Talk:The Greatest Generation (book)

message: 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) 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 77Mike77, this was discussed below.  See my comment that begins with "I empathize."  It may be best to only use the word "demographic" in the lead of WP Baby Boomers because that generation is consistent with a "demographic event".  The rest of the generations are demographics in the sense that they are all the same birth cohort, but it's not the best use of the word.  "Generational cohort" or "social cohort" would be better (but the word "generation" is repetitive.)  I agree with you that the phrase "Greatest Generation" is ridiculous, but as I argued below, this is the reality of the name, and the appropriate way to handle the ridiculousness of the name is to find published criticism and include it in the article, if it has proper weight.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed chart

message: Mention of putting a man on the moon as a contribution to this generation? - Unsigned noted on 09:03, 19 July 2006 by user:68.59.109.121
No. No applicability to the meaning and purpose of the term, which really only reflects their war stamina and dedication. Softlavender 03:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Man on the moon

message: I thought the term really applied to anyone who was old enough to serve in WWII.  Since you could legally enlist at 18 anyone born prior to 1927 fits the bill.  I think all the combat veterans born in 1925, 1926 and 1927 would be surprised to realize they're not considered part of this generation.  Was the year 1924 actually suggested as a bound by one of the sources?  Or was this just someone's back-of-a-napkin math?  1945 - 21??  I read Brokaw's book years ago, but I'm fairly certain it would certainly apply to any combat veteran. --JayHenry 17:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1924? 

message: Was this referred to as "Greatest Generation" before Brokaw's book?  If not, what was the terminology used for this generation before then?  --Logotu (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm - Andy Rooney's "My War" (1995) predates Brokaws book (1998), though I think the term was already running around in the mid-90's era theme of Gen X and Y and Z.  Think Rush Limbaugh was using it in early 90s.  It seems to have had some use as a general term of opinion e.g. a 1951 book that used it to applaud post-war the couple of decades accomplishments just past and late-60s the term was used for the Boomers.  And I've seen someone say that in the Generation#List_of_generations that Lost Generation and Silent Generation both had names significantly before the Baby Boomers got named so this one seems like would have had a name too.  I think I'll post and edit wording a bit.  Markbassett (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Is this necessarily only US citizens from that era? Many people from other countries would consider the people who fought in both world wars to be their greatest generation, it's a term I've heard meritorious times to refer those from my country at that time. Especially since many other countries fought in WW1 and WW2 twice as long (from the beginning of the wars) than most US soldiers Thoughts?--72.139.35.107 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: World POV

message: I may be missing something, but the "US Presidents" section goes like this:
Seven consecutive U.S. presidents were from this generation: George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy.  President Jimmy Carter was a midshipman in the United States Naval Academy during the war.
They all served in WWII except for Johnson.  Why mention only Carter's naval service?Originalname37 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why only Carter's WWII service? 

message: Now that the article is just about Brokaw's term, does he define year parameters? I see some reviewers give 1900-1920 and some give 1910-1925. I don't have access to the book though so I don't know if he ever proposes specifics. Sylvain1972 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates

message: Dwight D. Eisenhower was a hero of World War II, but he was born in 1890. Wouldn't that make him a member of the Lost Generation instead of this one? ---Eman91
Correct. He was a member of the Lost Generation just like MacArthur, Patton, and most of the other WWII generals. 208.101.138.126 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eisenhower mentioned on page 

message: I am struggling a little to understand the purpose or intent of the "Recruits" section. It consists of only two quotes without explanation. It seems like it might be intended to act as a sort of criticism of the "greatest generation" terminology, but it doesn't really make this clear. Anthropoidape (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is strange, like its own little critical essay using citations of sources that don't have anything to do with Brokaw's book. I think it should be removed, or made to include criticisms of the actual work. — Henry chianski (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recruits section 

message: Which people did Tom Brokaw cite? Is Cyd Charisse part of the cohort or just someone who tookthe trouble to be born aound that time.
This comment is in no way meant to downplay or belittle the tremendous skill, dedication, and hardwork Ms. Charisse showed during her hoofing career. Stikko (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous members 

message: It was mentioned that Howe and Strauss used the term G.I. generation for a British group of cohorts. However, their book on generations uses the term "G.I. Generation" for american cohorts born 1901 to 1924. I made changes to reflect this and included citations.Corenabh (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howe and Strauss references 

message: It's a bit much. And none of the other generations contain such a list. Est300 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed. The list is either going to be arbitrary or thousands of names long. I will be bold.Wormcast (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. An incomplete and arbitrary list still has educative value, as a jumping off point for further investigation. Please consider restoring it. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wormcast makes a good point; such lists tend to fill up with unmanageable cruft. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Letting it go. Thanks for responding  --Greenmaven (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete "Famous Members" Section? 

