Talk:OK boomer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Soundcould artist name Peter Kuli

It seems to me that we should add the artist who made the OK Boomer song referenced: Peter Kuli as indicated by the cited Boston Globe article Ocajublinky (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Abigail Disney

On 11/10/2019 Abigail Disney ranted on Twitter about people being offended by the riposte. Is this worth noting? Linguaddict (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would it be worth adding to the article? Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Name change?

Should the name of the article be changed to OK, boomer? Just a thought. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I would say no because of MOS:TMRULES "Do not "correct" the spelling, punctuation, diacritics, or grammar of trademarks to be different from anything found in reliable sources – the name should be recognizable as referring to the topic" Adding OK, boomer as a redirect to this is a maybe, but I haven't really seen that version propagated as a meme, only mentioned in one of the headlines. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Should the "boomer" be capitalised? Baby boomer doesn't use the term as a proper noun so should this page be moved to OK boomer?  Nixinova  T / C   22:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi all. I have just declined the page move request. I think WP:Star Trek Into Darkness (page doesn't exist, but maybe it should) applies here, Pete "OK MAMIL" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Not all sources capitalize it. Since there is ambiguity, we should go with MOS:AT and WP:NCCAPS, which says use sentence case and "Boomer" is not a proper noun. See also WP:NCCAPS. This discussion should continue despite @Shirt58:'s abritrary and not fully-informed ubervote with an explanation that made no sense - (some kind of unintelligible rambling about some science fiction film and a guy named Pete). Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I boldly moved the page to "ok boomer", as I think the lowercase form is far more common. Linguaddict reverted saying that "OK Boomer" is more prevalent. Is this true? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Usage

Is the heading Usage really necessary if it has already been explained in the beginning? Linguaddict (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Ok boomer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.60.70 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sections should really be where precise explanations are to be found so I have moved the info from the lead into that section.  Nixinova  T / C   22:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The term ok boomer is used within most coffee shops within the city of Geelong in Australia, once used by an angry coffee shop owner at the famous Yarra St Quartermasters, the term has spread to the other shops within the region. Ok boomer is now commonly used when a coffee with caramel syrup is ordered but not on the menu. YSQM (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Politico magazine "OK, Bloomberg"

I'm talking about this: Also in November 2019, Politico used a variation of the meme in an editorial about former Mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg's possible candidacy for President of the United States entitled "OK Bloomberg". Is this really that notable? It's merely a witty headline, nothing more. Linguaddict (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Linguaddict, not really a notable use, unless it becomes a campaign slogan or catchphrase. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Noteable uses requested to be added

The term ok boomer is used within most coffee shops within the city of Geelong in Australia, once used by an angry coffee shop owner at the famous Yarra St Quartermasters due to an argument with the mayor, the term has spread to the other shops within the region. Ok boomer is now commonly used when a coffee with caramel syrup is ordered but not on the menu. YSQM (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

YSQM, do you have some news articles to support this use? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3536854/Karl-Stefanovic-slams-celebrity-Geelong-mayor-Darryn-Lyons-bullying-swearing-staff.html The article mentions an argument with a business in Geelong, his response to the mayor was “ok boomer”. The mayor was then sacked that day for his abuse around town which wasn’t limited to his office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSQM (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

YSQM, how about some newspaper that isn't Daily Mail since that is considered unreliable per WP:RSP? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/apr/14/geelong-council-sacked-after-allegations-of-misconduct Ok boomer was used when the mayor threatened to close down the local business. “It said Lyons threatened to close down a local business after yelling at its staff, then later told investigators he did not remember the interaction.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by YSQM (talk • contribs) 07:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That source doesn't mention the topic.  Nixinova  T C   07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, I feel like if we were to include the use by some local businesses in one single Australian city the article will turn into a long list of all uses by pretty much every somewhat populated settlement in the English-speaking world and then some. Juxlos (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is BS

This article as it now stands is just a lie. "OK Boomer" is in no way a progressive insult directed at conservatives; it is not even directed at baby boomers. 90% of the time I see it used on social media (which is many, many times a day) it is used to dismiss ANY thought by any person older than the poster.

I see it regularly directed at Gen X people, and even at older millennials.

