Talk:Interbellum Generation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Generation Jones was born 1954-1965, Baby Busters were born 1965-1981, see discussion pages for Generation Jones and Baby Busters articles for more detail 21st century Susan 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the point of having the Interbellum Generaton clasification. Every other Generation Lasts for about 20 years. Are people born in this "interbellum Genration" especially different? Did they stop being wild and cynical? They seem like lost Genration to me. There is no reffernce to this classification anywhere outside of wikipedia (and people refferencing Wikipedia. I propose getting rid of it and making Lost generation bithdates last untill 1909, and start GI generation birthdates at 1910 tha average age of soldiers in WWI was 26 years. http://www.amazon.com/World-War-II-Strange-Fascinating/dp/0517422867 So by setting the cutoff birthdae at 1910 we include people as old as 29 in 1939. Seem reasonable?

I agree that this article needs to be submitted for possible deletion. As the person above me has mentioned, there doesn't seem to be any other reference to this generation anywhere else. This article also has no sources. I am going to propose this page be deleted. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. I have heard of this generation existing, as one of my ancestors fell into this gap where he could not fight in WWI nor WWII. Google Scholar seems to suggest some references to it exist[1]. My gut tells me there has to be some name for this group used in scholarship, if we can figure out who to ask.--Milowent (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed this page for deletion, but I agree that we need to make sure. It's not that I disagree with what is written, but there aren't any sources. If you found the terminology used on google, I am pretty sure that if you click on the link, it will either have no source to back it up, or it quotes word for word what is written on this page. A Wikipedia page can't be it's own source (this violates the rules). What does everyone else think? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page has zero references. I found nothing on Google other than references to this article. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]