text:
Talk:Generation X/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 17 November 2005 and 06 April 2006. See Archive 1 for discussions between 22 October 2001 (page creation) and 17 November 2005.

The "Early Y" Partition
I would like to know go to use this page please. I have an opinion about generation x and y. I think that generaton y should beging in 1975/1976 and the end of the Vietnam war (most of the troops returned home from the Vietnam war between 1972-1975). If the beginning of the "baby boomer generation" began 1945, 1946, then the baby boomers would be about 30 in 1975,1976. I would think that they would be prepared enough to marry and have children by then. Also, many of the troops of the Vietnam war came home by 1975 and it was the beginning of the discos craze (from what I learned in history). I would like to say that 1975/1976 (at the latest) is the beginning of generation y and 1990 (before the Gulf War) is the cutoff of generation y. 1991 with the beginning of the Gulf War sets the pase for generation z (or what you would refer to as the "new silent generation.)." The Clinton administration, the War in Iraq, the even more changes in technology, the internet and other changes in the 90's are definite markers of generation z. If we are figuring out a fifteen year generational gap then this generation will end in 2006. If we are figuring out a twenty year generational gap, then this generation would end in 2010. Then comes what society would say generation ? and what I would say "the generation the best is yet to come." Anyways I am in my late 20's now and I think that I am way too young to be labled as "ancient." I cannot really relate to generation xers per se as they think that "I'm too young, I was born very late 1976). P.S. I was also a sociology major (graduated in 2000 with honors and extra classes). I have lots to discuss about this!!!! Please e-mail me at tlh102000@yahoo.comSunshine10 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) In the course of a lecture in one of my sociology classes, there was a section devoted to a distinctive and very small generational subdivision that falls between both X and Y. If we say, for the sake of argument, that Gen X ended in 1980, or MAYBE 1981, it has been noted that those born in the years 1982/3 and POSSIBLY 1984 exhibit certain societal and cultural traits, habits and preferences that-- while combining certain aspects of GEN X, and especially GEN Y-- render them unique in their own right.  This generational partition has been occasionally referred to as the Early Y or Cold Y generation.

Reasons for this partition include attitudes about technology, societal norms and, in an indirect sort of way, areas like the global political order, etc. This generation was the very last to (assuming born in 1982 or 83) obtain cognizance or self-awareness before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Therefore they were the last generational segment with any memory of life during the Cold War. They were also the last to have some ideas of what life was like when the modern information based society was in its transitional/formative years, rather than the current all-pervasive and totally integrated form it had taken by the early 90's. In other words, they were the final generation to be able to compare and contrast the late Cold War/Space Age society with the Post-Cold War/Information Age society using their own personal experiences and memories.

Consequently, one can see these characteristics manifest themselves in areas like the approach to contemporary technology. For the regular generation Y, modern information technology has always been "there", whereas Early Y grew up during the critical period of technological evolution in which the current bedrock technologies on which our info-based society relies were moved out of the technical/specialist realm and into the consumer applied realm, often when traits of each area were mixed and indistinct, giving Early Y a rather odd viewpoint that combines the outlook of the specialist/technical segment of the previous generation (but much more widely disseminated) with the integrationist outlook of the later Y generation.

In terms of political and societal outlook, there are also noticeable differences. Whereas Gen X has now largely has had time to fall into the standard orthodoxies of political participation (I mean that in a relativistic sense, not a judgmental/absolute sense, i.e. if you are on the far left in the U.S., a Trotskyite labor group could be considered an orthodox political outlet), and mainstream Gen Y has either done so also or (for a wide segment of it) remained apathetic or non-participatory. Early Y, on the other hand, has manifested tendencies towards a less common form of what has been termed "policy-centric pragmatism", which places a lower value, relatively speaking, on constructs like ideology or formalism. When what could be termed ideology does manifest itself, the Early Y's seem to have taken-on an unusual tendency to look to often imported belief or value systems that lie outside the scope of those normally brought into the U.S. from abroad.

Speaking in terms of societal mores and values, Early Y seems to be in limbo between the post-Sexual Revolution norms of Gen X and the emergent ones of Gen Y (which have been described by some commentators as simply the normalization or commoditization of those of Gen X). This includes an apparent embracing of the basic outlooks of Gen X, but a reluctance to carry to their logical extremes, as we see occurring now with Gen Y. In many areas, Early Y seems to embrace the more cynical worldview exhibited by X while rejecting some of what they view as crassness or immoderation. It has been remarked that in doing so, as Early Y matures they have begun to look several generations behind X in forming certain societal/sexual constructs.

In any event, this is me basically regurgitating the lecture presentation from class; some of the selected readings I've skimmed on the subject are much more complex. I would appreciate if someone could look further into this area and possibly make an edit on the Gen X article. Depending on the amount and nature of information on the subject, I'm considering forming a separate article entitled Early Y Theory. Any input is always appreciated.

After X and Before Y there was the MTV Generation
Anyone remember the Simpsons, first Gulf War, their childhood through the 80's and the musical burst of eurodance, grunge rock and gangsta rap from the late 80's and early 90's. There was I think a smaller generation between that of Gen X and Gen Y which were also the offspring of Baby Boomers - which my parents were. I know many people born from 1982 - 1984 who agree that they do not belong to Gen Y, and most of them refer to themselves as Gen X'ers - however I recently remembered in an episode of The Simpsons where someone asked Lisa and Bart what generation they were - and they said they were the MTV Generation, when asked how that felt like they replied "eh..." referring to the nihilistic feeling of that period with most kids and teens living through that generation. I do not agree in classifying the children of the 80s as Gen Y because they are the new Millennial children - they are in fact Thatcher's Children but not the Newmills in my opinion. I believe there should be a re-evalutation of the late Gen X - making those born from 1976 to 1984 part of the MTV Generation seeing as MTV was only launched by August 1st of 1981. Piecraft 20:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Generations are more than 9 years long. Call it a sub-cohort, if you will, but this idea of having "generations" that are 5-10 years long just doesn't make sense. Those of us at different ends of a generation may not be exactly the same in every detail, but we have broader similarities, and that's where generational theory comes in. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, however there is a large difference as can clearly be acknowledged by those of Generation X who believe their generation resides in the late 60s up until the mid to late 70s, whereas those of us from the early 80s would not categorise ourselves under Generation Y. Ask anyone born from 82-84 they will state they are either part of Generation X or of another altogether, they will not hold allegiance to Generation Y because there are far too many differences between them and those born in Generation Y. Piecraft 22:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, they can be Gen X if they really feel like it. I hold to the Strauss/Howe 1961-1981 definition anyway -- but there is fuzziness at either end, so if you are within a few years of each end of the generation you might identify with one of two different generations. All of this depends on the environment you grew up in, etc. So most of this argument about dates is pretty silly, IMHO. :) Perhaps if there is the "Atari" wave and "Nintendo" wave of Xers, there can also be a subwave of those at the tail end of the generation. (The "SuperNintendo" wave?) ;) ManekiNeko | Talk 23:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Archiving this Talk page
This Talk page has gotten far too long (as well as being a complete unorganized mess). I archived the older discussions, and I'm cleaning up the archive a bit as well. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the term
Are there any records of how Douglas Coupland got the inspiration for his book title? Ten years before the novel came out (set in Southern California) Penelope Spheeris released The Decline of Western Civilization (1981), the not-so-well remembered prequel to her popular documentary about late '80s metal bands. The first film dealt with the Los Angeles punk rock scene in 1979-1980 and one of its bands was named Generation X. This might be a more distant allusion to Malcolm X, but it's the earliest use I've seen of the later generational term. Durova 06:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * When asked about the title, Coupland said:

 * "'Paul Fussell, who wrote a book called Class, which is about class stratification in the States and for people who didn't want to be part of the class merry-go-round, he invented the 'X' class, and I read that and I thought, gee, that sounds an awful lot like this particular group of people. So that was where the term came from.'"

 * So, no, not from the band. (Incidentally, the band Generation X was not from LA, they were from England. There was, however, a famous LA punk band called simply X. I never got around to seeing Spheeris' film, but I imagine the latter band was in it... was there an LA band called Generation X as well? I don't recall one, but I wasn't in LA at the time.) ManekiNeko | Talk 07:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It would have been pretty hard to miss X in a documentary about the LA punk scene from that era. Both groups got listed in ad copy for the film. Durova 03:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Why would Generation X (a UK band that may already have been defunct by that point) have been included in a documentary about the LA Punk scene? I just checked the IMDB page for the movie and there is no indication that Gen X was in the film. There was a punk documentary called DOA, about English punk, with the Sex Pistols, etc., and Generation X was in that film -- maybe you are thinking of that one instead. That film might have been slightly earlier than the LA punk movie. And of course the English band was releasing records even before that. (DOA is a pretty good movie if you're interested in the early days of punk, by the way.) Anyway, the band Generation X predates the book Generation X and both of them are on record as getting the name from sources in the 1960s. ManekiNeko | Talk 07:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

ME ME ME
Generation X is now described and managed by ManekiNeko. They are the self proclaimed authority on Generation X and have commandeered this discussion page to prove how informed they believe to be. If that’s not Generation 'In-between X&Y' behavior, I don't know what is. See the now 'archived' material (Maneki didn't feel it expressed 'their' page's message) for explanation of this conclusion.

--Big Rig 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow. Perhaps you aren't aware that Talk pages are frequently archived on Wikipedia. See WP:ARCHIVE, where it says:

 * "'When talk pages — like article pages — become larger than 32kb, they cannot be edited by some users because of browser page size limits. Moreover, such large texts become bulky and difficult to navigate, and place a burden on users with slow (dialup) connections.'"

 * "It is therefore customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive older discussions on pages that have become large."

 * The Talk page here was more than 80k, and it was very difficult to read since so many people were just doing things like posting right at the top, not using headings, etc. (You had to scroll halfway down just to see the Contents menu.) It needed cleanup, so I did. I didn't delete any content, including yours. It's all there on the archive page. I did not make any editorial decisions based on "what expressed 'their' page's message", only based on making the page current and shorter. The point at which I chose to archive was where the current conversations seemed to begin. Your post fell just barely on the other side of that line. So, please, chill. (PS -- you don't know when I was born.) ManekiNeko | Talk 22:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Generation X aptitude test
It's becoming counterproductive warding off these crackbabies from the 1980s. You're not legitimate X'ers!! But, I feel your pain. And, if I was in your situation, I'd do whatever it took to become an X'er, because the generation is sweettttt!!!. And, that GenY group is as stupid as they come (but they know how to use IM messenger!!!) Therefore, if you want to be a GenX'er, take the test. If this defines you, then welcome aboard! Else, getta steppin'.

You Might Belong to Generation X If...

