone has articles backing it up then please add them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.43.88 (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you actually read the Edit note attached to the text you deleted, before you deleted it? It said "This ending birth year is based on the sources given in the text below; please seek talk page consensus BEFORE changing." (My emphasis.) It didn't take me long to find such a source, and there appear to be several more. I will revert your deletion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Demographics figure

The demographics graph needs more information to be interpretable. If blue is numbers born, and orange is projected size in 2019, how can the projected size exceed the number born? I don’t have the data so, unfortunately, I can’t recommend any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:844:4180:B510:8095:A6F:1853:C835 (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)