There is no political consistency to it. It is *occassionally* used in response to older people expressing conservative ideals but very rarely (in my world) and given the high proportion of its usage that does not fit in that category it is completely logical to say that the pejorative is not in any way restricted to the description the article gives of insulting reactionary baby boomers. Indeed I would say that easily the majority of the usage I see is to express disdain and hatred for older people expressing liberal ideas. But that might be because I am a liberal and mostly avoid social media connections with conservatives.

It is ageism, plain and simple, it isn't "considered by some to be ageism" or however this extremely biased article puts it. The fact that it is used against older people of any ideology, by millennials both "progressive" and right-wing proves that its essence is not political but a hatred of older people (not even old people -- unless you consider women in their mid 40's "old" -- who I see subjected to the abuse of "ok, boomer" on a regular basis).

To conclude, there is no other meaningful content to the expression than ageism; it is employed by millennials without regard to left/right politics to insult and demean anyone who is older than them (including, as I said, other millennials who happen to be older). Many if not most of these millennials using the word are conservative, materialistic, privileged, and white. Someone told me recently the phrase actually originated in the alt-right as a sneer at older liberals. I don't have any sources for that, but it's certainly worth looking into if Wikipedia wants to present a factual description of this catchphrase rather than what we now have, which is an article that tries very hard to justify its usage by tying it to some kind of youthful enlightenment. It's the furthest thing from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohgoshanotherusername (talk • contribs) 11:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? 'OK Boomer' originated in alt-right communities to sneer back at liberals? I've never heard of such BS before. Funny how you're playing into this, since this would be the exact situation where 'OK Boomer' would be applicable. Linguaddict (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

He's right about one thing, "OK Boomer" is usually used to dismiss anyone deemed "old" by the younger person now. There should be mention somewhere about it's use being broadened by the majority.

4chan

Why is no one mentioning that it started on 4chan? It is primarily a 4chan meme that got picked up by the mainstream. If you want a source there is this (www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/11/19/20963757/what-is-ok-boomer-meme-about-meaning-gen-z-millennials) and search the word on the archives, can someone at least give the credit from where it is actually originated from rather than ignorantly claiming it came from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4c8:1c:b77:248c:f92d:ac71:115e (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I added it, thanks for pointing it out! Linguaddict (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It didn't come from 4chan. The phrase "started" in Reddit a decade ago. I already added this in but someone pulled it. Back in it goes.blah (talk) 10:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Harlequinn, do you have any reliable sources to substantiate your claim? Is towardsdatascience.com a credible source? Linguaddict (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Connection to Political Socialization

Wikipedians,

"Ok Boomer" has become a much discussed topic in civics and government courses in high school classrooms as a topic related to the concept of political socialization. I plan to update this page to reflect this connection to these topics. Thank you in advance for assuming good faith in these edits and I look forward to your feedback Serenewilliams (talk) 02:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bring a source and integrate the connection in the article to support your assertion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Article about this page

Slate — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

TikTok #OkBoomer views

As of December 2019, clips on TikTok hashtagged #OKBoomer have been viewed more than 1 billion times. This does greatly differ from the currently mentioned 44.5 million in the subsection of "Usage". Can I use TikTok as a reference in this case? Linguaddict (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In general I find social media view statistics inherently unreliable given how much they are subject to manipulation but it's no worse than what we have now and so I would not object to more than 1 billion personally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Boomer is a mindset

"Ok boomer" has been flanderized to refer unironically to old people, but it originally was just used to refer to people with an attitude that's in the vein of "you kids get off my lawn!" or "old man yells at cloud." You'll find "boomer is a mindset" widespread in social media well before these past two or three months when the term has broken into the mainstream. Sadly I don't think there is a way to quantify this with "reliable sources" so a talk page message might be all I can do. 174.82.103.15 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages such as Talk:OK Boomer are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic. Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic: the talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not share your feelings about the subject. If your post is not about improving the article, which as you say it is not, it does not belong here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying "boomer is a mindset" is in the same line as "being black is a mindset". It's a ridiculous twisting of terms to try and hide someone's ageism. Ergzay (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Boomer is a state of mind

I think it'd be worth noting in the article that the repartee is not ONLY used to clap back at boomers; Many teens argue that it's more of a state of mind. Linguaddict (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussed above at Talk:OK Boomer#Boomer is a mindset Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Mention of ageism

(Disclaimer: I am GenX.)