 * You wore anything Izod, especially those windbreakers that folded up into a pouch you could wear around your waist.
 * You wore a Member's Only jacket, or a fake one that looked pretty close.
 * Before the days of "Air Jordan", the types of shoes you wore were either Chuck Taylor or May-Pops; and the girls wore Dr. Scholl's.
 * You owned a Jordache anything, or you remember when Jordache jeans were cool.
 * You know, by heart, the words to a "Weird" Al Yankovic song.
 * You remember when Madonna was just hitting the scene.
 * "The Reflex" was a cool song.
 * You remember watching Apollonia jump into Lake Minnetonka!!!!!
 * You remember "Battlestar Galactica."
 * You remember when you were in elementary school, before the days of DVDs and even VHS, there were movie reels, and slide projectors. And, only the smart kids were allowed to operate them.
 * Three words: "Atari," "Apple," and "Pong."
 * You used an Apple ][ computer in school.
 * You remember the original version of Windows: the Macintosh.
 * You remember the days when "safe sex" meant "my parents are gone for the weekend."
 * You remember "Friday Night Videos" before the days of MTV.
 * You remember watching "Benny Hill" late at night (un-edited) on reguar television.
 * You took family trips BEFORE the invention of the mini-van.
 * You rode in the back of the station wagon and you faced the cars behind you in the "tail gunner" position.
 * You remember in elementary school watching "The Muppet movie", and singing the song "Rainbow Connection"
 * You actually know who Rick Springfield is.
 * You remember when film critics raved that no movie could ever possibly get better special effects than those in the movie TRON.
 * You jammed to the Miami Vice theme and thought Jan Hammer was cool.
 * For the girl crazy bunch: Your first sexual dream occurred to thoughts of Jeannie, Marsha Brady, Samantha from Bewitched or, for those hard-core comic fans out there, Daphne from Scooby Doo, Josie or any one of her Pussycats
 * And for the boy crazy bunch: You thought Sean Cassidy was "dreamy", lusted after "Ted, your ship's photographer" on the Love Boat and Chachi, or, to keep it fair to the comically interested, thought Fred was just a hunk on Scooby Doo.
 * You remember when there was only "G, PG and R", none of this PG-13 crap.
 * You learned to swim about the same time Jaws came out and still carry the emotional scars to this day.
 * You spent endless nights dreaming about being the Bionic Woman/Man or Wonder Woman/the Incredible Hulk.
 * You know all the words to the double album set of Grease.
 * "All-skate, change directions" means something to you.
 * You ever rang someone's doorbell and said "Landshark."
 * You bought a pair of Vanns and wanted to order a pizza in history class so you could be just like Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
 * You wore Birdwell's Beach Britches, or anything made by OP.
 * You remember that video by A Flock of Seagulls.
 * "Thriller", "Beat It", or "Ebony and Ivory" was your top request on the radio. Remember "Tainted Love"?
 * Every time you see one of those big military rescue helicpters, you think of the "Screaming Mimi" from "Riptide."
 * You saw the space shuttle launch in shcool and thought "Wow, cool."
 * One word: Corduroy.
 * You are a Remington Steele fan.
 * You remember the night Michael Jackson won all of those Grammy awards. And, then said if he won another awards that night, he would take of his sunglasses. And, he did!
 * You remember making fun of Michael Jackson in school the next day!
 * You saw the Stones' *first* farewell tour.
 * When you saw Dana Plato's layout in Playboy, it didn't match the fantasies you had from watching her on "Diff'rent Strokes."
 * You remember when Eddie Van Halen and Hugh Heffner were both single. "Van Halen just isn't the same without Dave."
 * You remember when Rush was a heavy metal band, and Geddy Lee's voice could shatter glass.
 * You saw the first "Less Filling/Tastes Great" commercial.
 * You know the Fonz's full name.
 * You decided to take up golf after you saw "Caddyshack."
 * Cheech and Chong were really cool, man.
 * Go, Speed Racer, go!
 * Rocky and Bullwinkle, Speed Buggy, Underdog, and Get Smart were yourfavorite TV shows, right after Gilligan's Island.
 * You remember all the words to the Gilligan's Island theme song.
 * Redd Foxx was great as Fred Sanford.
 * Sonny Bono as a mayor still wigs you out.
 * You went around humming Manfred Mann's "Do Wah Diddy" for two weeks after you saw "Stripes."
 * You've ever shouted, "I, wanna rock and roll all night, and party every day!"
 * You've ever shouted, "Up all night, sleep all day!"
 * You remember when OJ was famous for running through airports in Hertz commercials, or for playing football.
 * The words "How about a nice Hawaiian Punch?" and "Where's the beef?!" bring back fond childhood memories.
 * Sesame Street and Star Trek played important roles during your formative years.
 * You really liked the car in "Hardcastle and McCormick."
 * You know what "Nanoo, nanoo" means.
 * Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder really knew how to make an entrance into a prison cell. ("That's right, we bad....")
 * You remember Velvet Jones, Mr. Robinson's Neighborhood, and Gumby, dammit!
 * Before "NYPD Blue," it was "Hill Street Blues." And before that, it was "Baretta," "Columbo," and "Starsky & Hutch."
 * You know where the line "Yo, Adrian!" came from.
 * You watched ZOOM on TV.
 * The year 1984 was the best year of your life!
 * You took a date to see "St. Elmo's Fire."
 * The video for Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer" was almost as badasss as Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing."
 * You remember Sting as the front man for the Police.
 * You got sick of hearing George Michael's "Sex" over and over on the radio, kinda like Def Leppard......
 * You remember anything Bruce Springsteen did before "Born in the USA."
 * You watched "Cagney and Lacey."
 * You zaw zoze Zima commerzials on ze TV. ("Nice hat.")
 * You know that the "Queen of Rock and Roll" is Rod Stewart.
 * You know who Tennesee Tuxedo was.
 * You used to watch "Hollywood Squares" because it was on between "Gomer Pyle, USMC" and "Batman ."
 * You wore your jeans tight, not baggy like all your friends do now to hide their flabby backsides.
 * "Funky Cold Medina" was cool.
 * Run Jesse, run.
 * You actually remember Spuds McKenzie, Alex from Stroh's, and the Swedish Bikini Team.
 * You remember when Joe Camel made his first appearance, on the 75th birthday comemorative pack.
 * You remember when Patrick Duffy went from being "The Man from Atlantis" to Bobby Ewing.
 * You know who shot JR.
 * You remember "The New Zoo Revue"
 * Remember "Real People" and "That's Incredible"?
 * Dennis Miller, for just an instant, was actually as funny as he thought he was.
 * You were afraid of the Sleestaks on Land of the Lost.
 * You remember the days that hooking your computer into your television wasn't an expensive option that required gadgets - it was the ONLY WAY to use your computer!
 * "IntelliVision" and "Coleco". Sound familiar?
 * You remember when music that was labeled "alternative" really was.
 * You, yes you, sat down and memorized the entire lyric sheet to "It's the End of the World as We Know It".
 * You've ever conversationally used the phrase "Jane, you ignorant slut".
 * You watched HR Puffenstuff as a child, but now that you're older, you really understand that it would have been much better had you known about drugs at the time.
 * You're starting to view getting carded to buy alcohol as a GOOD thing.
 * You ever used the phrase "kiss mah grits" in conversation.
 * You remember trying to guess the episode of the Brady Bunch from the first scene.
 * This rings a bell: "and my name, is Charlie. They work for me."
 * You ever wanted to learn to play "Stairway to Heaven" on the guitar.
 * You were unsure if Diet Coke would ever catch on, after all, look at Tab.
 * You remember when your cable tv box had the three rows of numbers and you had to move the selector switch accordingly.

I have some things to add to this list...

 * You know who "Bowzer" was, and can actually hum the theme song to "Sha-na-na"
 * You know that Eddie Murphy was famous before "48 Hours".. Hint: SNL
 * You couldn't wait till next episode of "Headbanger's Ball"
 * You actually owned a pair of rainbow colored suspenders.
 * Lunch Boxes were still primarily made of metal
 * You remember when the name Hannibal didn't have anything to do with silent lambs, but rather Mr. T's boss
 * The guys with calculators on their watches were nerds
 * Your "cool" watch sometimes doubled for calling "KITT" at the playground.
 * You were actually shocked to see Roger Moore playing "James Bond" instead of Sean Connery.
 * You know who played Vinnie Barbarino on "Welcome Back Kotter"
 * You have ever considered burning a picture of yourself in a butterfly collar shirt.

....My list could go ON and ON and ON! My birthdate: October 7, 1972, a smack dab in the middle Bonifide Gen Xer and proud of it! Long live the 80's!!!! (added by Heath)

 * There's no need to flame the younger folks. This isn't a competition.

 * I have seen this list many times... the first time I saw it it was called "Are you a child of the 80s?" It's been expanded since then. I hate the one that says "Friday Night Videos before the days of MTV" -- MTV predated FNV by a year or two. (Couldn't you have just linked to it instead of posting the whole thing?) ManekiNeko | Talk 03:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It probably was at one time called "Are you a child of the 80s", after all GenX'er were childs of the 80s! You stupid idiot. Furthermore, if you remember, when MTV first launched, it did not show that many music videos. It only showed a select few cheesy videos (like Duran Duran's "Girls on Film"), along with documentaries, and old crap interviews. Matter of fact, MTV wasn't even a twenty-four hour music channel at that time. "Friday Night Videos" was the only place that showed all of the current videos of that time, not MTV. Therefore, "FNV" predated MTV. You stupid idiot. This is a clear indication that you are not a legitimate X'er. Bottom-line, this list is the best definition of what it means to be an X'er.  And, it helps weed-out those "wannabe's". Nice Beaver! 04:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Nice Beaver!, Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. I am asking you to stop the personal attacks and to be more constructive. (Incidentally, MTV did play all videos when they were new, with the exception of special shows such as the Friday concerts, the Saturday movie, and in-studio interviews, etc. FNV appeared a couple of years later, playing lots of videos, yes, but for only an hour or 90 minutes every Friday night. It is true that some locations did not get MTV until after FNV had been on the air for a while, but others (such as Seattle) had MTV first, and I can assure you it was playing videos all day and all night. ManekiNeko | Talk 06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Nice Beaver, last time I checked it would seem that you sir have no understanding of your own generation, when you corrected the MTV Generation article clearly confusing Generation X and Baby Boomers together. I believe you should also tone down the aggressiveness and insults seeing as that is not proper Wiki conduct. Eveyrone is entitled to their opinion, and no one crowned you King of Gen X. As far as I can see the 80s have nothing to do in terms of Gen X seeing as it technically finished in 1979. SO get your facts straight Jack! Piecraft 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * There's no need to attack other people, NB. Personally, I don't think it's fair to judge a generation by its understanding of pop culture; that is in many ways insulting to those who don't define themselves by it. I don't see how this could truly be concidered an objective method of judgement. -- LGagnon 04:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. It's true that Xers have a lot of this stuff in common, but it's not what defines us. ManekiNeko | Talk 06:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the above list should be taken with a pinch of salt, or a big bagfull if you like :). It largely reflects, dare I say, "GenX culture" of Americans during the 80's. Being South African, what typifies my generation is vastly different. Remember, South Africa was still ruled by a white Apartheid government at the time, in which the Dutch Reformed Church had a big say. Censorship was thus the order of the day, and in conjunction with sanctions imposed on us from all over the world, we had limited choices of entertainment, televised or otherwise. We did, however, get many US programs on local TV. I went to high school in 1994, the year in which we had our first democratic elections. I thus had experience of living under Apartheid. There is a generation gap in SA in this respect, ie. young people remembering Apartheid and those growing up not experiencing it. This isn't really an X/Y divide, though. Men a bit older than me had to do compulsory military service, but this stopped some time in the early 90's, when the Codesa talk were held. The end of GenX in SA would thus be around the time when the last men were conscripted for compulsory military service. I think they ought to be men born around 1975. I would fall somewhere between the "military service GenX" and the "post-apartheid GenY". There is another divide with people born post 1994, who were born and grew up in a democratic SA. I'm not sure were they will fit into the generational classification, though.

In summary, I would emphasise that "pop culture" is indeed not a very accurate measure of generational divide, as political circumstances can have a much more real inluence thereupon. (added by Adolphe Marx)

End Date for Gen-X
I'm happiest with a 1979 end date for Gen-X. Add 18 years and you'll end up with 1997, when the pop songs of the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears began to become popular, something that didn't jive with the rest of 1990s pop culture.

Still, it feels rather arbitrary. Anything from 1976-1982 seems debatable to me. Those years have traits of X and Y.

Juppiter 02:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Thus the purpose for Generation XY which falls within the boundaries between 1976 up until 1985, another seemingly "lost" and displaced generation gap similar to Generation Jones and the other lost Generations. Piecraft 13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears? BSB were 1998, and Britney was 1999. Are you going to suggest that 1980 (from 1998) be the end of Gen X now? And besides, 18-year-olds weren't listening to the Backstreet Boys. Wiwaxia 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Start Date for Gen-X
I'm bemused to find that Gen-X supposed goes all the way back to 1961. That's baby boomer territory. My take is that when the term was first coined, it was intended to describe people born in the 70's and perhaps early 80's and wasn't intended to describe a genuine whole generation. Maybe a span of 10 or even 15 years. Who is officially defining Gen-X to stretch from 1961 to the early 80's? Where is this coming from? -- KarlHallowell 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Writers Strauss and Howe defined their "13th Generation" (equivalent to Generation X) as from about 1961-1981 in the books Generations, 13th Gen, and The Fourth Turning. Their definitions have been pretty widely, though not at all universally, adopted. They have some good reasons for drawing the line at 1961, though of course it's a very fuzzy line. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Strauss and Howe wrote and coined phrases a bit too soon, and should have thought about those fuzzy lines a little more. Those born in the 60's vs. the early 80's in American culture have little in common. Honestly, something happened in the summer of 69 to make a line there and then in the winter of 79. I honestly don't know what they were, but there really is a difference. (in my expierence on the West Coast)

I think it is a reaction in the late 1980s (1987 was the start date for the show thirtysomething) against boomers who were 30s. The twentysomethings at the time were born after 1957. John wesley 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Boomers would then be 1946 to 1956 and Gen X would be 1957 to 1967. The key point is that the Vietnam War and exposure to the draft is the defining element of boomerhood. If you were born in 1957, you turned 18 in 1975,... after the draft ended. 1955 at most 1956 was the last year of birth that can count. John wesley 21:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that there's strong demographical reasons to group people born between 1946 and 1964 into the "baby boomer generation". There was after all a huge surge in births during this time. The subdivision of baby boomers into "early" and "late" probably addresses your concerns about cultural differences since the life experiences of those born at either end were completely different if for no other reason than the stronger competition for resources (eg, more expensive housing) and shakier economy when the later boomers were entering the working world. OTOH, Gen-X appears to be more a fairly narrow cultural division and there's no obvious reason why it should share overlap with the boomers. -- KarlHallowell 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * That's a good point. Maybe the boomer generation is really two generations.  Then we need to lobby for people to say early boomer, in which case those born in 1944 or 1943 could be put in.  Say 1943 to 1953 and then 1954 to 1964, because someone born in 1954 would turn draft age in 1972 just in time for the draft to end.  The first people not subject to the draft should be the either non-boomer boomer (a.k.a. late boomer) and those born in the ten years before would be the boommer-boomer or Early-Boomer. John wesley 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * This is veering into "original research". I imagine that there's some sort of documented demographic category subdivision here, but I don't have a reference. Perhaps the US Census Bureau has a working definition of these categories. -- KarlHallowell 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

MTV Generation ... please provide some legitimate FACTS
That entire MTV Generation article appears to be nothing but propaganda, with no factual information provided to support your thesis. An encyclopedia is for documenting factual research and facts, not for injecting someones opinions. But, I'm willing to "quid pro quo" with astute intellectuals. Therefore, will you please provide me with web links that "specifically" define MTV Generation as a generational gap between "GenX" and "GenY". Also, please provide articles that provide me with definitive dates that say "MTV Generation" is a generation gap from 19XX to 19YY.

