Talk:The Greatest Generation (book)

Removed chart

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)

The whole concept of considering a diverse collection of people, whose birthdays happened to fall within a certain date range, as a "demographic", is pseudoscientific. The phrase "The Greatest Generation" is a sloppy mixture of war propaganda and pop culture, and is a tacit insult to all the other "not-so-great" generations. It is senseless to apply an adjective to a generation, regardless of whether the book was heavily promoted and sold well. It's pulp nonsense for the masses, and doesn't deserve to be treated as an academic area based on reality. "Collective glory" is as malignant a concept as "collective guilt". Credit and blame go to individuals, not generations.77Mike77 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

Man on the moon

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)

1924?

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)

Terminology

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)

Good question. I did a little Googling on "greatest generation ambrose" to see if maybe Stephen Ambrose had used the term. Also tried to see if texts from Ambrose's books about it were online at Amazon. They are not. According to this article Ambrose had the idea, but not the phrase: "It was Brokaw, however, who christened the men and women who experienced World War II as The Greatest Generation." I'd suggest looking in the indexes of Ambrose's books or otherwise researching it, though, to confirm that. Or maybe a big dictionary like Oxford that gives first use citations. Colfer2 (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

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)

World POV

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)

• WW1 set the stage for WW2. Despite best-efforts there were statistics of casualties (dead, wounded, MIA at the time) WW1 only set a mew standard for brutality and inhumanity. While Worldwide, more died of Influenza than combat losses in the WW1 era, IMO the WW1 stage created the Greatest Generation. The "War to End all Wars" did not prevent any future wars.2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Why only Carter's WWII service?

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)

O.K. I fixed that, but I put them in chronological order by date of presidency. Wowest (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dates

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)

People born in 1901-09 (1900 was the tail end of the Lost Generation) are an odd kettle of fish. They were neither Lost Generation or Greatest Generation, but a transitional group. 208.101.138.126 (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Eisenhower mentioned on page

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)

Recruits section

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)

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)

Famous members

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)

@Stikko, since you obviously haven't read the book, or even the quote "Greatest Generation" within the context of the book, now would be a good time to stop editing the article regarding it. Thanks. --A2fwiki (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Howe and Strauss references

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)

What's so great about them?

WP:NOTFORUM --NeilN talk to me 13:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Americans today work harder for less, are better educated, have better personal hygiene, heck we even smoke less then the so called "Greatest Generation".98.165.15.98 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I'll tell you what's so great about them. Raised in dire economic straights, they never fell for self-pity. Asked to fight against the two greatest and most brutal military machines in history, they put down their plows and tools of their trade, traveled half-way around the world and beat both the Nazi war machine and the Empire of Japan, two forces which had been terrorizing the world. They did so under the most brutal conditions, without complaint. Not only did the greatest generation fight, but on the home front they created an industrial giant, whose unbelievable productivity supplied other countries, such as the Soviet Union, with the means to fight, without which their willingness to fight would have meant nothing. It was the generation which came home from the war not whining about "post traumatic stress syndrome," but ready to get back to work and make this country the world's leading industrial and business leader it became. The new generations are soft, cowardly, lazy, and self-entitled. When you see an old, bent-over man somewhere, shuffling along on painful legs, don't make fun of him. Remember this, in his prime, he stood fire. Could you?98.170.199.37 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC) The concept of a "greatest generation" of any sort is a social construction based on personal opinion and non-objectivity, I think we can only relay the impressions of others in regards to this topic. It's impossible to measure your standard of "greatness" because of the emotionality attached to the subject. Nathanaelbassett (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC) The "Greatest Generation" is just more of Tom Brokaw's hyperbole. Also, 98.170.199.37 is pitifully ignorant if he thinks the USA supplied a significant portion of the Soviet Union's military. Finally, his comment that they fought in WWII without complaint is laughable.TL36 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think they were so great. All they did was blow up and destroy everything their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents had built. Today, we called that stupid, selfish, and spoiled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Agreed, to call this generation 'the greatest' would include everyone of that generation, including all the people in Germany that followed Hitler's nationalistic diatribe, as well as everyone in Italy, and Japan, and Russia that did likewise to jingoist rhethoric and lies. This generation includes not just Americans, but the whole generation around the world. When viewed in this context... looking at photos of concentration camps, pictures of the Einsatzgrupen in action, and so on... you see its actually the worst generation ever, that industrialized death factories that produced nothing but corpses. And even the Allies were no saints, not by a wide margin. The fire storm bombings of Hamburg, Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima... etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Brokaw was clearly referring to Americans in the generation only (although I think it's fair to include Britain, Canada, Australia, and the Soviet Union's people in the generation as well), not the people of the Axis nations who believed the big lies. Revisionists like to look at things in a way that makes them feel superior, hence "Why are they so great?" Americans and their allies were up against opponents that were waging total war. The Allies were responding in kind. If they hadn't built that industrial base, filled the ranks of armies and embarked upon that great crusade, we'd live in a very different world. So degrade their accomplishments all you like. Those that degrade the GI Generation do so from behind the comfortable lifestyle and personal liberties their labors secured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.87.110 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Typical glorification of the past and of suffering, which does a disservice both to the young and the old. Many (to say the least) soldiers returned profoundly broken and injured both in body and spirit; they were victims, not heroes. There's nothing "great" about being a veteran; it means nothing but to be the refuse that the ghastly machine of war spits out. Post-traumatic stress disorder existed at all times, it was just known under different names, such as shell shock or battle fatigue. That said, the young are now victims of a quite different machine, although under the surface it is the same. The machine that is always driven by the callous powerful who see people as material and couldn't care less about individual fates. The worst you can do is to glorify your victimhood as heroism and your silence in the face of injustice as strength. Warand suffering are always rationalised as just and necessary, and those who speak up and complain dismissed as soft and whiny, those who expose the rationalisation as the deception it is. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thousands of times, how dare you call me a fool! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete "Famous Members" Section?