message: In 2013, as I read the data on [], some 5,493,433 Americans over the age of 85 were still alive. I'm wondering how many of those remaining served in the military in WWII.  Can someone put a better estimate together? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Terry Thorgard about 400,000 WW2 veterans of WW2 are alive in 2019.  If you bing number of ww ii veterans alive, you’ll see a quora post and mentions of VA numbers.  Basically even if they were 17 and joined at the end in 1945 that would make them 90 today, so you’re looking at the survival rates for 90+ males.  Markbassett (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for a section about population still alive 

message: This article does not even define its topic in a way that is understood immediately even by readers who are not American, and not for want of possibility. I am very well aware that sociological generations cannot be delimited sharply, so I do not insist on a definition such as "born between 1901 and 1924", but an observation along the lines of "there is no precise widely agreed-upon definition, but it can generally be said to refer to the generation born in the early 20th century (or: at the beginning of the 20th century, roughly in the first quarter of the 20th century)" should be possible without problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The origin statement of the first line is not supported by the cite.  The cite says only he wrote a book by that name.
"Brokaw went on to chart their personal narratives of sacrifice, friendship and small-town heroism in his best-selling work, The Greatest Generation." 
This is not saying that he made the term as the line says "The Greatest Generation is a term created by journalist Tom Brokaw".    I'll move the cite down to External links.  Since the List of generations seems to be long standing, and there is no support to indicate origin with him ...  I'm also going to alter the phrasing to Brokaw made it currently popular instead. Markbassett (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate cite and .., origin vice popularized 

message: What birth years does the "Greatest Generation" fall into? There is currently no birth range given. It says they grew up during the depression, but according to the dates given on our Wikipedia article for the Silent Generation (mid 20s to mid 40s), the Silent Generation were the young children of the depression. Seems we need additional sources and text to clarify this. I recently removed an image which said they were the children of the depression, because it seemed inaccurate, but I actually have no objection to an image of the depression being in this article, if it's clarified where the Greatest Generation falls into the depression (perhaps they were older children and adolescents during the depression while the Silent Generation were young children and/or born during the depression). Rough dates for this generation would help clarify things and make it easier to accurately illustrate. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this which lists the Greatest Generation as those born between 1901-1924. These dates would help clarify that the greatest generation were children or young adults during the great depression which occurred between 1929-1939, but I'm not sure if it's a good enough source for wikipedia. Does anyone have any objection to adding the dates 1901-1924 with this source?  http://people.howstuffworks.com/culture-traditions/generation-gaps/greatest-generation1.htm --DynaGirl (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth years needed for this article & image of depression 

message: The large amount of evidence provided by our historians reveal that the "Greatest Generation" were involved with numerous war crimes against civilians and prisoners of war, as well as numerous rapes during service in both Europe and Japan during WWII.  Many shameful acts and atrocities have been written in great detail on the "take no prisoners" concept that many of the Greatest Generation Soldiers did, offering no quarter to disarmed and surrendered combatants.  It can't compare to the greater generation of American Soldiers in this current generation who have been involved in the longest wars in U.S. history, with the nearly absent involvement of war crimes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:9081:B100:EC31:53EA:6EF1:2E8F (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe Not the Greatest Generation 