Under "External links" on the MTV Generation article, websites were listed, that I guess, were given to support the legitimacy of "MTV Generation". But, neither link provided undisputable facts.

 * http://www.tweeners.org/ This link has been around since the early days of the Internet. Tweeners is not a new term.  Those individuals born between Baby Boomers and Generation X have always been called tweeners.  And, this website is only for this group of people.  So, what relevance does this article provide to the MTV Generation article?

 * http://www.siue.edu/ALESTLE/library/SPRING2001/feb13/mtv.html This article doesn't provide much proof that MTV Generation is a generation between X and Y.  It's an article about the early days of MTV and how MTV influenced the youth. And, the youth being GenX'ers.  Please explain why is the link provided?  What are we supposed to learn about "MTV Generation" (as it's defined on Wikipedia) from this web link?

 * http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/genx.html (Main title of the article was: "MTV Generation or Generation X") This "essay" by Kristina Ross was about how the media was used to market products to Generation X. It doesn't list any new dates or sub-Generations, and says absolutely nothing about a generation gap. And, again, it's an essay!  Anyone can write an essay.  Articles in an encyclopedia needs to be back up with factual research documents.

 * http://www.funkygrad.com/think/displayarticle.php?artID=420&subcat=shout This is another piece of opionated journalism, written by someone named Liang Xiang Hong (who is a student from Singapore). If you read through this opinionated web link, Hong defines himself as an Xer, and the MTVGen'r was 10 years younger than him (that'll make it 13 years old). I didn't get the exact date this article was written, but based on some of the things mentioned (such as "wardrobe malfunctions") this article was written no earlier than 2004.  That means this thirteen year old MTVGen'r was born after 1991 (2004 minus 13). 1991 does not fall into ranges provide on the "MTV Generation" article.  Please explain why this is. And, provide legitimate facts and weblinks to support your claim.

 * Actually, I just answered my own questions. This is an article I found that defines "MTV Generation" as someone born between 1965 and 1978.  http://www.mymamasaid.com/save/article/115 Wow!!! which weblinks are correct???

 * FACT 1: the Simpsons kids defined THEIR generation as the MTV Generation thus meaning the term was around since the mid-80s to early 90s.

 * FACT 2: the term "Early Y" is erroneous in trying to place my generation under the same umbrella as the Generation Y, when everyone I know has considered themselves (those born from 1976-1985) as Gen X or as the Undefinable Generation. The one common factor is that everyone pertaining to MY generation remembers clearly MTV as the defining factor to our growing up and our lifestyle, unlike the new form of MTV's influence over Gen Y.

 * FACT 3: Please present enough evidence that my article is not based on a true genration, when in fact it is known that between major Generations such as Baby Boomers and Gen X there are "gaps" this has been noted by most sociologists and observers of changing generations - thus it is more than likely that Generation XY is not only apparent but also a true term to define its people.

 * FACT 4: several movies that were made early-90s and those that were made later depicting teenage-life in Middle America present the characteristcs that are prevalent in Gen XY and they even term it as the Doom or Gloom generation as well as MTV Generation.

I have a lot of respect for your intelligence (I'm very serious), however, your reasoning for MTV Generation is still not justified. Based on these facts just given, I am less acceptable of the MTV Generation article, and even starting to wonder why this is even discussed on a GenX page. Even if you repackage it into "Generation XY", you still have a problem of providing supportive research. Also, when I searched for "MTV Generation", "Cold Generation Y", "Early Y Partition" and "Generation XY" in all of the major search engines, nothing factual was found to justify these classifications. I would be happy to provide constructive critique of the facts you've just given, however, they're too ambiguous. Please address the following, and revise your facts:

 * Ten year interval comment on Fact 2

Notice how a ten year interval works neatly. 1976-85. Counting backwards, i.e. doing arithmetic, 1946-55 (Boom), 1956-65 (Gen X or Boom?), 1966-75 (Gen X), 1976-85 (Gen Y)....  If we just did ten year intervals to mark generations it would work because the 1946-64 [stupid transposition of final digits] implies a 19 year interval when a Boomer born in 1946 could give birth to someone in 1964 to someone in her own generation, crazy! If the 1989 TV show Thirtysomething was for bopomers, then those who were twentysomething are ten years younger than those thortysomthings! The Gen X at that time was used interchangeably with the twentysomething term. With ten year intervals we have 4 intervals: 46-55, 56-65, 66-75, and 76-85. The oldest teenager in 2006 was born in 1986. We are only then arguing what name to label those 4 ten year intervals. John wesley 14:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Response to FACT 1;  Please provide the episode which the Simpson Kids identified themselves as MTV Generation. As an avid lover of the Simpsons, I don't recall Lisa (or Bart) Simpson defining "MTV Generation" as a generational gap between X and Y, or as someone born between 1976 to 1985. So, what value do the Simpsons add to your definition. Plus, I know the term "MTV Generation" has been a part of the American lexicon since the 1980s; however, it seems to me that you're trying to re-define this term without factual support.
 * Response to FACT 2; This is the part that makes me wonder "why is this being discussed on a GenX page"
 * Response to FACT 3; I would be thrilled to present evidence that the MTV Generation article is not based on a true generation, however, you must first present evidence that the MTV Generation article is based on a true generation. Furthermore, instead of saying "most sociologist" said this or that; provide some "names" of sociologist. Names are more credible.
 * Response to FACT 4; Instead of saying "several movie", give the titles of the movies made in early 90s that termed teenage-life in Middle America as the Doom or Gloom generation as well as MTV Generation.

 * FACT 1, The quote was taken from the Simpson quotes page (search for MTV Generation), and it provide you with the designated quote under Dialogs with Lisa - I do not recall the exact episode but I remember it being said. And if Bart and Lisa emplyed this term during the late 80s to define their "generation" then one presumes that Matt Groening as well as the producers of The Simpsons would have picked up the idea or the term from popular culture around. So basically what I'm saying is that either those born from 1976-1985 are Generation X or they are their own generation which would be termed under the XY or MTV Generation, because they sure as Hell have nothing in common with this Generation Y that everyone is discussing. I along with my peers do not remember Britney Spears as the defining moment in our music, nor do we believe September 11th to be the defining moment of our generation. We have less affiliation to Y than we do with X, because we were much more influenced and grew up with the ideas and people who lived through X thus were much more impressionable by their actions and words i.e. Janeane Garofalo, Kevin Smith, Kurt Cobain, Trent Reznor, Marilyn Manson, Ben Affleck, Madonna, Michael Jackson to name ut a few.

I'm in the mood to play Devil's Advocate today, so here are some thoughts (interspersed with your post): My understanding of the use of "the MTV Generation" in the late 80s was as a reference to Generation X, not some younger group that came after. And as I've said before, I firmly believe that a generation is longer than 5-10 years. Generations are 20-25 years -- any other group is a subgroup, sub-cohort, whatever, but it isn't a generation. Calling a 5-10 year span a generation is just nonsensical to my ears. (This applies to "Generation Jones" too.) I have no problem believing the early 80s folks are the last wave of X (as I said earlier, Atari wave, Nintendo wave, SuperNintendo wave) since that still fits into a 20-25 year generational cycle. Strauss/Howe claimed the generation ended in 1981, but they also said that it was really too soon to tell (at that time) what the actual change year would be, and 1981 was just an estimate based on what was known then.

 * Agreed, I am not trying to state that we are different per se, but that we are group of individuals born during a transitional period which reflects upon those adults of the Gen Y today - therefore there is either some discrepancy as you so clearly pointed out between the definition of generations in terms of years or a complete error in categorising a cultural era. Piecraft 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I also want to add that the older members of a generational cohort are culturally influenced by members of the previous generation (usually late cohort members). For example, The Beatles and Bob Dylan were Silents, not Baby Boomers. Madonna and Michael Jackson were Boomers, not Xers. And now Xer celebs influence younger Millennials. Just because a cultural influence is an X does not necessarily make the people who are influenced by them of the same generation -- there are always older celebs influencing the next generation. This is just the way of the world. More below... ManekiNeko | Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not deny that as a fact, however those who grew up with Michael Jackson and Madonna were not Gen Y'ers, who instead grew up with the more predominant celebrities of Britney Spears, Eminem and so on. One is not the other. What I don't agree upon is the definition of Gen Y as being the millennial generation which does not fit into anything myself or my peers associate with. We are not trying to group ourselves into our own fabricated geenration - because we know that our generation did exist, until now it has been overlooked or badly associated to either X or Y incorrectly. You say true Gen X'ers would never want to be categorised, we are not striving to define ourselves under a category because when we grew up we did not care to be part because we did not care to be defined, however today is a different matter. Just as so many Gen X'ers have their views on themselves and their culture that was predominant during their growing up you have to realise a total differentiation between those born in the late 70s - early 80s from this supposed generation that is supposed to encompass us which is referred to as Gen Y. I only heard of Gen Y by the time Spice Girls were popular, and by that time I was already a teenager, how do you support that theory? Piecraft 20:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am unclear exactly what you are saying here. (Personally, I don't use Gen Y as a term, preferring Millennials, because I think each generation deserves the dignity of being named on their own terms, not on a named based on that of the previous generation. Baby Busters is a stupid name for Gen X, too, because we don't like to be named based on a generation that preceded us.) All I can see is that you have a valid sub-cohort of people (call them late Xers or early Millennials, whichever you please), but that's not a generation. It's just, maybe, the last wave of Xers. Not hearing of "Gen Y" until you were a teenager is meaningless -- most generations (the Boomers may have been an exception) often aren't named and defined with the name that "sticks" until the earliest wave of that generation are adults. By the time Gen X started being called Gen X, the oldest Xers were in their late 20s. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * But still, you recognise the problem you have just proposed, late X'ers or early Y'ers are not accepted by Gen X'ers or Gen Y'ers as their peers. There is comparatively a difference in mentality, attitude, upbringing and events occuring to individuals throughout. We are simply the Generation Jones of the 80s. Why is it plasuible for there to exist a Lost Generation, a Second Lost Generation (i.e. Generation Jones) but not a Third? After all is it not so that Generation Jones was named after a group of writers?

 * The Lost Generation was a full generation, not just a 5-10 year period. (See the Lost Generation page. Generation Jones was one writer's invention, and as the article says, 'Many professional demographers, however, do not consider Generation Jones to be a stand-alone generation, preferring instead to classify those born during its years as a younger subset of the Baby Boomers, sometimes using the label "Late Boomers".' That would be my perspective as well. Generation Jones doesn't seem to have been named after a group of writers, by the way. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 02:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I would refer to this page: About Gen Jones and read some of the quotes made by prominent celebrities as well as other facts referring to Gen Jones. I also know that it was coined by a writer however several other writiers began adopting the term for themselves. If Generation Jones is accountable as presented by that site's criteria then MTV Gen should be as well. Piecraft 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe if it is taken into consideration as a standing and notable generation than Generation XY or MTV Gen regardless what you call it should be taken into consideration as well. Basically, you dealt it therefore you got to take it. If you're saying World War 2 was caused by the Germans then you're not accepting the fatc that it takes two people of differing opinions to start a war. In other words what I'm saying is it's all very well debating this and stating Gen X = 60s-70s and Gen Y = 80s-90s but who has the authority to decide especially in terms of Gen Y or Millennials (which is a term I do not associate with nor one I like) that those born in the limbo of the late wave of X and early wave of Y i.e. mid 70s up to mid 80s are not within their own element altogether? I know most would consider themselves Gen X, but it is clear that there are differences, just as I believed to have been part of X only now realising I am thrown in with Y. So it's all a matter of years? SOmeone born in 82 is X but someone in 83 all of a sudden is Y? Sure this is all relative you could say - depending on how you feel you are part of whichever geenration you feel true to. But most people who partook in a generation's core would argue against that n'est pas? Therefore there needs to be some form of clarification, and not some out of the magician's hat vague theory that is based around sketchy dates.