It's a bit much. And none of the other generations contain such a list. Est300 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think Wormcast makes a good point; such lists tend to fill up with unmanageable cruft. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Letting it go. Thanks for responding --Greenmaven (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Need for a section about population still alive

In 2013, as I read the data on [[1]], 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) In Military history of the United States, it is stated that 11% of the population served, so mutliplying 5.5 million by 11 % gives me the figure of about 600,000 left (in 2013). How close is this? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

Definition

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)

Inappropriate cite and .., origin vice popularized

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)

Birth years needed for this article & image of depression

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)

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)

Maybe Not the Greatest Generation

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)

Requested move 26 November 2016

requested move/dated|G.I. Generation

Greatest Generation → G.I. 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)

• Support "the G I Generation" more common than "the Greatest Generation" in relevant WP:RS books. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose the hijacking of this article on Brokaw's term. DynaGirl just rewrote it and now wants to rename it. But the article was written about the term that Brokaw made up, more than about the generic description of a generation, and taking it over this way, changing the topic essentially, seems highly inappropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold! --DynaGirl (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Page move

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)

Merger proposal

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)

• Oppose The articles are distinct topics. The Greatest Generation is a book and term written by Tom Brokaw. G.I. Generation is demographic cohort. You can propose a less U.S centric name change for the G.I. Generation article without merging these two articles. These articles are distinct topics and merging them would only make it more U.S. centric not less. It's a U.S. centric book. DynaGirl (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose per Dynagirl. These are not the same topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Support I think that the article about the cohort should be titled The Greatest Generation, with a hatnote directing to the Tom Brokaw book of the same name. G.I. Generation should redirect to The Greatest Generation or to the Strauss-Howe generational theory article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose , They are different topics. One is a generational cohort, the other is a book about the generational cohort. --Philip Stevens (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Pre-Brokaw usage

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

• In 1953, US Army General James Van Fleet retired after his service in World War II and leading the Eighth Army in Korea. He spoke to Congress, saying, "The men of the Eighth Army are a magnificent lot, and I have always said the greatest generation of Americans we have ever produced."[2]

• Columnist Art Hoppe wrote a column called "The Greatest Generation", which was a fictional/humorous account of the generation gap between Ben Adams and his hippie son Irwin. Ben lived through World War II. In 1971, Hoppe included this column in his book Mr. Nixon and My Other Problems.

