Talk:Baby Busters
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This attempt to deliberately mislead readers will not work, because truth is truth, and I (and others) will make sure truth will prevail. Please read my other comments on this page to understand the actual usage of the term "Baby Busters". After I posted those comments and wrote an accurate Buster article yesterday, "Piecraft" immediately went and reverted to the blatantly incorrect prior Buster article. So disrespectful to those of us that care about the credibilty of Wikipedia. If this continues, I will take all the appropriate steps to have "Piecraft" (and any other potential accomplice vandals) barred from this site, and make sure an accurate Buster article stays up here.
Again, the actual usage/meaning of the term "Baby Buster" is synonomous with Generation X (ie. those born approximately 1965-1980). If "Piecraft" can provide any evidence that the term is used to mean the lost generation between Boomers and Xers (ie. those born mid/late 1950's to mid/late 1960's), then provide that evidence. I have spent more of my time researching this today, and cannot find any evidence of this alleged usage anywhere.
What I did find what was what I commented about earlier on this page: "Baby Buster" is consistently used interchangably with "Generation X". I found four books written about "Baby Busters"--all four of them use this "same as GenX definition": http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/1881273199 http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Hope-Understanding-Reaching-Busters/dp/0801090180 http://www.amazon.ca/Inside-Soul-New-Generation-Strategies/dp/product-description/0310205948 http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Cross-Referenced-Generations-Collective-Unconscious/dp/1572973358/sr=8-1/qid=1171905699/ref=sr_1_1/102-3045707-9084912?ie=UTF8&s=books
I went through a bunch more Google hits from "Baby Busters", and ALL of them use this term as synonmous with GenX. NOT ONE media outlet anywhere uses the Buster term to mean between Boomers and Xers. Below are the links from the first few pages from Google's "Baby Buster" results. Included are articles from malor media (e.g. Time Magazine), encyclopedias, Universities, etc. ALL equate Buster with Xer:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pYhygqidjHQJ:www.thefreedictionary.com/Baby%2BBusters+%22Baby+Busters%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5871/busters_and_boomlets.html http://www.brennerbooks.com/sellgen2.html http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=84 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/077/2000/00000017/00000006/art00002 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n10_v31/ai_12313341 http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/non-profit-businesses/166461-1.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,146033,00.html http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/thth/projects/thth_projects_01.htm http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:DMjAgn8bfsIJ:www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm%3FPgNm%3DTCE%26Params%3DA1ARTA0000437+%22Baby+Busters%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=22&gl=us http://www.cflri.ca/eng/lifestyle/1997/young_90.php http://ctlibrary.com/14418 http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1993-2/1993-02-25-NBC-15.html http://www.sbishere.com/demographics-baby-boomers-planning-coach/ http://www.pastors.com/article.asp?ArtID=4863 http://www.pma-online.org/scripts/shownews.cfm?id=382 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3092/is_n20_v32/ai_14279537 http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html http://192.80.61.73/view/1994/view1194.htm http://www.newhope.bc.ca/98-02-01.htm http://www.cflri.ca/pdf/e/pip18.pdf http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=N9S3GVJDT5JQ8GBT17NKA730XC54A50E&ID=23541 http://www.baylor.edu/lariat/news.php?action=story&story=9044
There are many more thousands of links to sites,publications, etc. who all use Baby Busters the same way as these links above.
Piecraft (and anyone else, for that matter): If you can provide evidence that the real usage of the term "Baby Buster" is different from all these citations, then provide that evidence. Otherwise, please do not change this article with any more dishonest representations. 21st century Susan 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed this page to reflect the true meaning of the term Baby Busters. This page was a particularly good example of how Wikipedia can be manipulated by a user with an agenda that doesn't coinicide with truth, and is a reminder to all of us who care about the continuing viability and credibility of Wikipedia to be vigilant in exposing bogus entries. The term "Baby Buster" has been commonly used interchangably with the terms "Generation X" and "13th Generation", to describe those born between approximately 1965 to 1980 (although these birth years have varied, starting as early as 1960, ending as late as 1983). Many major media outlets have used the term "Baby Busters" this way, for over 15 years. Here's one example, from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,146033,00.html Google "Baby Buster", and you'll see that is almost always how this term is defined.