 * No, not out of a magician's hat, but also not out of a random Wikipedia editor's mind, either. :) For the term "MTV generation" to be here it needs to have some accepted use with your proposed definition. "Generation Jones," though one person's idea, has at least achieved some use outside of his work. MTV Generation, though it has been used occasionally, doesn't have an accepted definition, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to create one. I think that might be Nice Beaver!'s issue with it, and if so, he is correct. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 02:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You have to realise I did not make or coin this term, it has existed for some time already, it has been employed by several different people to define themselves as well as the generation growing up from the 80s until the late 90s - i.e. The Simpsons, Gregg ARaki, Larry Clark and Harmony Korine (filmmakers), grunge rockers, the media (CNN and MTV) have used the term often to differentiate or label a youth culture as well as a generation of kids/teens growing with the climactic end of the Cold War and Fall of the Berlin Wall - this much is accountable. You say: MTV Generation, though it has been used occasionally, doesn't have an accepted definition, and it is not the place of Wikipedia to create one. This is incorrect, I know of this term being used to define a generation - if you search the Net it is still being used, you agree to it yourself that it is occasionally used, as to it not having an accepted definition that makes no sense. MTV Generation depicts a generation who grew up with MTV and were influenced by music videos - thus the generation growing up 80s-90s that's pretty straight-forward as this has been defined previously by MTV itself and others who followed the MTV phenomenon. Piecraft 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * We are corresponding a generation according to demographics, birth rates, social changes, socio-political changes in society, cultural manifestations and the overall atmosphere of an era (including how it was reflected upon those people brought up surrounded by it). If we agree on this, then we must also come to terms with the fact that MTV Gen is a reality as has been pointed out by others unlike myself who support it's validity and existence, albeit perhaps it was unamed or they never coined a definitive term. However I have illustrated terms which have often been employed to define us, i.e. Doom and Gloom Gen, MTV Gen, Cold Y (relatively new one), Gen XY (proposed term), New Gen X, No Gen etc... these terms have been used throughout the popular media to describe kids and teens growing up throughout the late 80s and up until the mid-90s until as I have stated the term Gen Y had been coined to describe individuals of partaking in the new-found Information Age as well as the onslaught of the Digital Revolution which didn't start truly until towards the end of the 90s. If Gen Y sums up everything as being an individual who was born into a immersed culture surrounded by technology (especially that of a digital kind) then Houston we clearly have a discrepancy or two here. Either the Gen Y needs heavy editing or to be re-considered altogether, or we need to realise that our generation (the MTV Gen) are valid to be justified as a counterpart to Gen X and the influencial firestarter to the Gen Y. Because as of now I still see no evidence or enough facts to prove otherwise. Piecraft 02:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, this isn't the Gen Y article, so whether it needs editing is not something I worry about. "albeit perhaps it was unamed or they never coined a definitive term" -- well, as I said above, it's inappropriate to use Wikipedia to coin and publicise a term that isn't widely used as THE term at the moment. That is basically Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (WP:NOR, scroll down to "What is excluded?"). Now, I think that Generation Jones is a lame concept, but I think it has established a specific meaning and use that makes it appropriate as a WP article; MTV Generation hasn't gotten there yet. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 02:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you misunderstood my statement, I was saying that perhaps the term was not defined as of yet during the 80s - however it is a recognised one nowadays, at least in American culture. But then again we are relating these generations to American society. Just as Gen Y was not coined until people from MTV Gen entered adulthood. Generation Jones is not a lame concept, if anything it does back my argument up. MTV hasn't gotten there yet, however you are still allowing the fact to slide through semantics here. Gen Y is allowed because it is a popular term to define a geenration which has nothing to do with the end of the Cold War, however a term which was often used by the media to define the youth of the post-COld War era is not an establishing term? I am confused. I am almost certain that MTV Generation is more notable in terms of the generation than Generation Y. Generation Y has not even been around for long to even be definable other than the examples given - those which contradict the ones that have been listed to support individuals born within the gap of the Information Age and the fall of Gen X. You still haven't explained to me that discrepancy. If Gen X ends 1975 or 79 or 82 (it seems to change a lot) then someone born in those years could be said to be Gen X? I find that to be odd because it holds no water in terms of comparing someone from 82 to someone from 64, this doesn't make sense, and if anything needs re-evaluation because that argument is not even within reason. Gen Y starts all of a sudden from 1983 until 2001, another oddity there, how strange that events taking place throughout Gen Y seem to be far more transitional than those occuring within Gen X, if we are to take into account the 80s, 90s and end of the 90s up until the Millennium. Defining a generation as Millennials would refer to a generation born towards the end of the 20th century and growing up within the new Millennium, MTV Gen are not that. There is a GAP, this much has been noted and it is fact. Those who continuously attempt to shun this reality are only playing the Devil's advocate to the bureaucratic claptrap of Gen X or Y norms which in themselves are flawed as can be illustrated with these articles. Piecraft 03:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * FACT 2, I merely bring this up in the discussion page of Gen X because there really needs to be some careful diagnosis of what is being considered under Gen X, Gen Y and the area between. There has been a constant argument that those belonging within the years of 81/82 wish to be categorised under Gen X. Well that's all well and dandy, but what about those who missed the threshold, like those of us born in 83 and 82? Are you telling me that we're in Gen Y? SO basically all the people who I went to school with are a mix of Gen X and Gen Y? Not possible, that makes no sense. It is already a known fact that trying to classify a generation is bogus in any case, it's all relative to popular culture and current lifestyles of a "time period" - therefore tell me how my way of thinking and lifestyle, not to mention the way I was brought up is similar to one of those kids born in 1987 or 1990? Because I have less in common with them than I do with someone born in 1979 seeing as I grew up with those people from 1978-1985 rather than those who were younger than me and couldn't even remember what happened throughout the 80s or early 90s. I stand by the definition that defines my generation, THE BERLIN WALL was a major occurrence that effected our age group. Basically if you decide to move the boundary of Gen X up to 82, and argue against the fact of Gen XY then I would argue for you to include Gen X up until 84 at the very least, because we definitely have nothing in common to the Gen Y. And I cannot believe people are saying that people born in 81 are Gen X when those outside of the circle were born less than one or two years in difference (82-84) what the heck?

Sure, the people you went to school with could be a mix of two different generational cohorts. But the line is fuzzy. People at the margins could identify with either generation. Imagine this, though. Say there was a draft, and a war, and people who were terrified of being drafted and sent off to die. Then the war ended, and the draft ended. Those who had the fear of war ingrained into their psyche might have different sociological characteristics from those just a couple of years younger who did not have that fear. (I suppose this sounds like the difference between early and late Boomers. I am not one so I am just theorizing here.) So you could have high school seniors who are in a different subgroup or even generational cohort from the freshmen in their school. My mom was a late Silent and in many ways she is definitely a Silent. But she went to school with the earliest Boomers, and she has Boomer characteristics as well. I think the true result is that you have an overlap, people who have a bit of both. (And I would point out that wanting very badly to be part of a group is something that seems not very "X" to me -- the classic Xer attitude to me is "I don't want to be part of any group that would have me.") So the boundaries here are fuzzy ones and arguing over them is non-productive. This page has had a dispute banner for months. The flames over birth years have made it impossible to get much real work done on the page, I think. I know I spent months looking at the page going "I don't want to get involved in that flame war". And I still haven't done much because it's just insanity to jump into it. Though I jumped into the Talk page, which means I might not be all that sane... ManekiNeko | Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * FACT 3, Names are credible bu the problem is we're dealing with a variety of different names that define our generation. Not to mention that most people as have the you, have defined us under Y when this is incorrect. I only found out I was Y and not of Gen X when I read this article! I grew up and so did everyone around me believing we were the last kids of the Gen X - to my surprise you're now telling me just because some person has defined popular culture as becoming Gen Y between 1980-1990 I am supposed to now stick by that? Excuse me for my ignorance seeing as I believe I would know better, along with all those who grew up as I did within my generation as to WHERE WE BELONG. The problem here is definition. I will never and have never felt a common ground with those younger than me. If anything people born in the early 80s bracket have always complained about the watering down of their culture no thanks to the new uprising of the new pop culture i.e. Nu-Metal, Nu-Punk or Goth Pop. Our kind was the last of the true goths, punks and metalheads. We still remember the days of Headbangers Ball before the kids of the 90s grew up into the late 90s modifying everything that was once our culture, because by then they were the masses and we were the minority left off. Now in our adult lives we look back and laugh. Our generation was the first to experience the effects of the Internet, not thos eborn later than 1985. They would only go on to use the Net later and were probably mostly influenced by it for the reasons given in the Gen Y article. This is why I cannot clearly state a sociologist because most have defined us under the term of Gen Y simply because they have either confused us with the Millenials or separated us into our own grouping independent of those born outside this form of Y. Basically everyone has their own opinion as to Gen Y - but it is mainly understood nowadays that Y is the Millenial Generation which plays no part to what I perceive to be a generation falling between the late 70s up until mid 80s.

 * FACT 4, I have listed the films in the Gen XY article as explained. These movies not only define my generation with the attitude that we have against the younger generation (Y) but also with the overall effect of changes occurring towards the downfall of the 90s and the entry intot he new era - check it out.

Look I'm not trying to start a war on here, all I'm saying is that there is something really wrong here, between the Gen X and Y articles someone or perhaps we all need to start thinking this through properly, because as of now everyone is either complaining or disagreeing with the definitions. We need to realise that not only demographics apply but also pop culture and overall lifestyles prevalent throughout particular years are important components to particular "generations". I think perhaps we should analyse these aspects, in the MTV Generation article if you read it you will notice that the factor that define the generation are relative to those people growing up from the time period that it defines. Gen X's global issues differentiate from XY, as do Gen Y's from XY. Therefore there must be something to it. Piecraft 15:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that perhaps if people were more willing to accept that the years are only an estimate, and that generations themselves are sort of an artificial construct, then people could move on. "Gen X's global issues differentiate from XY, as do Gen Y's from XY. Therefore there must be something to it." Issues of people born my year differentiate from people born 1 year later in some ways. Does that automatically make them a different generation? I don't believe so. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course not but the fact remains, we are not simply discussing simple issues here but global factors involving not only cultural elements but also lifestyles and the mentality of a majority of individuals who were born within the same period. I doubt someone born 1 year later will not corrrespond to those factors, however you cannot expect an 18 year old today to have experienced the same as a 24 year old when they were younger, nor did they grow up in the same respect - because the 18 year old would not have been old enough to have seen or encountered the global factors or cultural events that were prevalent during the period to which a majority of people were when growing up during the 80s. Everyone past 85 doesn't even remember the 80s, nor the early 90s. Whereas those born from 75-85 did, and this had an effect on their overall upbringing, not to mention their attitude which would later differentiate themselves from the future generation which would automatically be obsessed with a new-found pop culture and information age. I, nor my friends or people who were born in the late 70s and early 80s have any affiliation to Gen Y, because we do not familiarise with the same environment to which they grew up in or the same culture they have lived through. This is why I also understand the reason for people born in Gen X to shun those born after 1975, because in all due respect no one born then would remember the events that had passed throughout the late 60s and beginning of the 70s. I stand by my conviction that it is wrong to categorise those who are caught between the X and Y generation as merely Y simply because certain sociologists are too lazy to bother analysing or study the crucial events and individuals partaking in the turning point of the 80s - nor do I think it is right simply to throw the late enders of the 70s into X or the early startes of the 80s into Y, in my opinion that is complete nonsense. And it is clear that it has not een fully thought out carefully whoever decided on categorising these generations. Piecraft 04:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

A word of encouragement - Good luck! I'll try to find facts backing up XY, too, but it may take a while. But a warning........Generation X seems unwilling to listen. They are set in their ways. like talking to a brick wall. None of this is an insult because it's true. Even with all the correct and relevant information, I doubt Generation X is open minded enough to change. Why do we need facts to prove something that is proven by logic! 2+2=4. And how can POV not be relevant, when the whole subject is on POV and personal identification? It would be different if it were on some other subject, like chemistry or biology. These endless searches for facts and mazes of redundant or impossible trick questions are meant to tire people out, not prove anything. Even surveys are biased. Reality isn't always recorded in surveys or in news articles. They haven't even provided solid facts justifying late 70s to be part of Gen X. The greatest strength of an inbetween generation is it's ability to understand/sympathize with other inbetween generations. Even with the lack of facts, people from core generations (Boomer 50 or X 70 or Y 90) have no authority to disprove it's existence because they don't even belong to any of them and they're biased. So, even with their disapproval, keep your head up. r430nb Dec 8, 2005

 *  This is bull... stuff!!
 * You know, I was trying very hard to be the good Shepard and help these weak boneheads find their way through the valley of darkness. But now, it's time to pull out a pair of pliers and a blowtorch!! First of all, GenX'er's are not "set in their ways" as you have implied, and we were willing to listen. However, unlike other generations, the majority of X'ers don't just sit back and swallow everything people try to shoot down our throats (Monica Lewinsky is the only X'er who does stupid stuff like that!!). Therefore, when some someone says 1+1=3, that's when we raise questions. And, that's precisely what I did when I saw this MTV Generation article. This GenX talk page is not a support group for the galactically stupid!! ("None of this is an insult because it's true.") If you wanted someone to just simply "listen" and not say a word, then you should've taken this to some other generation's talk page, and then you'd really be talking to a "brick wall". Furthermore, nobody has a disagreement about there being a gap between X and Y. The problem is no one seems to know what it's called, and you can't just arbitrarily pick any name. Therefore, how can you create an "encyclopedic" article without any Facts?? Here's my advice:  Get your facts straight,  Then create the article. Not the other way around. Good luck! Nice Beaver! 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Watch yourself, you are only proving yourself to be going against every aspect of Wikipedia conduct

I would once again Nice Beaver like to direct you to the policy against personal attacks - you seem to put yourself on a high horse when in fact it appears you're not even a registered member or contributor to Wikipedia (having much more to say about all of this then you clearly have the capability of), and I did not just come up with the title or term MTV Generation out of my rear-end I used a term which had already been employed by others i.e. THE SIMPSONS as well as movies and other TV programs with people from the same time period who defined themselves either as MTV Generation/Doom Generation or Thatcher's Children, I have even heard of the Cold War Boomers or Babies as another alternative term that is often used by people. But I decided to stick to the more common ones - so all I can say is you sir should seek medication because you're far too wired about this subject and seem to be far from anywhere in terms of discussing this in a civilised manner or even understanding way. The sources that are cited for Generation X are as hokey as anything else, just as r430nb illsutrated there is no clear definition of any generation seeing as this is all biased and based upon pop-culture. Piecraft 04:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is all completely my opinion, seeing as some of the above statements had no facts I figured I would put my 2 cents out there as well. I do believe this Wikpedia entry should be edited quite a bit though. I dislike the fact that Baby Busters, and Y-nots get in on the Gen X time. I believe that the Gen X has the time between 1969- 1979. The Baby Busters are too out there and are fighting to make everything far too politically correct in an effort to make our elders accept the world the Busters & Gen X are creating, where Gen Xers don't expect our elders to accept things, just don't fight us on it. Tolerate us like you have our entire lives, give us useless tools to work with, and then mock how ill prepared we are to take care of real matters. Gen Xers are thinkers, not by our SAT scores, but by our creative thinking and problem solving. We have had to be. We have to take accountability when we havn't been shown how. As for the Y-nots and the children today, Gen xers have to continue to compete. We are a universal and global generation that has been spoiled then critisized for it. So far the few real world challenges we have faced we pull together with pride and grace, while our grunge expression and over-medicated latch-key childhoods would have had the Boomers expect something else. The more I look at my generation I hate to think how much distatin and frustration we face as a group. The world that is begrudgingly being handed down to us to work with. It is bad enough that we have to deal with the Y-nots who have barely been taught to challange and think for themselves. They have been overprotected and have rarely failed. We have to compete among THAT. We have to deal with wanting to give our kids what we had growing up and know that it is nearly impossible without sacrifice every moment with them. Rasing Gen X's kids does take a community, because daycare is so high. I just think that in a way the kids from the Baby Boomers can be summed up as 3 siblings. Baby Busters are the Big Sister who is self-absorbed and has the superioriority complex who is forever fighting with "mom n dad". Gen X is the self - sufficient lost middle child who has to fight for everything. Gen Y is the spoiled little sister who is handed everything. 72.130.204.149 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)J.A.B.