• A 1978 speech delivered to Congress by Billy Tagg, representing Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, "You know, it is indeed a pleasure to be in a room with such a great, distinguished group of people, a group that is probably the greatest generation on the face of the Earth. It is a generation that has seen more and gone through more than any other generation on the face of the Earth. It is a generation that has gone through two World Wars, the Korean conflict, and the Vietnam war."[3]

• In 1986, PC Magazine used the term "greatest generation" to refer to authors writing books about World War II.[4]

• In 1994, Brent Glass, the new Executive Director of the US National Historical Publications Commission wrote, "They have been called the Greatest Generation, the men and women who in their youth weathered the privations of the Great Depression and then as young adults fought and won World War II."[5]

Requested move 17 February 2019

The Greatest Generation → The Greatest Generation (book)
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)

Isn't this term a neologism, coined by Tom Brokaw himself? Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

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)

Requested move 20 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to The Greatest Generation (book). The second article will require its own full move request and for now the base title has to redirect to a disambiguation page, because no consensus was found for its move or for what to do with the article on the generation. This is not an ideal situation, so WP:RFD is the next step, alongside perhaps a move request for G.I. Generation. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

---

• The Greatest Generation → The Greatest Generation (book)
• G.I. Generation → The Greatest Generation

– Please see "Requested move 17 February 2019" above where I describe my rationale for the proposed page name changes. This tag was mistakenly left out. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed move, because it seems at odds with multiple discussions and concerns raised on the above talk page, but support moving G.I. Generation to "World War II Generation", which is currently one of the alternate names listed on the that article. "The Greatest Generation" seems POV and G.I. Generation and The Greatest Generation are both U.S centric, so it seems WWII Generation might be the best option here. DynaGirl (talk) 10:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The title reflects a POV, and I am far from certain what makes this generation great. Why not the World War I generation, the Korean War generation, or the Vietnam War generation? I would support, however, Dynagirl's suggestion to rename to "World War II Generation". Much more descriptive, and removes any association with the United States. Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Dynagirl, these "multiple discussions" and "concerns" in the above talk page were written by you yourself. The "World War II Generation" alternative was added in 2016 by you yourself. The Greatest Generation article was moved here in 2016 by you yourself. This tactic that you use of referring back to ideas that you yourself pushed through as though they are unrelated consensus opinions is another example of your disruptive editing in the form of Civil POV Pushing about which I just warned you in the Millenials talk page. The sockpuppet who supports you in RfCs has been blocked, and you will be too if you continue to misinform the American public through your unethical edits.
  

To review:

1."The Greatest Generation" has 77,100 hits in a Google search of relevant WP:RS books

   "the G I Generation" has 4,810 hits

   "the WWII Generation" has 2,260 hits

2.The New York Times, Time magazine, the Pew Research Center, The Atlantic, and Gallup all use "The Greatest Generation" to refer to this cohort.

Where is your evidence? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – I see no compelling reason to say that the book title is the commonname of the generation. Dicklyon (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: did you check out the links I've provided? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a link for you. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: NGram is case sensitive, and your link used "greatest generation" in lower-case. Once you capitalize "Greatest Generation", NGram shows just how much more popular it is than "World War II generation" (and even moreso than "World War II Generation"): here's a link for you. (Like I said below, once Brokaw coined the term in 1998, it was widely adopted.) Leviv ich 05:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support because, per the reliable sources, "The Greatest Generation" is the WP:COMMONNAME. In addition to Kolya Butternut's research, I would add:

	"The Greatest Generation"	"The GI Generation"	"The WWII Generation"
GBooks	73,400	4,640	2,230
GNews	41,600	388	595
GScholar	8,530	1,140	357
JSTOR	559	68	17

Search results aren't the be-all and end-all, but you've got the RS's linked to above as well. A generation has nearly passed since Brokaw coined the term, and it seems to have become widely accepted by the RSes. We ought to go with the sources. Leviv ich 04:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Look further, and you'll find that "World War II Generation" has always been pretty common (the "Greatest Generation" is a recent thing from the book):

	"The Greatest Generation"	"The GI Generation"	"The WWII Generation"	"The World War II Generation"
GBooks	73,400	4,640	2,230	26,100