message: requested move/dated|G.I. Generation
:Greatest Generation →  – The Greatest Generation is a term coined by Tom Brokaw to refer to those who grew up in US during the depression, and then went on to defeat Hitler in WWII.  But generations are international topics. The birth years of this generation (approximately 1901–1924) includes not just the young adults of the time who worked to defeat Hitler, but these birth years also includes those who fought for Hitler in Germany and also the young adults of the other Axis nations of the time fighting against the US such as Japan and Italy, whom Brokaw was not referring to as the Greatest Generation. Notable demographers Strauss & Howe call this cohort the G.I. Generation, which seems more neutral and accurate as a title. This article is currently titled the Greatest Generation and G.I. Generation redirects here. I think that should be switched. The article should be titled G.I. Generation and Greatest Generation should redirect here. DynaGirl (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Generations are multinational topics the term "Greatest Generation" is specific to the US. Check out the articles on other generations. None of them are exclusive to the US. Also, I've edited the article, but G.I. Generation was already in there and also, my edits included practical things like adding birth years and editing it so the reflist was under a header that said "references" instead of "notes", but frankly, the article really needs a lot of work to globalize it. Maybe the articles could be split.  One article about Brokaw's book and another article about the demographic cohort born between 1901-1924. --DynaGirl (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But this article is not about a global topic.  It's about Brokaw's term and book.  And even if you make it about the G.I. term, it's still about the American generation.  I don't see any way to globalize this topic.  You could start a new article if there's a global generation to describe. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually about both, because G.I. Generation, which is a demographic cohort from Strauss–Howe generational theory was already in there, and this article is also linked in Template:Cultural gens, which is included at the bottom of other demographic cohort articles like Generation X and Millennials. Maybe we could leave this article as one about Brokaw's term and book and create a new article called G.I. Generation which could address the topic of the multi-national demographic cohort of people born between 1901-1924. Such an article could certainly be globalized considering there's plenty written about the WWII generation in other countries.-DynaGirl (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that's a better idea.  If you look at the history of this article, it has always been about the term, and the original version specifically contrasted its meaning with "G.I. Generation".  At some point the distinction was lost and they came to be treated as equivalent.  I'm not sure what's right about that, but let's leave this article as being about Brokaw's term. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm going to start editing the redirect page for G.I. Generation to create an article about the demographic cohort and also edit this article to restore the focus on Brokaw's term and book. If I understand correctly, this doesn't need to be listed in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion which says  --DynaGirl (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 26 November 2016 

message: I moved this page from "Greatest Generation" to "The Greatest Generation" to reflect the exact title of Tom Brokaw's book and term. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I propose that the article G.I. Generation be merged into this article. 
The reason is that both articles are about the same American generational cohort, with the term "G.I. Generation" coined in 1991 by Stauss and Howe, and the term "greatest generation" in general use in the 1960s and 1970s, popularized further by Brokaw in 1998, with the term "greatest generation" having always been much more commonly used than "G.I. Generation."
It appears that the intent of the G.I. Generation article was to fix the Americentric focus of the term "greatest generation", but since "G.I." is American slang for "government issue", it doesn't change the focus at all. If someone wishes to create an article about the worldwide generational cohort born roughly 1905 to 1925, they should call it something plainly descriptive, such as the World War II generation. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you are arguing with the article, which says it "has now become a synonym for the G.I. Generation in the United States". HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That was removed as unsourced. Please see WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I can't find any reliable sources for "synonym". DynaGirl (talk) 13:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

text: Then you are arguing with the article, which says it "has now become a synonym for the G.I. Generation in the United States". HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The term "greatest generation" appears prior to Brokaw's 1998 book. Below are some examples. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-Brokaw usage 

message: :The Greatest Generation → 
G.I. Generation → The Greatest Generation – The Greatest Generation is the term most used to refer to the generational cohort born before The Silent Generation.   The article "G. I. Generation" is currently being used to describe this cohort.  Moving "The Greatest Generation" to "The Greatest Generation (book)" would allow "G. I. Generation" to be moved into "The Greatest Generation".
"The Greatest Generation" is more common than "the G I Generation" in relevant WP:RS books.  The New York Times, Time magazine, the Pew Research Center, The Atlantic, and Gallup all use "The Greatest Generation" to refer to the cohort.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The demographic cohort and the book after which it was named are two different topics.  Each topic does already have its own article, but I believe the cohort article has the wrong name.  In order to properly name the cohort "The Greatest Generation," we have two choices: merge or move.  The merger proposal above was rejected.  I propose moving this article into The Greatest Generation (book), and moving the article about the cohort into The Greatest Generation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 February 2019 

message: Exhibit from the University of Iowa celebrating the 20th anniversary of the book:  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum exhibit on the book 

message: Summary of the book in the NYTimes:  Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of the book in the NYTimes 

message: Although Tom Brokaw claims that the generation that fought in US forces during World War II were the greatest any society has produced, militarily this view has not been supported. 
 
"Signficantly less well trained than their opponents, three out of four American soldiers did not shoot to good effect in combat." Niall Ferguson,The War of the World: History's Age of Hatred, Allen Lane, 2006, ISBN 0-7139-9708-7, page 521
"Despite the fact that the US Army was willing to accept virtually anyone over five feet tall who weighed more than 105lb and who had 12 or more of his own teeth, 40 per cent of citizens failed these basic criteria."Andrew Roberts, The Storm of War: a New History of the Second World War, Allen Lane, Aug 2009. ISBN 0713999705.Daily Telegraph review of The Storm of War
It appears no one will suffer alternative views to stand in the article. The above has been removed more than once. Surely other American generations (such as the Boomers) could do at least as well. Stikko (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other views on the generation