Regarding Terminology. Also, regarding a more sedate discourse
First off, I'm not sure how the tag on this will show-up, but I'm the same person who posted the talk entry on "Early Y Partition".

Two quick items: 1.) With regards to the controversy surrounding the "MTV Generation Article."  I myself would probably not use that exact terminology, as it is generally not used or accepted amongst Sociology circles.  With the articles overall veracity, however, I would indeed say that some of the criterion it lists does pertain to some of the views and trends exhibited by the Early Y subsection.  Whether you wish to classify Early Y as a generation or a sociological sub-category really seems like more a matter of semantics to me.

As to those who have raised doubts about its factual grounding, I can assure you that the concept of an Early Y Partition does have some currency behind it in the academic world; my initial mention of it was made after it was the focus of a lecture in my Methods in Sociology course. I will endeavor to provide some more academic evidence to support this when I am able to contact the professor in question. I can assure you, however, that given the considerable evidence and well-reasoned logic that was presented both in the lecture and in my own reading on the subject, Early Y is indeed an academic concept, not merely the product of certain disaffected elements that are frequenting this article. However, actions speak louder than words, so I will do my utmost to provide you with some links to a few journal articles I currently have in hard-copy form.

2.) Concerning the overall tone of this debate, I think in the interest of a well-reasoned and productive discourse it would behoove us to stick to reasoned argument rather than personal attacks and what appear to be some frail attempt at humorous jabs. It would seem certain contributors put a higher premium on making smarmy comments directed towards the younger contributors, than in actually furthering this discussion.  If you are indeed more mature, as your arguments intone, perhaps now would be an opportune time to demonstrate that to the rest of us.  (And in the interest of full disclosure, I am a 23 year old college student).

 * Maybe the best solution is to acknowledge the vagueness of the distinction between Generation X and Generation Y. There's no clear event to distinguish them the way the end of World War II provided a natural dividing point between the depression/war generation and the baby boom.  If the end of the Cold war qualifies as such an event, then the generation covers about a 35 year span.  That's almost two generations long. Durova 04:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I am a Gen X (born 1966), and personally think 1980 has to be a cutoff between my generation and the next (and I despise the term Generation Y, only because NO generation in history has been defined in terms of it's previous generation). Around 1984 there were a number of signifigant social, political, worldwide, economic, and most of all, technological advances which separate the world we grew up in from the next.  Politically, the collapse of the communist system and the end of the cold war will bring in a generation who won't quite understand it in the first place.  Economically, the US rebounded from double-digit inflation and interest rates, housing prices started to soar, and the transformation from a manufacturing based society to a service and information based society began.  Most notably, economic policy was geared towards controlling economic growth rates and inflation.  Technologically, the personal computer era began, with IBM's entry, along with the Macintosh and several other busts - the next generation will always have known personal computers.   Movies became available on videotape players - the idea that you had to see a movie at the theater or wait for it to come on TV changed overnight.   Information services like CompuServe started up, laying the foundation for the information age.  Before then, information had to be looked up at a library.  Even early services made it available on demand.  Cable television began widespread; the new generation will always have had it.  Fax machines started showing up everywhere.  Federal Express introduced overnight delivery.  Compact discs came out and changed music.  Allowing 4 or 5 years for a child to understand the world, people born in 1979 and 1980 clearly belong to a new generation with those shared attributes.  With my own, I grew up with color television, moon landings / space programs (one of my earliest memories is seeing broadcast from the first Apollo mission), cassette tapes, inflation, the two car family, non-scandelous couples "living together", Seaseme Street, The Electric Company, and Schoolhouse Rock (the essential GEN X featured short). Big novelties were the microwave oven, video games (pong, space invaders, then Atari, etc.), ON-TV (wireless subscription TV), the personal computer, the original Adventure (text) game, the ATM machine, the home shopping network and MTV, Star Wars, free-agency in professional sports (and the subsequent million and multi-million dollar salaries) and the VCR and renting videotapes.  I know my generation is over when everything that was a novelty to me is commonplace to others.  It's the way of life, and someday the new generation will wake up and find a new generation who didn't see cell phones, the internet (and high speed, on demand information), DVDs, high-stakes reality TV shows, DNA testing, paternity testing, homosexual marriage, terrorist threat levels / homeland security, international space stations, enviromentalist, and infomercials as a novelty.

Gen X article hacked
Hi, just thought I'd let you guys know this article has been hacked, by who I'm not sure - I have tried to revert it back to it's original form by checking through the history - but it appears the images are present in all the older versions as well, meaning this is a job for an admin to sort out and not a lowly editor like myself. Piecraft 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see this "hacking" in the history, and the article looks normal to me (well, someone blanked it just now, but it's already been fixed). What was it you saw? I don't see any images in the article at all. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If you really want to know the article was displaying several large pictures of the same thing, which was a photo of someone's penis throughout the entire article. I think it was more or less 5 huge photos of the same thing throughout the entire article with a signature which I can't clearly remember other than something like niggerz l0lerzzz or something like that... I'm sure I can't have been the only person to have seen this, because when I returned after it was gone, so either an admin cleared it up or the hacker reverted it. Piecraft 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, strange. Those edits don't show in the History at all. (Are admins allowed to remove vandalism edits from the page History? I didn't think so, but I could be wrong.) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 02:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Admins can delete entries from the History. Normally, there should be a deletion history in the History section, but I don't see it there. Still, it is most likely an admin deleted them. -- LGagnon 03:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Continue debate here
ManekiNeko please continue here, this thread is becoming far too dense and complicated to follow. Bottom line I have become weary with Wikipedia in general and will be leaving for some time - so do what you wish. I just find it a shame to get rid of an article that has purpose and is justified, especially when defining a generation that has little recognition in terms of its impact. We could argue and debate to our heart's content but this will neevr resolve any issues. I am of the MTV Gen sometimes known as the NO Gen (thus the peculiar and quirky problem we face currently in establishing ourselves) there is nothing that will change that. I along with 32,000,000 others and perhaps more who were born late 70s until mid 80s consider ourselves and understand to be defined as a generation as a whole, especially relevant to pop culture and the changing world of the time. Prove to me I am Gen Y then I will acknowledge everything you have said and surrender, but without proof that my peers and myself are Gen Y I do not believe it is right to shun or disregard our article. Because quite frankly there is no verification that our geenration is false, as the terms defining it and the fact that it is real is a recurrent theme not only around the Net by also in the media during the 90s. That is all I will say for now. Anyone else can feel free to carry this on... Piecraft 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, truthfully, I was going to say that I was going to get out of the discussion because it seems to be getting kind of circular and pointless. I will say that many of the references to "MTV Generation" you have mentioned (such as the Simpsons, etc.) were referring to Gen X, not the kids born immediately after. (Any late 80s reference is definitely to Gen X as Gen Xers were still relatively young at the time.) But nothing I say is going to change your mind, so there's not much point in continuing. Best of luck in whatever you call your generation; though, sadly, I don't think most of us get to define our own generation names; such names are almost always slapped on us by demographers, the media, etc. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 08:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture: Music section
I just did some editing on the section recently added about Culture of the Gen Xers. I think there were some inaccuracies within ("It's Raining Men" was out before 1983, and Gen Xers generally weren't into the Ramones in the mid-70s as they were really pretty young and the Ramones and Sex Pistols weren't receiving any pop radio airplay (in the US, at least), and the separation of "Baby Busters" from Xers makes no sense; Busters are Xers, and the earliest Busters were only 10 in 1975, so they didn't drive the early punk movement either). I am not sure it's a good idea to just list all the music that was popular from 1975-present; that could just end up getting terribly unwieldy. I think it would help to make that specifically related to Generation X more clearly than it is now. If anyone has any ideas for ways to do that, by all means, please edit. I am thinking about ways to improve that section myself. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 08:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Long live the 80s
Hello folks, I really enjoyed reading the Gen X articles here. I took the liberty of adding some things, all very accurate, to the text. I am new to the wikipedia concept, so I'm not sure if I did it correctly, but I am sure if there are errors or etiquette problems we can fix them.

Thank you....Heath

 * Hi, Heath!
 * I tweaked that section slightly (just to tighten it up a bit, fix a couple of wikilinks, remove a couple of words that sounded like POV, etc. (See WP:NPOV)). It's a pretty good overall look at the topic, I think! Thanks for posting it. By the way, to sign your posts here, you can just type ~ at the end of your post and it will automatically fill in your info. Works better if you sign in with an account, though. ;) Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I registered. I am not a demographics expert, or marketer, so any material I might consider adding will be only from my life experience and the common thread us Xers share. No better a document of history than from those who lived it! This is a tremendously fascinating subject, and one that has brought out some reflection. Thanks for tweaking my syntax and grammar. I was an A student in English, but as we are all aware, you get rusty after 10 or 15 years. I am going to do some reflecting, consult my wife (she's class of 90 and I'm class of 91) and takes notes of any other themes that aren't touched on here. She is a Psychology Professor, and after I introduced her to this, she has decided to assign her Gen Y students a project relating to generational characteristics (not strictly Gen X). If we can add more, we will post it here in the talk area for discussion before adding to the wiki page. Anyway, good job to everyone actively sculpting this material, thumbs up! Funny I haven't seen any mention of Menudo yet, or Ricky Schroeder and Silver Spoons. (Heathtech 03:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)).

Early Y looking several generations behind X
"as Early Y matures they have begun to look several generations behind X in forming certain societal/sexual constructs." -- I'm 19, which puts me at the very beginning of the real Generation Y. A lot of my friends are very into Jack Kerouac, which is several generations behind Generation X. My friends and I form our societial/sexual constructs on the idealism of the hippies, but not the actual practice. --Kevin

Article is a mess
This article is a complete mess, I can't even read anything from it coherent enough to define Generation X - I think editors who are devoted in keeping this article should attempt to sort this one out. 87.80.126.226 14:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, but haven't had time to work on it -- it's going to be a big job, I think! Do you have any specific ideas that would help? It has been difficult to edit this one as there are a lot of folks devoted to keeping some of the current content, but the article could use some paring down. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I am currently working on the MTV Generation article trying to clean it up and pull it back up to the standards of Wikipedia. As for this article I think it needs to be somewhat condensed - there's too much waffle at the moment, it should be broken down as to what the academic or media definition of the term is along with a few references in society and popular culture. 87.80.126.226 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Also, there are continuous rightwing distortions, like using the word 'peaceniks' and relying on out-of-date ideas about how conservative younger people supposedly are. Mention of Seattle/WTO and recent younger-voter numbers in elections would help. 12.75.136.88 10:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)12.75.136.88 10:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

a different take on generations
I do not actually believe the MTV Generation exist, period. It is summarized as sexist and degrading. This is very disrespectful. As someone born in 1977 I consider myself part of generation X (though I have been told otherwise).

TV itself had influence on culture, so do wars, but one network does not drive culture. I think a generation is seventeen years period and is linked by a significant event(s). It, however, is true that generational overlap does appear for between two to five years following the cut off date. Here are my examples following the seventeen year guideline (as a framework principle).

1). 1928 - 1945 The Silent Generation, The Depression and period right before… 2). 1946 - 1963 The Baby Boomers, The end of WWII 3). 1964 - 1981 Generation X, The assassination of JFK 4). 1982 - 1999 Generation Y, The fall of communism and worldwide capitalism

 * You make no sense at all, how is it then that you have completely disregarded the Baby Busters, Generation Jones and Greatest Generation?