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

...so "The Greatest Generation" has 3x as many GBooks hits as "The World War II Generation". The Google NGram wins, methinks. Leviv ich 05:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but many of those are references to the book, I think. It's a very recent change. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: What are your thoughts on what the reliable sources say? Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure I haven't read them all! Which ones are you saying I should check? Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's a good one that discusses the concept of "The Greatest Generation" from a scholarly point of view. It makes it pretty clear that this term is ridiculously POV and biased. Let's use something more neutral. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Your source supports my assertion that this cohort is called "The Greatest Generation." Clearly many scholars believe that this is an unsuitable name, but the reality is that this is the name for this cohort. Does this book suggest a new name which has been widely adopted? I wouldn't expect so. Please review my links above. There is no need to read them, just search for "greatest generation" and you will see that reliable sources use this name. Please see my comment below where I respond to your Dimadick's related comment about the article "Allied war crimes during World War II." Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that this generation is sometimes called "The Greatest Generation". It's just that it's based on a very POV book, and is not widely accepted as an appropriate designation for the generation, as the term carries so much POV baggage. And its use is rather WP:RECENT. Dicklyon (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I think it's misleading so say that it is "sometimes called" the "Greatest Generation." It is usually called the "Greatest Generation." I agree that the name for the generation was popularized by a very POV book (which is different than using that book as a source to write this article). I have not seen evidence that the name is not widely accepted as the designation for the generation. I'm not sure what you mean by "appropriate;" it simply is the designation. I disagree with the characterization of WP:RECENT. "The Greatest Generation" has been the most popular name for seventeen years, with its popularity increasing each year. Please see my response below which I had not finished before your previous reply. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this is a better search: "The Greatest Generation" -Brokaw, 62,500 results Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: FYI, the search in the link you provided for "The World War II Generation" is not fully in quotes, so when you click on it it gives millions of results. Also, there are only 18,900 results when "The" is actually included in the quote. Kolya Butternut (talk) 07:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I copied the URL wrong and then fixed it wrong. Fixed now. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little hesitant with this one. Both names are very U.S.-centered and I can find very little usage of these names outside of the US. The references to The Greatest Generation almost all refer to the Brokaw book. If the articles made it clear that the names are not widely used outside of the US I suppose The Greatest Generation is a better title for the cohort as it seems to be refered to more widely than GI Generation and would not exclude other nations to which GI has no cultural meaning. Brokaw is quoted with saying "Ten years later, I returned to Normandy for the fiftieth anniversary of the invasion, and by then I had come to understand what this generation of Americans meant to history. It is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced." He is specifically refering to Americans and also has a very personal opinion on the fact that this generation of Americans is the best any country has ever produced at any time...Dom from Paris (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • CommentMeanwhile, our article on Allied war crimes during World War II includes a list of war crimes by American military personnel, such as massacres of civilians, massacres of prisoners of war, torture of prisonesr of war, orders to take no prisoners, shooting at people who had their hands up in the air in a sign of surrender, 126 recorded cases of rape, and between 3,500 and 14,000 other instances of rape estimated between 1942 and 1945. Part of the reason that I don't see what make these people great. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: @Dimadick: I empathize with your disgust over a name which may have the effect of mocking the victims of war and insulting the rest of the world, but my argument is just that this is the reality of what this generation is called. I'm sure if we try we can think of many concepts which have ridiculous names, but it is not for the writers of an encyclopedia to change them. Maybe one day the public will call the Greatest Generation something different. I would encourage you to add criticism of this generation to the article. After the move I can start a new talk section with the following references which criticize the Greatest Generation:

"Myth and the Greatest Generation", book

"The Not-Always Greatest Generation", Daily Beast

"The Guilt Dogging the Greatest Generation", The New York Times

"Antony Beevor: the United States’ second World War crimes" The Irish Times

"The Firebombing of Tokyo", Jacobin Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Dark Side of GIs in Liberated France", Spiegel (Germany)

"A New Openness to Discussing Allied War Crimes in WWII", Spiegel (Germany) Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight to give an article in Jacobin, but I thought you would appreciate this quote:

"Terms like 'greatest generation' betray Americans by keeping them willfully disconnected from their past. These labels flatten complex legacies, and prevent a thorough questioning of power." ... "The lack of ceremonies or official state apologies for the firebombing is unsurprising considering that many Americans see World War II as the 'just war' fought by the 'greatest generation.' These labels leave the war and the atrocities Americans committed during it largely untouched by critique." Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Domdeparis, what makes you say “The references to The Greatest Generation almost all refer to the Brokaw book”? Leviv ich 13:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Domdeparis: I don't know that I would be opposed to limiting the article to be US centric, but I do have a couple of comments. The text of the book itself is not particularly relevant to this article about the cohort which we are discussing. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say about the generation which happens to be called "The Greatest Generation" after Brokaw's book. While this term is not popular outside of the US, it does exist:

"Why the Greatest Generation has the highest suicide rate in Australia", Australian Broadcasting Corporation

"The ranks of the 'greatest generation' are becoming very thin", The Canberra Times

"Britain's Greatest Generation", book

"Britain's Greatest Generation" BBC 4-part documentary based on the book

"Cross countries: international comparisons of intergenerational trends", Resolution Foundation (UK)

"Remembering the USSR’s ‘greatest generation’ in the U.S., UK, and Canada", Russia Beyond

Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support 1st move (book) is evidently massively required. Cannot see any evidence presented on this long discussion which weighs against something quite obvious. Oppose second move, no great improvement in title clarity, particularly for non-US readers. The current title could be left as a PRIMARYREDIRECT or go to Greatest Generation (disambiguation) In ictu oculi (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't understand what you mean by "clarity." The article can be edited to make clear that the term "Greatest Generation" only has limited use outside the US. What do you believe should be done with the "G.I. Generation" article which lacks the WP:COMMONNAME? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I believe what I have said above will be understood by those familiar with WP:TITLE. Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In ictu oculi Ok, we can go with The Greatest Generation (cohort) to clearly distinguish from the book. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment DynaGirl, Dimadick, Dicklyon, Domdeparis, Regarding the concern that the title is POV, please see WP:POVNAME which states "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." But of course, if there are sources which show that this concept is widely described outside of the United States by another term we should reconsider. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC) I'm just not seeing the concept of a World War II generation widely outside of the US. German generations, for example do not line up with The Greatest Generation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  It is not the case here that "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name"; quite the opposite, as shown, it is referred to by multiple terms. I suggest "World War II generation". Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon Keep reading: "as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources." The other names for this cohort are not even close to as popular as "The Greatest Generation." As I've said, I understand your distaste for the term, but you have not provided reliable sources at the level of The New York Times, Time magazine, etc, to support your argument, as I have. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC) The problem with "World War II generation" is there's little evidence that it's used to describe a demographic cohort in the same way as other generations, or at least I haven't seen it. For instance, what years were the WWII generation considered to have been born? Here are more helpful Google searches to compare popularity: "the greatest generation" "demographic cohort" versus "world war ii generation" "demographic cohort" 4,270 results versus 111. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support move I think this is a common name, not just in the US, but elsewhere in the English speaking world. --rogerd (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per User:Levivich's answer above and WP:COMMONNAME. Looking through the sources used in the G.I. Generation article, Howe and Strauss are the only ones using the term "G.I. Generation." The other sources in the G.I. article (Investopia, Pew) use "the Greatest Generation." Also, the G.I. Generation article states that "this cohort is also referred to as the 'World War II Generation'" which uses [6] as a source, and the title of the source? "The Greatest Generation" Someone963852 (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 1st move; neutral on 2nd - I'd follow In ictu oculi's proposal and have "The Greatest Generation" redirect to the disambiguation page / move the dab page to the basename of "Greatest Generation". Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Paintspot, do you support moving G.I. Generation to "The Greatest Generation (cohort)"? or... Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, I guess. Neutral on the name of the generation page / whether it should be moved - all I know is: the book isn't the primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you know that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dicklyon, if the primary topic of "The Greatest Generation" is not clear then the book article should still be moved to "The Greatest Generation (book)", and "G.I. Generation" should be moved to "The Greatest Generation (cohort)". Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Museum exhibit on the book

Exhibit from the University of Iowa celebrating the 20th anniversary of the book: [7] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary of the book in the NYTimes

Summary of the book in the NYTimes: [8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Other views on the generation

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."

"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."

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)

References