While I understand that many people who employ this phrase do not think they are being ageist, it's still the case that it is the target of a group-oriented epithet who determines what the perception of the epithet is. For instance, if I call someone a nerd, it is up to them to say whether they perceive me as being insulting or complimentary, because I could be intentionally insulting them and then outwardly claiming I was just recognizing their identity and using the term they use for each other. That's how it works for racial epithets too.

If baby boomers perceive "ok boomer," coming from a younger person, as ageist, then it is not for anyone here to deny their perception. The objective reality of it may be debatable (though I personally hear people using "boomer" and "old people" pretty interchangeably, so suspect it's not that debatable), but if it's being reported that it is being perceived as ageist by the targets of the phrase, then that is noteworthy in the article and such information should not be removed.

It was removed earlier, and I've restored it, though I made a point of making the previous text more neutral. Felice Enellen (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

re this reversal: my es being short, says the essence: that "a catchphrase and internet meme [...] used to dismiss or mock [stereotipcal] attitudes ..." is offensive/judgemental/pejorative by definition, inherently. The possible negative perception is already containted in the descrition. You saying in the es "The current debate on the subject is primarily regarding whether or not the phrase is ageist" ("by some") even says it is not even established as a encyclopedic fact.

Why add such an disputable opinion (not a fact then) expressly in the lede? WP:UNDUE weight for thos "some". -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You are conflating two things. There is the fact that there are people who consider it ageist, which is not disputable, as it is clearly shown at references in this article and across the web that people do indeed consider it ageist. You can say that it is debatable whether or not it actually is ageist, but that is not what the content is talking about. The content I restored simply points out that there is a controversy where the targeted group considers it an ageist phrase. That is a historical fact, much the same as you might report that someone used an inappropriate word on television and a certain minority considered it offensive. It's historical data. Felice Enellen (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"it is considered to be ageist" is stated THREE times

A little bit too much I guess, especially for a short page like this. It should be mentioned only once.--185.36.130.254 (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed one mention.  Nixinova  T / C   21:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed a second of the original three statements. Specifically, I removed the sentence from the summary at the top of the page. The phrase "it is considered to be" improperly promotes an opinion to a fact. Another wikipedia editor has argued that the claim is irrefutable due to citations that appear later in the article. However, those citations go to media reports that themselves lack citations. Wikipedia contains precedent for my edit. See e.g. the top summary on the Mineraloid page where someone responded to the phrase "considered by some" by asking "who?" The Wikipedia page on the Moon does not start off, "Considered by some to be made of cheese...". Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

You really should have read Felice Enellen's comment above. You're conflating the same two issues. Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt. Not only did I read that post, I referred to it discretely. The lead for this Wikipedia page should describe its topic in neutral terms. The lead should not step into the debate about whether the phrase is offensive, and certainly it should not present one side of the debate. Discussion of an ongoing debate belongs in a section devoted to the debate. That section should reference media stories calling the phrase ageist, but also other opinions. I quickly found a published essay saying the phrase is not discriminatory [Examiner] and another saying the phrase is fun, funny, and crafty [Post]. As it now stands, the lead for this Wikipedia page says, "It is considered by some to be ageist." That is an inappropriate introduction to the topic because it presents an opinion and one side of a debate. Editors of this Wikipedia page should pattern this page after other Wikipedia pages about insults. For example, the page about ["Yo Mama"] takes a scholarly approach and avoids taking sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no reply to my comment left one month ago, I will delete the ridiculous sentence "It is considered by some to be ageist" from the introduction. Jason.Rafe.Miller (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the sentence. It belongs in the LEAD because we have an ample section that details who considers it ageist. If you have a better summary for that section I for one would be open to the idea, but to your idea that the phrase is used three times I see two mentions of it. Once in the LEAD and once as a topic sentence to the section in question. Where's the third mention? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead and Reception Sections