Fact: There are many people who feel they belong to a generational gap. Until the late 90s everyone was considered to have been born from the early 80s was still part of the X, however this soon changed according to "experts" who all of a sudden decided that the youth of tomorrow began at 82 conveniently to position the start date for Gen Y. Gen X are those born between the 60s and 70s. What I find odd is how they push the dates further until 82 but all of a sudden stop there thinking that those born in 82 are completely different from those born in 84 - when in fact many grew up together in the same way. 87.80.126.226 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Response to 1977: I'm strictly talking about late 70s because I'm from 78. I'm sorry that it is disrespectful and degrading, but it's not our choice, that's what the media and society has done to us. As a result, that's what people see about you. They're bent on giving us a bad image, screw them! = there is a future to this, we still have many years to go and what we accomplish may prove society wrong. But the first step is to acknowledge the truth, not covering it up by pretending to be part of a different/cooler/more powerful generation that we don't know about. Generation X will make us look like fools. You want to be part of X but they really don't want you, you said yourself. To the dismay of 79-84, I know the majority of 1978ers have an argument that they don't belong to Gen X because it's obvious we are similar to each other, not 1966 nor 1993. r430nb

Removed some of the mess
I've excised the ongoing commentary, which if I were to move here would double the size of the discussion page. Those interested can check the Article change history to review the deletions. There's much to be improved still, starting with finding actual sources for the various sweeping assertions made throughout the article. I've tagged it as Original Research for that reason. —LeFlyman 23:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dates, Strauss/Howe, etc.
OK. One of the problems this page has is a continual reversion of the birth dates of GenX (and the other generations as well). Most of the time, people do this just because they don't think that the dates are right because they feel they, personally, have been miscategorized. But the problem is, when you change the dates for that reason, that is original research and that's not allowed in Wikipedia articles. You need to cite reputable sources. I have added Strauss and Howe references since their books Generations, 13th Gen and The Fourth Turning are commonly used for generational definitions in discussions of this topic. (There are other definitions; marketers frequently define generations differently because they are thinking about numbers and not so much about behavioral characteristics.) Strauss/Howe may not be the be-all and end-all of generational definitions, but if we can stick to their definition (a fairly inclusive one), we won't be excluding anyone who should be included, and best of all, we can point to a cited reference for the dates instead of just pulling them off the top of our head.

Further, Strauss and Howe confuse the issue further by giving different contradictory dates for generation X in their books. They basically list it as beginning any year from 1961 to 1965. One other small thing about the work of Strauss and Howe is that this and other contradictions of theirs come about due to their very conservative political leanings. This is why they often contradict themselves by saying that the current crisis in which Gen X plays a pivotal part (fourth turning) will see the erasure of collective goods such as social security and other entitlements, while they also point out that historically the fourth turning crisis point is usually solved through an increase in collective goods and that the nomad generation (currently Gen X) typically strengthenes collective institutions. This is because THEIR solution to current economic and political problems involves the erasure of entitlements whereas Gen X (aka Nomads, who will actually solve this crisis) react against such babyboomer ideas by acting much more collectively. Sadly, as they point out, the wrong way to think and act in the current crisis is in the old ways of older generations such as blindly using ideology over what is practical and what really works. They are guilty of this themselves because they are baby boomers and doomed to their generational proclivities? (the above pharagraph is by D. Tyler McKay, University of Minnesota).

The article itself does claim the dates are in dispute, and it could be rewritten to discuss that some more, though I think the exact dates should not be a major focus. All generations are "blurry at the edges"; can we stop arguing about this aspect of the article, and work on improving the more important parts? -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 09:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Absolutely! One place bracketing years should permanently be removed is the bottom succession boxes, which only encourages anyone to edit to their own POV and changes almost daily. I removed them in the past but they later reappeared. (unsigned comment posted by User:4.239.147.1, 26 January 2006). 4.239.147.24 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Today there seems to be a co-ordinated attempt to mess with the dates on the page; 4 different users (3 of them different IPs, one a logged-in account) have changed the generation dates to "February 20, 1967-May 13, 1978" (?), deleting existing references, etc. I am trying not to inadvertently run afoul of the 3RR rule, so I have not changed the most recent edit of this nature, but people might want to keep an eye on it. I've also requested help on Vandalism In Progress. -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Clear case of simple vandalism, possibly of the sneaky type, or perhaps unintentional. Anonymous editor keeps adding suspect info after each reversion, without response on talk page or in edit summary) so 3RR does not apply. I've posted something to this IP number's Talk page just in case. AvB ÷ talk  15:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, the user is now communicating by adding arguments to the article. It's a start... but I do hope s/he will visit this talk page before long... AvB ÷ talk  15:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So much for placing things on a dial-in IP number's talk page. Anyone any idea how to get this editor to come to this Talk page? AvB ÷ talk  17:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have requested semi-protection to deal with this (see Requests for page protection). -- LGagnon 20:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you, LGagnon. OK, there are two separate issues here. One is the "February 20, 1967 and May 13, 1978" guy, which is essentially simple vandalism (though I was careful not to 3RR anyway, because I was afraid an admin who was not familiar with the context of this article would think "February 20, 1967 and May 13, 1978" was a legit edit). Then we have the user 4.239.* who keeps changing the dates at the end of the article. I did tell him on User_talk:4.239.159.241 that he needed to provide citations, and that Coupland was the only one I could think of who backed up his definition. I think he must have read this because he appeared today with references pointing to Coupland. This is great, except I still have problems with this definition.

 * While the ref points to Coupland, I still have an issue with it and that is that no one but Coupland has really promoted that definition, and I think Coupland himself at this point has said that the definition of Gen X has gone beyond what his original intent was. If you are looking at 1992 interviews. that's basically showing what his original definition was, to go along with his book, and did not specifically mean the entire Post-Boom generation -- but the media and pop culture took the term, ran with it, and the commonly accepted definition shifted to mean the generation following the Boomers -- not Coupland's original definition (which overlaps more closely with the so-called "Generation Jones"). We could pile up hundreds and hundreds of citations here and they would be unlikely to back up any generational definition which starts in the 1950s. So I think it is misleading to include it in that infobox as if it's the standard definition. It's out of date and not commonly accepted. Comments? -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

 * A further thought I just had -- if the article is about Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture, then those early dates are correct. But this article is not about the book, but about a generation of people whose name happened to be drawn from the book. So the dates given as relating to the book do not necessarily apply. It is as if you were writing an article about the movie Field of Dreams (which is based on a book called Shoeless Joe), and when describing the movie, gave the dates from the book's events. (The book and the movie take place in different decades, IIRC. Or at least some of the events do.) Generation X is not Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture. -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 23:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why DC's definition is not commonly accepted is because media and marketers have distorted it since 1991. Does that make it any less valid? Of course not. Canadian economist David Foot (who deserves mention in this article as a credible source in his own right) also identifies the late 50's early 60's cohort as Generation X. And, he is more contemportary than Coupland. Really, if this article is going to maintain any credibility, it should not be trendy but factual if its going to be taken seriously as an accurate piece on sociology. Btw, Coupland was not pleased about it http://www.tomorrowtoday.biz/generations/xpaper2011.htm (In fact, maybe I should take his advice and not participate in any generational debates, and baby - this one is going to go on for an eternity!)

Also, the "Baby Buster" hyperlink in the 3rd paragrah supposedly is most often referred to as the cohort born during the longest "bust" in American history, from 1958 (also the starting point for trailing edge or post-peak boomers to 1964) to 1968. This is absolutley overlaps with the GX:TFAAC jacket sleave blurb "...the generation born in the late 1950's and 1960s.". You really can't compare it with the so-called Generation Jones because look how indignant people get over starting and ending points just a few years off.

Actually, even the jacket sleave blurb is off from his original (1987) notion of the back-end boomers being totally separate from the older cohort. And...I'm not sure how this 1958-1968 definition of "Baby Bust" came to be; the Census Bureau refers to the group born from 1965-1976 as the bust. It seems the former looks at a normal distribution curve and observes birth rate as the front edge and back edge of a peak. The latter observes birth rate with base-line births, a big increase, or boom (front edge) and decrease (back edge). The former disects the curve at the peak and the latter takes the whole curve defined by a base-line. 4.239.147.24 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * (Please sign your comments. You can sign them by typing ~ and it will automatically put in your login name (or IP address), time posted, etc.) Yes, every definition of the Baby Bust I've ever seen had it starting in 1965, as there was a notable drop in birthrate (in the US, at least) that year. Baby Busters are what Gen X was called before it was called Gen X, really. (I remember reading that term when I was a child... and, believe it or not, I also remember being bummed at the time that I wasn't a Baby Boomer, because everything always seemed to be about the Boomers back then. Of course now I have no problem with not being a Boomer.) ;) I think it was probably Strauss and Howe (or maybe Ian Williams, "Crasher" in 13th Gen) who suggested that "Baby Busters" was a poor name for the generation because it defined us in relationship to the Boomers, and who wants that? (Which is something I wonder about for "Generation Y" -- what a terrible name.)

 * Regarding the earlier comments -- were they posted by you or someone else? "Really, if this article is going to maintain any credibility, it should not be trendy but factual"; I don't think disincluding the late '50s people is trendy; it's the common definition for many years now. Coupland was fighting a losing battle from the beginning, as Generation X overlapped with "Twentysomethings" in the media's eyes, and though that was not the definition from the book, it was the definition that took hold in the public imagination.

 * Incidentally, I looked it up in the Oxford English Dictionary for the fun of it. Their definition is interesting: "a generation of young people (esp. Americans reaching adulthood in the 1980s and 1990s) perceived to be disaffected, directionless, or irresponsible, and reluctant to participate in society." No years involved at all. I wonder if that's a better approach -- just to leave the years out and say "this is the generation that followed the postwar Baby Boom generation, and generally included people who reached adulthood in the 1980s and 1990s. That would cover most definitions, right up through the 1981 cohort if you define adulthood as 18. Then further down in the article (not strongly emphasized) there could be a section about the differing definitions, citing sources. Comments? -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most dictionaries online have the general "born in 1960's and 1970's" format, which is similar to Oxfords. Another approach possibly is the insertion of "cusps". I've seen a lot more mention of "core Gen-X years 19nn-19nn (et cetera) lately, so just add cusp years before and after core. Yankelovich Partners (not to mention Rainmakerthinking) are brilliant at it. Yankelovich considers the 1960-1964 cohort as "Trailing Boomers" and the bridge between boomers and busters (or Generation X as it were). There is probably much sociological validity to that approach besides! So, a hybrid can exist between demographers (like the US Census Bureau), who acknowledge birth cohorts, and sociologists (like Strauss and Howe) who look at cultural and psychometric characterisitics in cohorts. Incidentally, I was born in 1964, and identify early on as a Boomer. When I was in college in 1987, a friend (about a year younger) in a relevant conversation said "you're not a boomer, you're twentysomething". In retrospect, it was probably popular as a backformation from "thirtysomething", the yuppie wine-a-thon tv show (and another 1958 starting year reference for Gen-X; 29 year olds in 1987 when the show began were born in 1958). But, I probably have many (cusp) boomer and Gen-X traits, as Yankelovich put it so well. That's the group Coupland originally spoke about (with his Brad-X comic strip, etc). Today, I can barely identify with being a boomer at all, and very much identify with Gen-X, if even the stereotype. 4.239.147.24 01:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Generation X is international
Generation X is not purely an American term, however, this article barely begins to reflect this, except in passing. The list of Generation Xers is even more America-centric, and the only foreigners on it, are ones Americans have heard of. --MacRusgail 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What cohort is generally accepted as Gen-X in your country of origin?

 * There is no exact period for Generation X, but some people feel it is still continuing. --MacRusgail 20:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yesterday while watching BBC news world, the reporter interviewed a Spanard on a story about the housing realty boom there. The man said that he was part of a baby boom generation born in the 1970s.  That's weird.  What do they call Gen X in Spain? John wesley 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

One small thing about the work of Strauss and Howe, is that their very conservative political leanings must be understood. This is why they often contradict themselves by saying that the current crisis in which Gen X plays a pivotal part will see the erasure of collective goods such as social security and other entitlements, while they also point out that historically the fourth turning crisis point tends to increase collective goods and that the nomad generation (currently Gen X) typically strengthenes collective institutions. Sadly, as they point out, the wrong way to think in the current crisis is in the old ways of older generations such as ideology over what is practical and what works. Perhaps they are guilty of this themselves because they are baby boomers and doomed to their generational proclivities?

Further date issues
Now that the article has been unprotected, I see the date shenanigans are beginning again. Here's my perspective on it:

 * the dates here should be purposefully inclusive not exclusive, to include the varying definitions
 * however, the primary definition of the generation should not include specific dates at all, but should be something more broad like "generally born in the 60s and 70s" or "came to adulthood in the 1980s and 1990s", as that is really the only definition that I think we can say is a widely accepted one
 * any specific dates listed should be sourced, and the sources need to be cited properly or linked to within the article

The dates there now have been sourced. If editors come in and start deleting sourced dates -- especially when replacing them with non-sourced ones -- that seems to me to be a problem. I'm generally going to revert such edits, but I hope people making those changes will come in here to the Talk page and discuss them instead so that, if they have useful sources, we can cite those.