With one exception. One person decided he wanted to change the meaning of "Baby Busters" from its common abovementioned usage, to a new use: to describe the lost generation (in his view, born 1958-1968) between the Baby Boomers and the Xers/Busters/13ers. He put up a web site with this new usage, and went on message boards urging people to use the Buster term in this new way. Unfortunately for him, he was not able to enlist any support for this new use for the term. However on Wikipedia, he found a way to pretend that this term was being used this way, simply by writing an entry to that effect. He defined Baby Busters as being born 1958-1968, even though no one else uses the term to mean that. In turn, a bunch of other websites, like Anwers.com, Reference.com, etc., then automatically reproduce the Wikipedia entry, and all of a sudden, it might appear to a casual reader, that that really is the way the term Baby Busters is used.
But it's not. I spent a bunch of time going through the many hits on Google with this term, and I couldn't find even one article, from any publication, big or small, that uses Baby Buster this way. Every single writer I found uses the term Baby Buster as a synonym for Generation X, except for this one guy. Said differently, the only use of Baby Buster this way (ie. as a lost generation, born 1958-1968) is on this one guy's website, and (before I corrected it) on Wikipedia (and the sites that duplicate Wikipedia content).
Now this guy has every right to personally use this term, and any other term, any way he wants. But to write a Wikipedia entry pretending that others are using the term his way, when they clearly are not, is wrong. He apparently hoped it would fall through the cracks and no one would notice, since anyone doing research on this would quickly discover the actual way the term is used. I understand that he may feel disappointed that he wasn't able to generate interest or support for his proposed change of the meaning of the term, but just because you can't get any writers, pundits, demographers, etc. to agree with you, and use the term the way you want them to, doesn't make it OK to then turn that disappointment into a dishonest attempt to fool people.
Sorry to go on so long about this, but it really frustrates me when people undermine Wikipedia this way. I urge all of you who care about the future of Wikipedia to please look for this type of false article, and to do the proper research, and delete dishonest entries, while helping to write accurate ones. 21st century Susan 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The term baby busters is also used in Canada. Is it used elsewhere, i.e. in Europe? The stats are all American, but it's not an American-only term. That should be made clear in the article. moink 17:44, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Some may classify Jeffrey Dahmer as a "", but I sure wouldn't. RedWolf 03:51, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
Why label Nicole Brown Simpson as murdered and Gus Farace not?
- Constabile? John wesley 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the people in the Baby Busters Generation are really http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones. There's not enough references to Generation Jones in the article itself.Ruth_E 1 November 2006
[edit] Refer to
[edit] TO SUSAN
Susan firstly YOU have no authority to barr me fromn anywhere, you also have NO authority to completely re-write an article without changing it accordingly to the rules of Wikipedia and discussing it first. I have already received numerous complaints about you from other readers who have stated their disagreement with your removal of the Baby Busters article and changes. I'm not saying what you have written is incorrect as most generational stuff is up for debate. But at least do it in an orderly manner and stop branding ME as a vandal when you should check yourself your own actions. I merely reverted because you seem to foster this idea that Generation Jones is a full-blown generation when in fact it is a cusp or sub-generation bridging the gap between Gen X and Baby Boomers. I also opt for perhaps a redirect of Baby Busters to Generation Jones and having both an article for the same sub-generation. And please bare us your long-winded explanations because you clearly lack any code of etiquette to justify your actions. You got a problem take it up on the discussion page first before making radical renewals or changes, that's all I have to say about this. The templates below are designed for sub-generations, which Gen Jones and Baby Busters are. Piecraft 00:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