Full disclosure, I am obviously an active Wikipedian but became aware of this article's wording because of the Slate article. Second disclosure I am neither a boomer nor a Gen Zer in case that's important to anyone. Anyhow I have issues with the LEAD, mainly that it does not accurately summarize the article (per MOS:INTRO) but instead offer a basic definition (good) and then a criticism (UNDUE). I also have a problem with the "Reception" section in that it's not a reception section, it's a criticism section. We shouldn't have criticism sections, in my opinion, so no argument with its name, only with the non-neutral collection of facts that have been assembled there. I think there are already sources present on this page, such as from the NYTimes and Vox (and possibly others I haven't done a complete examination yet) that suggests that the reception has not been strictly critical. Also, FWIW, I do agree with the criticism leveled by someone in the Slate article that our current wording has some weasel word issues. I'm going to attempt to fix the LEAD with my next edit (though I might not finish this for some time as I'm on a bit of a time crunch) but knowing that there's been some disagreement wanted to post first here to kickstart any conversation that might occur. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

In diving into sources I found plenty of criticism for ageism of the phrase. As such I have renamed the Reception section to Ageism to reflect what it's about, and also added several other notable people criticizing the phrase or criticisms noted by RS. In the process I removed a few sources that did not appear to be as high quality or which were more tangentially about the phrase. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this article really necessary?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:AFD is the place for this discussion, not here.

---

I'd argue this is just a basic internet meme and does not warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twottle Bird (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I would argue that memes have a place on Wikipedia. If it’s possible to write a subjective article on anything, why would it not belong on the Internet’s number 1 go-to website for information? Gigajosh (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:AFD is where you would make an argument for deleting or keeping this page. WP:SODOIT. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image

Nixinova removed the image of Swarbrick from the article. I would suggest we add it back in. At this moment most of our highest quality sources mention her, frequently in significant detail. She is, at least for now, highly germane to the topic and help to bring up what is, at the moment, a text dominant article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

71.173.77.153 (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Under "Usage:" The Facebook group "Ok Boomer" has reached 50,000 members as of March 2020 2601:87:C47F:40E0:3560:2C37:AFDF:8D69 (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There's nothing there about a Facebook group, and it doesn't seem worthwhile to add. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Internet meme?

Nowhere in the article is the internet mentioned. This is a tiktok thing. The category of this being an internet meme is too broad and should be removed. I did so, but the person that added it reinstated it, so it remains. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

TikTok is an online social media platform popular on the Internet. It is assumed that a TikTok meme would be an Internet meme. Even with that in mind, the article could easily be elaborated to include the fact that the meme is popular on the Internet. Soulbust (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what the internet is. Tiktok is on the internet like just about everything else. Nothing presented here says it's widely used across the internet. Some older folks may think that AOL is the internet but it isn't - nor is Tiktok. You say it yourself in your edit summary that it is "literally a meme from TikTok". QED

Bring some evidence that it's widely used on the internet and make the case that it's an internet meme not a Tiktok thing - and have the info in the article support it if you think the category is appropriate. As it stands, there is no evidence in the article that it is an internet-wide thing and the category is inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It literally is a meme from TikTok. (It has since spread to other platforms BUT that is irrelevant, because calling something an Internet meme does not mean it has to be on every single platform out there. First sentence of the Internet meme article ends in "spread via the Internet, often through social media platforms." TikTok is a social media platform where memes can spring up on and become viral. Hence, a TikTok meme is therefore an Internet memes. If there was a category called "TikTok memes" it would be a sub-category of "Internet memes". You may notice that some memes are more popular on specific platforms than others (i.e. Tide Pods and Milkshake Duck were first popularized on Reddit and Twitter originally, respectively. Chewbacca Mask Lady is a Facebook meme at its core. Dancing Hot Dog is a Snapchat meme; all these examples obviously went on to spread elsewhere). But OK, I found what you wanted — The New York Times: "Teenagers use it to reply to cringey YouTube [social media platform #2] videos, Donald Trump tweets [Twitter, social media platform #3], and basically any person over 30 who says something condescending about young people — and the issues that matter to them," Soulbust (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, the category is "Internet memes introduced in [xxxx]" not "Internet-wide memes introduced in [xxxx]", so it's an appropriate category regardless. Soulbust (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK boomer. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

OK boomer. Soulbust (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved: the discussion basically revolves around whether "boomer" is a proper noun. The MLA style guide, as cited in this discussion, is much more persuasive than editors asserting the opposite without reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