Generally, though, I think it is both unproductive and misleading to keep altering the dates as has been happening. The fighting over that has prevented a lot of good editing from getting done. Comments? -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * As long as useful sources include reputable authors. For example, the author of a best-selling book, or a government population statistics branch would qualify. "Stephen's Gen-X page" I'm a little hesitant to acknowledge as citable. 4.239.237.29 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Agreed. But most people have not been providing sources at all. -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In an effort at neutrality and in the desire of reflecting the usual authority on dates, 1960/61 seems like a good divide because (1) Boomers are more likely to turn to religion and Thirteeners are more likely to turn to entrepreneurialism as solutions to the Big Questions of the mid-1980s when the oldest of Strauss and Howe's Thirteeners began to make a mark in adulthood; (2) those born before 1961 and those born in 1961 or later had very different cultural tastes, especially in music; (3) people born in the 1960s made a strong shift toward conservatism in politics that manifested itself in the landslides for Ronald Reagan; (4) persons born before 1961 could experience the Consciousness Awakening as something empowering and thrilling, but those born later found it confusing and even threatening; (5) cultural figures born in 1961 and later seem to have played up and even exploited a "bad boy" image as those born in 1960 or earlier rarely did; (6) Thirteeners were more likely to be victims of broken families while in formative years; and (7) people born after 1960 experienced far less influence of the Lost Generation (born 1883-1900) in personal or public life.

One can argue that nothing so prevents the appearance of a Reactive/Nomad generation among children as does an active adult Reactive/Nomad generation that tries to keep youth from following its course of wildness in childhood. The Lost were out of the workforce in the mid-sixties, and they were the first generation to be shipped off in large numbers to institution-like "nursing homes" when they lost their ability to take complete care of themselves. The time between retirement and institutionalization of the Lost must have been the shortest in history. During the Consciousness Awakening, many adults thought that there were more important things to do than to take care of their elderly grandparents. Children born between 1961 and perhaps 1965 could have been more Boomer-like had they gotten more attention from elders who had kept children from being brought up as shabbily as they had been brought up.

The people who display the most contempt for the pop culture of the 1980s seem to have been born in he late 1950s; the ones who participated in it seem to have been born in the 1960s. That is a huge divide.

It is easy to interpret Strauss and Howe as asserting that Boomers are a "good" generation and that Thirteeners are "bad", especially when citing the rising pathologies of late-wave Boomers (crime, drug use, drunk driving, educational underachievement) that rose with each year of youth until the early 1960s, stabilized for a few years, and then fell steadily. Strauss and Howe place the worst underachievers (born 1961-1965) in the Thirteener group. That is a harsh judgment. But note that the pathologies abate for cohorts born in the 1970s -- slowly, to be sure, but perceptibly.

The late end of the Thirteener generation isn't so easy to place. After all, those people born in the late 1950s and early 1960s are in their forties (midlife), so much of their character is set. Such is not so for those born in the late 1970s and the early 1980s. The 1981/1982 divide that Strauss and Howe sets between Thirteeners and Millennials looks arbitrary. Historical events will likely set the divide, as World War I and the Great Depression separated the unlucky Lost from the more fortunate GIs. GIs could not have experienced the worst of World War I; they were young enough to adapt to the moral crusades of the early 1920s as the Lost couldn't; they were young enough that they had no investments to lose in the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and subsequent meltdown.

No event has yet happened that could ever define where one age group is essentially Reactive/Nomad and a later one is essentially Civic/Hero as neatly as the 1900/1901 divide that delineates the Lost from GIs.--66.231.41.57 01:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Can you elaborate on (and reference) S&H's postion on those born from 1961-1965 being underachievers? I take it that is the "Atari wave"... 4.239.159.147 00:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What's this about Allegiance?
From the current article:

 * The 1991 end of the Cold War was also very important and coincided with Gulf War I, a.k.a. Desert Shield/Storm. These events may have solidified national and/or economic allegiances and attitudes in Xers worldwide.  U.S. Xers could again express pride in their military, flag wave, rejest the Vietnam-losers image, and perhaps even participate in a pro-war (pro-Just War?) campus rally.

So if we're going into these aspects of the generation's attitudes, can flag-waving be quantified? Is there a source to point to here? What constitutes "the Vietnam-losers image" exactly, and what is the real state of pro-war rallies for the generation of punks and latch-key kids?

I mean, this generation also witnessed the protection of flag-burning (see Texas v. Johnson), the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Soviet coup attempt of 1991, and the televised missile attacks of the Gulf War... arguably lending to this generation's culture themes of disallegiance and revolution, distrust of the government, and further abandonment by parents consumed with commerce. Most have never been subject to the draft, and maintain their "so what" and "whatever" attitudes, particularly with regard to large organizations and institutions.

I don't want to just delete this kind of comment if there's something to it, but there's nothing to back it up and a whole article of conflicting themes that precedes it, and it's unclear how neutral it is.

Thornrag 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, it needs to be sourced and is potentially not NPOV. There may be something addressing this in 13th Gen or Generations, but I'm not sure -- that would be a good quick place to look for info in this, though. My personal recollection is that people my age were against the Gulf War, but then again, I live in a very liberal area and so that would have a lot to do with it. Which is why I'm not going to insert that personal recollection in the article; it's just anecdotal. :) -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 11:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Besides, "rejest"?? Why not "reject" the whole paragraph? I see what the author was attempting to do, but I don't think you can limit national pride to one generation. It should at least be written better if there is any validity to it. Also, the second paragraph is a really nice touch! 4.239.225.203 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of heading nowhere
This is very ORish, so I'll post here instead of on the article. A generation generally gets defined at least in part by its common experiences. How's this for a try:
 * The Vietnam War: Boomers were aware that a war was happening. The early Xers who were alive were too young to remember it (unless they lived in Vietnam or had a parent in the fighting).  There were international protests in 1968, so this constitutes more than a U.S. - Vietnam experience.  Many if not most of the people who remember this war as "current events" have retained very strong opinions about it.  Those of us who learned about the war as history come from a very different perspective.  Call this the early boundary for the generation: 1964 fits better than 1961.
 * The Cold War: Xers do remember the Cold War. That is, this generation understood that the U.S. and U.S.S.R had thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at each other with enough explosive force to destroy everything on earth except Twinkies and cockroaches.  Xers remember which countries were part of the Soviet Bloc and can remember news reports of people getting shot and killed for trying to cross the Berlin Wall.  The next generation doesn't remember that world as a living reality. Durova 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Couple of issues
Agreed with the following:
 * Statement of facts should have a reference outside of wiki.
 * There is definitely a generational conflict with the babybooms

Take issue with:
 * With regards to 'so what' attitude of technology. We are the generation that has witness the terrible consequences of technology (e.g., cold war, challenger, dismantling of families around entertainment devices, 9/11, etc.)  The 'so what' really is about 'should we do it'?  There were many debates in my college about the morality of developing technology because of the genie problem.  So our attitude isnt 'so what' *shrug*; it is a 'so what, you might end up killing thousands of people with that technology, do you want that on your head?'

With regards to baby boomers:
 * I'd like to see the baby boomer generation make a concerted effort to live up to the words of their idealized role model, JFK: "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country."
 * Generation X and Y are going to be stuck with paying the tab of baby boomer's idealism: war in iraq, rebirth of supply side economics, litigious society, etc.
 * Baby boom politics are going to rape paychecks of GenX and Y: expansion of medicare when, guess, they are getting ready for retirement, increase in tuition rates at their alma mater, increase in student loans, more mcjobs, overseas job sourcing for a larger profit margin, etc.

With regards to Gen Y:
 * As some comedian put it, "Twenty year olds are good for one thing, looking good. They should just shut the f**k up and strike a pose."  j/k.

Born 1970

Removed "Also, those born in 1976 and 1978 prefer not to be classified as part of Generation X.", which was inserted as the last sentence in the opening paragraphs. I'm surprised an intellect like that could even edit. 4.239.147.207 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Spanish-language text
Someone added Spanish-language content (diff) to this article which, although poorly formatted and out of place in an English-language Wiki, appeared to be valid content. My Spanish is not up to the task and I couldn't find a Generation X article in Spanish Wikipedia, so the text is just deleted for now. Spanish-speakers are invited to view the diff and re-introduce the translated text, or crear el Generation X articulo en Español.  The Crow 23:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup thus far
It looks like there's been lots of improvements, but still pending: Just a thought; how about a poll to ask readers what years they believe Gen-X to bracket. 4.239.159.213 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The last 3 paragraphs are very weak in content. I would like to see them removed altogether.
 * More references from experts such as Tulgan, Foot, Yankelovich.
 * Maybe more international references.

 * That's an interesting idea, but I don't think polls are appropriate for encyclopedia articles... -- ManekiN e ko | Talk 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is only the discussion page... 4.239.159.178 17:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll for years to mark Gen X
The year you think starts Gen-X:
 * 1958 x
 * 1959
 * 1960
 * 1961 x
 * 1962
 * 1963
 * 1964 x
 * 1965 X
 * 1966
 * 1967
 * 1968

The year you think ends Gen-X:
 * 1968 x
 * 1969
 * 1970
 * 1971
 * 1972
 * 1973
 * 1974
 * 1975
 * 1976 xx
 * 1977
 * 1978
 * 1979
 * 1980
 * 1981 X
 * 1982
 * 1983
 * 1984

Commentary on Poll
The question is what is a generation? A cohort whose experiences share many commonalities -- or -- as long a number of years to satisfy journalist who cannot do arithmetuc and like transposing digits like 46 and 64 as in boomers are 1946 to 64... wrong! This would imply a boomer could be a parent of another boomer! Someone born in 1962 could be born to a parent born in 1946. This means the writers were mashing and blending two generations into one. The years of birth for the early Gen-Xers are the same years for the socalled late boomers. I say eligibility for the dreaded military draft for vietnam should mark the start and end of the boomer generation. The draft ended in 1973. Therefore the last year of birth for an 18 year old is 1955. Bingo! We now have ten year age intervals for generations. Boomers: 1946-55, Gen X: 1956-65, Gen Y: 1966-75, Gen Z: 1976-85. This means that on january 1, 2006 Boomers were in their 50s, Gen X in their 40s, Gen Y in their 30s. The youngsters twentysomethings are Gen Z. About twenty years ago, when Thirtysomething TV show was hot, it was aimed at boomers, who were in their 30s, and the term Gen X was popular as a twentysomething. John wesley 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC) I repeat, if we use a ten year interval band, then each generation would have the same number of years and we can use the fiftysomething and fortysomething lables. In a sense using the X could signal a placeholder as in algebra, so that there can always be a Generation X for debated cohort. John wesley 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, the transposition of 46 and 64 is a little suspect. Eighteen years is too long for a generation, as "accelerated culture" implies that rapid change ensures that a cohorts leading edge will have no common ground with trailing edge. I'm not sure I like the neat/clean 10-year cohort thing, it's too simplistic. Btw, historically, about 15% of (American) mothers are in the 15-18 are bracket. Statistically, maybe 15% (fertility rate) is not a significant factor...or maybe generations should span no more than 15 years. 4.239.147.20 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The length of a generation may just be a problem with who is doing the talking. Journalists and pop writers have implicitly used a period as short as 10 years when they use terms like fifty-somthings or twenty-somethings.  I imagine that demographers, i.e. researchers at the Census Bureau who are scientists may have the parent to child distance implying 25 to 35 years for an interval.  I think the problem is the term generation is really ambiguous. John wesley 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That information is actually readily available @census.gov. I think the average age for motherhood today is about 27 and for fatherhood about 29. My opinion is that when people make comparrisons, such as "real median wage comparrison between father and son at age 25", the average (29 years) should be used. So often you see such comparrisons only go back 20 years, with the opinion going back 20 years is "one generation". US Census document "Measuring 50 years of economic change (1998)" takes cohorts 25-34 etc, and compares with cohorts in 1978 25-34 etc calling it the fathers/mothers generation. It should be taken from 1969/1971 (father/mother) 25-34 etc, respectively. 4.239.234.214 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 56-65?! When I read that, I thought you were giving an example of how ridiculous a ten-year generation would sound.  I mean, NO ONE, NO... ONE... born before 1960 is a GenX'er.  GenX is Kurt Kobain, not Fonzie!  A generation, by definition, has to be equal to the average age of a new mother.  That number varies, but it's close as punch to 20.  Most people and this article have thus defined GenX as people born around 1966-1981, and even that's too open for me, but we gotta' draw the line somewhere.  The post-boomers are really not GenX, although they're technically part of it.  I believe most people, when you say GenX, picture the suicidal hedonism of the 90s, people who were raised with some idealism (in the 80s) and graduated from high school in the Late 80s or 90s, and as such were born in the late 60s or 70s. But it is not the purview of this article to redefine or make an authoritative definition of "GenX," rather to describe the issues surrounding defining such.  --Mrcolj 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The choices of letters X, Y, Z etc. are used to mark variable names in algebra. Y = a + bX is the equation of a straight line.  Variables names start at X, then go to Y, then Z, then W, then U, then V, then they go to Greek letters, alpha, beta etc.  The journalists have implied ten year intervals when speaking of twentysomethings.  Twenty years ago Newsweek did the Year of the Yuppie cover story in 1984.  It had two Doonesbury type cartoon characters (male and female) on the cover both dressed in business suits.  When someone says thirtysomething, it implies a ten year interval.  So simultaneously journalists (probably different ones, or the same ones writing in different articles) have implied a ten year interval and the infamous 1946-64 transposition years.  The problem is what you mean my generation?  Generations of undergraduates are four years as anyone outside of the 4 year difference would not go to school with each other.  Demographic generations should about 30 years long as the difference in ages from the parent and child.  I think, however, these are Cultural Generations so that the baby boomers so be pinned done by cultural markers like summer of love vietnam war and that old stuff.  Anyone born after 1955 did not experience the 1960s as a young adult. John wesley 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That Newsweek story was December 31, 1984 issue pp. 14. It defined "Yuppies" as 25 - 39 year-olds, those born 1945 - 1959. 4.239.183.2 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the research! This answers it, the boomers were the yuppies of the early 1980s mainly born in the decade 1945-55.  Newsweek apparently wanted to "Young Adult folk" demographic or marketing reasons... hence 25 to 39 year olds!  So anyone older was pre-boomer and those in the early twenties got lumped into the boomer group though sharing no boomer culture!  It took Douglas Coupland less than three years to express this incongruity of say someone born in 1959 or 1960, then in his/her twenties who had not yet made professional headway being either lumped in or ignore.  The letter X is chosen in algebra to stand for any unknown so no group should claim ownership. John wesley 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the truth is that there is a huge gap of years BETWEEN each of these "cultural generations." In the purest sense, the Boomers were people who were born either as a direct result of soldiers coming home from WWII, or indirectly because of the pro-family culture which resulted therefrom.  That statistical trend did not end until 1964.  But there are also post-Korea babies, too; and things associated with the Boomers growing up (VietNam, Yuppie-ism, etc.); enough that there ends up being a huge gap between those who were Booming VietNam-ist Hippies in the 60s who would eventually become Sociopathic Sell-out Limousene Liberal Yuppies in the 80s and 90s... and their children, the GenXers, who by biological definition could not have been born until the mid-60s.  So you have people who went to high school in the 80s who really aren't libertine boomers and neither are they apathetic Xers.  There is no name for them.  No one would call Tom Cruise or Tim Robbins GenXers any more than they would call them Boomers.  They were really of the post-hippie generation, and that's right in between.  The problem is post-hippie/pre-Yuppie doesn't have a name, and that no-name generation was over 10 years long.  So you're right that people born after 1955 are not really an outgrowth of WWII, but if you've gotta' codify it somewhere they're still much more an outgrowth of idealistic post-WWII culture than they are of post-Nixon culture.  Let's discuss (either here or there) the definitions and reasons on List of Generation Xers, which says 1964-76. --Mrcolj 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That's a good point; there's now no name for them. Initially in 1984 Newsweek's to 1987 Douglas Coupland's use would have applied the term X to the person born say 1960.  In the intervening years, the X has migrated to later years.  This leaves a cultural gap.  Either there are two boomer generations or two X generations.  That's okay, the journalist's job is to write first, because it's always on deadline.  If you really investigate you will be able to get closer to the truth. John wesley 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "56-65?! When I read that, I thought you were giving an example of how ridiculous a ten-year generation would sound. I mean, NO ONE, NO... ONE... born before 1960 is a GenX'er" "Sociopathic Sell-out Limousene Liberal Yuppies"..... Fonzie, aka Henry Winkler, was born in 1945 not 56! Fonzie - what are you trying to say? I think you meant Andrew Dice Clay born in 1957 or Jim Carrey born in 1962. 1964 is part of Gen Jones, not Gen X! Gen Jones should stand on its own, it looks better that way. Look at all this disrespect from Gen X. If I was from Gen Jones, I wouldn't try to be part of Gen X. Gen Jones deserves way better than to stoop down here and get all this cr%p. r430nb

