Talk:OK boomer

Ended as quickly as it appeared?

The OK Boomer expression seems to have suddenly disappeared entirely from usage?! --Tallard (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I wish that was true, but I was called "boomer" in a derogatory way at work this week. Thats why I am here. to propose that the article drops its pretence that the word is anything other than ageist and discriminatory; by definition it is both, and its use highlights a reaction against the person not the subject. 178.197.220.1 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Ageism is stereotyping and/or discrimination against individuals or groups on the basis of their age, and may be casual or systemic. In the case of "ok boomer" it is all of that. 178.197.220.1 (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A user not aware that talk-page text is NOT to be deleted (WP:TALK) (user:smuckola) previously deleted my comment! Do not do this.--Tallard (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, given the short longevity of this expression, and that wikipedia is not a compendium of all expressions from all time, this article might be a candidate for deletion.--Tallard (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tallard: If reliable sources report that OK Boomer has "suddenly disappeared entirely from usage" (which I doubt), that would be valuable information to add to the article. And no, OK Boomer is not a candidate for deletion. Wikipedia actually is a compendium of all expressions from all time, as long as these expressions pass WP:GNG, which OK Boomer easily does. Lennart97 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's a compendium of basic concepts of Wikipedia, about which you are totally wrong, which is obviously not an exhaustive list. 1) As I said in my edit summary to which you are oblivious, I am obviously perfectly aware that what you posted on this Talk page is jibbajabba which is totally irrelevant to Wikipedia and the improvement of any article, whereas Wikipedia is WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK is irrelevant to this. It is the duty of every Wikipedian to not do idle chat, and to delete it on sight. Do not do this. It absolutely *is* to be deleted. 2) Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. What Lennart97 said. — Smuckola(talk) 10:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact WP:TALK completely confirms my previous statement. Editors don't go around deleting talk page comments unless there are special or dire circumstances. My comment was an edit suggestion for the page. If you disagree with the proposed direction, you discuss it. Additionally, calling a contribution "jibbajabba" fails at "assuming good faith", which is expected of users.--Tallard (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree that the "ok boomer" fad has ended. I would suggest rather than deletion the article be modified to reflect that this was a short-lived trend co-opted by corporations (including HBO, who are apparently very late to the party by launching a show titled, you guessed it, "OK Boomer." https://deadline.com/2021/03/devere-rogers-ok-boomer-hbo-max-comedy-pilot-1234714821/) The Atlantic published an "obituary" for the term in late 2019 - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/obituary-ok-boomer/602656/ or if you prefer, The Guardian - https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/ok-boomer-died-today/. I'm not going to bother modifying the article, because frankly I don't feel the phrase is worthy of any further attention on my part (I only wound up here through an unrelated search), but there are plenty of sources that will show that "ok boomer" fell out of favor by 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.210.56 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I don't edit "culture" pages, so I'll leave it to someone skilled with those--Tallard (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're taking "here's where ok boomer died" a bit too literally, it is just a semi-serious commentary on how a term can become uncool when used by uncool people. It is still in wide use, I can assure you. Hell, I used it on reddit just last night in a discussion. ValarianB (talk) 12:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The “ok boomer” phrase did not appear in a Reddit comment first.

On 1998 on the cover page of a Sonic comic book, specifically issue 140, the index features a section called “Hey boomers”. This may be one of the earliest versions of the phrase “ok boomers”. 69.178.59.187 (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Hey boomers" isn't "OK boomers". Lewisguile (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ad hominem

Is it worth pointing out that "OK Boomer" is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, attempting to dismiss arguments by attacking the person making them rather than by responding to the actual content of the argument? AmigoNico (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As with any criticism of or commentary on this phrase, if a notable outlet or person has described it as such, that's worth pointing out in the "Reception" section. It should certainly not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Lennart97 (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The positive spin

Have created the applicable redirects OK! Boomer!, Ok! Boomer!, and Okay! Boomer!. With the addition of two exclamation marks the term is turned from a negative divisive expression of disdain to a positive affirmation of a generation of accomplishment. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

OK boomer reverted — invitation to WP:BRD

Good morning. I reverted your last two bold edits to the OK boomer page as WP:UNDUE and in violation of WP:NPOV. You also don't need to critique the critique in the lede — any refutations of criticism belong in a discussion/criticism/responses section, ideally at the end. As your bold edits were reverted, it is a good idea to engage in the WP:BRD cycle. Create a new topic on the article's talk page, present your suggested wording changes and see what others think. Then when we have consensus, we can implement the agreed upon text without fear of reversion or edit warring. Lewisguile (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim: they are due and maintain NPOV. BRD is merely one of several options for achieving consensus. Nevertheless, I have no strong view about including this in the lead, based on the current sourcing, if you passionately object. We would absolutely not separate such content into a criticism section; see WP:STRUCTURE and WP:CRITS. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly and moving this to the talk page (saves making a new topic here). Given your thoughts on the matter, I think we can find a consensus quickly.

I don't think "a view that has been publicly ridiculed" is neutral wording, nor does it clarify who has ridiculed this view (there wasn't a reliable source for this claim in your edit). But I think we can find better wording that would be a suitable compromise without rehashing the pro and ante in the lede.

E.g., "Critics argue the term is ageist; others disagree" would be simple and hard to argue with? (I intentionally avoided "perceive" as that runs the risk of minimising the argument.) Ideally, we would say who holds both views, but that can be expanded elsewhere in the article.

If you wanted to go into more detail about whether it is or isn't ableist, there is already a "Responses" section in the article, so we could expand upon that discussion, if needed. What I wanted to avoid was someone else coming back in later on and adding another bit to the lede which critiques the critique of the critique, and so on.

What do you think? Lewisguile (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

On re-reading the "Responses" section, we could actually also try: "It has been received positively by many,[29] although some critics argue it is ageist." [34]

That seems like a brief and fair summary of that section, and allows us to reuse these sources:

[29] Bebernes, Mike (6 November 2019). "'OK Boomer': Behind the generational divide". Yahoo! News. Retrieved 6 November 2019.

[34] Brice-Saddler, Michael (5 November 2019). "A conservative radio host compared 'boomer' to the n-word. Even Dictionary.com was appalled". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 November 2019. Lewisguile (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)