---

OK Boomer → OK boomer – Is boomer a proper noun? Unreal7 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 21:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Boomer is not a proper noun [1]. Perusing the sources, there's a mix of capitalization and non-capitalization. Per MOS:CAP, we should not capitalize. I think the more pertinent question is if the title should be "OK boomer" or "OK, boomer". userdude 09:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

"Boomer" isn't a proper noun, but "OK Boomer" is. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on what? Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, a proper noun in this example. This is one of the easiest derogatory statements for the named group to turn around and "own" by simply including an exclamation point or comma for the tee-shirt worthy sayings "OK! Boomer!" or "OK, Boomer!". Randy Kryn (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support: Not a proper noun. This is a phrase, not a proper noun. The word "boomer" is a common noun – it is a class of people. "OK boomer" is not even a noun, much less a proper noun. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• As a generational descriptor the upper-casing would be consistent with Generation X (not 'Generation x') etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• So is the phrase Generation X equivalent to the phrase Baby Boomers? And if so, surely don't we end up with Gen X --> gen Xer, Baby Boomers --> baby boomer (and so boomer)?— Hazzzzzz12 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - when it appears in text, the lowercase version seems to be more common. And 'boomer' doesn't seem like an official group that requires a proper noun. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous comment. PrussianOwl (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The actual origin

"ok boomer" is derived from "ok retard" https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ok%20retard "A phrase used to jokingly disregard a statement made by someone" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.157.74 (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is a user generated source and so fails our reliable sourcing policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If you ever are in doubt about which sources are acceptable and are considered reliable, valid sources please check WP: RSP 194.247.60.2 (talk)

Refs

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

"OK boomer" is a catchphrase and meme used by teenagers and young adults to dismiss or mock outdated attitudes typically associated with people born in the two decades... [etc.]." This should read as follows: "...a catchphrase and meme used by teenagers and young adults to dismiss or mock attitudes WHICH THEY BELIEVE TO BE OUTDATED AND WHICH ARE typically associated with people...[etc.]" 2001:5B0:262F:5AE8:AD59:64AE:24F6:E436 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Have just omitted the word "outdated" as the next sentence "attitudes typically associated with [older] people" is already fully clear that it's referring to the attitudes of an older generation. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

"OK Boomer" origin on 4chan's /pol/ board

The phrase "ok boomer" first gained popularity in 2018 among white supremacists on 4chan's /pol/ board who used it to mock older conservatives who weren't seen to be racist enough. This isn't mentioned in the article.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/%22ok%20boomer%22/order/asc/page/3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:124E:8900:E96C:F683:9F84:963C (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RPDhypebeast (talk • contribs) 17:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

4Chan is not a reliable or even moderately accurate source and is considered a alt-right neo-nazi site. Please refrain from attempting to use that as it goes against WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:BLOGS and WP:QS. Use of this might result in assumptions that you're a WP:NAZI, which might get you blocked from editing. See WP:RSP for the list of accepted sources. 194.247.60.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

What the fuck are you ranting about? It's a 4chan meme. The guy provided proof with archives of the site. There are thousands of uses of the phrase months before the origins suggested in the article, proving that it is wrong. --71.213.163.54 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought OK Boomer came from /v/ more than /pol/. /v/ is where the "30-year-old boomer" meme came from after all. PrussianOwl (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

"Usage" section

The Usage section currently contains a maintenance tag saying it "appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture". I can't find any discussion about this on the talk page, however, and at least as the section currently is, I don't think the tag is applicable; I think almost all examples of usage are relevant, and on top of that they're thoroughly sourced. The only part which I'm not so sure about is the last paragraph, about the streamer who posted a TikTok video, but in any case, I don't think the tag is warranted. Lennart97 (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it. Lennart97 (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

""OK boomer" was named the "Word of the Year 2019" by a blog in New Zealand[40]" - this needs to be modified to show relevance. "By a blog in New Zealand" - what blog? Why should we care? There are millions of blogs out there, did the Jim's Things I Did Today blog name "OK Boomer" the word of the year (which, it's not a word, it's a phrase, but anyhow...)? I'm guessing the source is more relevant than that, but on first glance, this entry needs to be either deleted or altered to show why it matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.210.56 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)