I'd like to again point out that consesus means nothing when sources can and should be used instead. We've already got sources in the article that say exact years (their contradiction not being a real problem, as this represents the varying views on it, thus moaking the article closer to being NPOV), and we aren't going to force definite years into this article based on any consesus when such actions will only ruin the accuracy of the article. Ultimately, this poll will be pointless. -- LGagnon 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Shamen
It's certainly true that "The Shamen which were less beholden to 1970s nostalgia". 1960s pyschedelia was their thang! (Follow the link if you want to know more). --kingboyk 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

How can Generation X be 20 somethings 20 years ago and still be 20 somethings 20 years later?
Shouldn't they be turning into 40 somethings at some stage? The main article mentions that Generation X and Twenty Somethings can be used interchangeably and, for a time, they correctly could have been. But is this the first generation to have stopped aging? Are they frozen in amber forever at 20 something? If Generation X simply means Twenty Something then we might as well use Twenty Something to mean anyone born in the 1960's or 1970's regardless of their age in the future!

 * I noticed the same error made by journalists who started using the GenX term interchangeably with twentysomething in the 1980s and continuing to do so for more than a decade. I guess the best argument is that the term X is a variable in algebra to stand for any value so the variable label X is constantly being re-used to stand for different things, and that X doesn't stand for any fixed thing.  However, this argument loses steam once we realize the whole term is Gen X and not just X.  John wesley 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * "Generation X" and "Twentysomethings" almost evolved simultaneously back in the late 80's, early 90's. It's really just a snapshot in time. Today, Generation X strictly (in the broad sense) refers to people born in to 60's and 70's, and "twentysomething" likewise refers to people in their 20's. This is a concept many marketers through the 90's were confused about, and some were defining Generation X as people 18-39, or something as preposterous, failing to realize that those original twentysomethings are one year older each year. 4.239.147.147 16:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

all the sourcing done up to now
I think that the most recent week's editting has brought sourcing up to standard, right? We don't need to tag this as original research anymore. John wesley 17:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

more vandalism
Genration Y was corrected back to X. Also, I added more to notes. Ledboots 18:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Reflections
Yeah, I would just like to say that as a Gen-X'er, I do think that people of my generation are either being ignored or overshadowed by both the Baby Boomers as well as the Millenials. The Millenial Generation has had it's way long enough. I also think that half of the Boomer generation is hogging the cultural spotlight at our expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemp99 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor: well the Baby Boomers have always had the spotlight, and still appears as the more beloved generation. Generation X is criticized for being slackers, and Generation Y is just crticized period. Educatedlady (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC).

 * really? there's been a huge backlash against boomers for, basically, destroying the world with their greed and sloth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting.I guess it just comes down to your own perception. I'm Gen X and I don't feel overshadowed by Boomers or Gen Y at all. Most of the Gen Y that I know respect and envy Generation X because they feel like we did many of the things first that they consider central to their culture and society (invention of video games, for example) and as far as Boomers go, I think only Boomers admire themselves, along with some of the older Gen X's that are perhaps on the borderline. In my office the Boomers are on the way out, and Gen X are taking over management positions. As far as being labeled as "slackers" I believe I've read somewhere that Gen X has the highest educational achievement of any generation, so it comes down to how you define a "slacker." I think Boomers tend to view education as a means to an end. In other words you get education only to get a job or a promotion, otherwise it is useless, whereas Gen X tends to view education as its own reward, regardless of whether it lands you a cake job or promotion. Honestly, I think a lot of Gen X lost respect for Boomers because when they were young the Boomers were all about societal change, but when they hit 40 most of them sold out for the establishment, BMWs and a stock portfolio. Birth year: 1969 Dojodan (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking for myself, sorry I confused you. When it comes to generations it does seem that the Baby Boomers are commonly referred to. Especially when Generation X first became mainstream it was known as a slacker generation, however overtime that image has somewhat evolved. Educatedlady (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To Shemp99 and DojodanWhat years were you guys born in?Bjoh249 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

remove *
An extra * is in the lead in one of the refs! --Stone (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Generation X Bloggers
Several blogs focus on Generation X content, and are listed in the Generation X section of Alltop. The most comprehensive of these blogs is written by Jennifer James, an Oklahoman, whose blog, [http://www.jenx67.com Are you there, God? It's me, Generation X]., has been featured in numerous national media outlets including the Washington Post, MSNBC, TwitTV and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenx67 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

protection
Perhaps we could remove the protection now? I think that people have calmed down and it seems that there is some spirit of compromise and consensus in the air.... It has been some months that we can't edit this article... Peregrine981 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Peregrine I agree. I assumed we would be doing a formal consensus to add to the page, and do a semi protection like Creative said. If you want to start the consenus that is fine or I can. I haven't seen Creative lately I just wanted make sure she was on board. Educatedlady (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

All I know is there has to be a firm cut off date, in life there must be rules and boundaries. 1981 is the absolute cut off date for GenX if you were born on Jan 1, 1982 sorry you're not a genXer end of story. There might not be much of a difference between people born in 81 or 82. But you can't just keep adding a year on and then before you know it people born in 90 will be genXers. Every major publication has stated 1981 as the last year for GenX so that's it. You can take the protection off but u will just have more kids born from 82 - 84 trying to squeeze into the genx crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

To GenXKid4life: Hmmm seems VERY suspicious that you come on here today to campaign for 1981 after we have reached an agreement previously. It is also interesting that there is NOTHING on your talk page, you have no other edits, and your username is Genxkid4life??? Sounds like a case of sockpuppet (user trying to hide behind a fake account) to me. I have already warned administrations about you, and i am collecting this comment and any future comments you make. Don't get yourself banned over absolute BS. If you think that Generation X should end in 1981, write your own research study, interview people, have it copyright, peer reviewed and published. Not that it will stop other demographers from using other dates as a beginning or end year. Interesting that you have NOTHING to say about use of 1961 and 1965 as the beginning of Generation X.  Educatedlady (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) To Educatedlady What in the name of god are you talking about? Fake Account? Please contact all the admins you want you nut. This is the first time i've talked on wiki. You sound like you have to much time on your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

GenxKid4life: Obviously you are the nut for coming on here in the first place trying to start yet another debate. There has been VERY heated debates on this page, and there has been suspected persons using multiple IP addresses to spam this page. So therefore that is why I am leery. It is not about having "too much time on my hands" This is not a STYX song, but rather being proactive in keeping debates at a minimum. This is why we are proposing this consensus. It is not about our own personal opinions but rather facts. While you may feel that Gen X ends in 1981 or 1980 or 1981 are really not part of it, (it seems like you are changing your mind) sources have used various dates. As long as a source proves reliable (not necessarily popular because Wikipedia does allow a minority view to be included as well) we have to find wording to reflect that. So go choke on your damn "nuts". Educatedlady (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

To the poster above you are not informed. If the source is reliable it can be used in the article. I have found different sources that use the 1965-1982 date range. I dont understand why people have to make this such a problem. If there are good sources that use the date then it should be used. I think there will need to be some sort of protection on the page because there always seems to be others who want to change the introduction. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

 * Allright let's go to semi-protection to keep out sock puppets, and anon contributors. But there's no point in stalling the discussion further at this point. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Peregrine if you want to start the formal consensus that is fine with me. Educatedlady (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Honestly, I don't know what the formal procedure is now. Does anyone know how to lift a protection? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well we have to go through the formal consensus first before we can request a life of the protection, and we can only an administrator can approve that. Once we have complete the consensus then we can contact an adminstrator by Wikipedia chat and they will review the consensus and lift it, and we can request semi protection.Educatedlady (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Allright then, let's vote:

Who is in favour of moving from protected to semi-protected status:

 * In favour:

Peregrine981 (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Against:

First we need a formal consensus on the proposed changed to the article (vote), then we can ask an administrator to remove the protection. If you read above an administrator informed us once we reach an agreement then we can ask for the protection to be removed. Educatedlady (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Consensus for Introduction of Generation X Article
This is the proposed consenus for changing the wording of the introduction to the Generation X article. Once consensus is reached this section can be added to the heading of this talk page to inform other editors that a consensus has been met.

"Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the World War II baby boom ended. The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s. While there is no universally agreed upon time frame, the term generally includes people born in the 1960s and 70s, ending in the late 1970s to early 80s, usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982."

I agree to change the wording of the introduction to reflect a variety of sources that use various dates to define Generation X. Educatedlady (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

All the people that wrote articles about what year Gen X starts and ends are just human beings. What makes them the be all end all, in all honesty i don't feel like anything born in the 80's is Gen X including 1980 or 81. Even this article lumps everything from 80 on as a gen y. http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/no-mcmansions-for-millennials.html . An estimated 80 million people comprise the category known as "Gen Y," youth born roughly between 1980 and the early 2000s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

 * A couple of suggestions. I would say usually not later than 1982, as that seems to be the last date that you see with any regularity. Also, the "western" part is a bit difficult. Are we really sure that it is only western? The post-ww2 gens seem to be generally applied more or less globally, with occasional regional or national variations. I would also suggest to keep this phrase in the intro: "The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s." as it gives some context to the term. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine I made changes to the proposed, let me know what you think. Educatedlady (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I propose we keep the wording the way it is for both the Generation X and Generation Y articles, except that we say "usually no later than 1981" for Generation X, but add a comma, then "but sometimes even as late as 1982". That is more accurate based on the research I provided. Peregrine981 and you both agree that 1981 is more common and used more often. That would be a true compromise, and a statement that I am asking administrators to consider. Also, I should add that we should not remove the mentioning of "mid-1970s" from the Generation Y article as some have proposed, because some sources have used the term "Generation Y" (in some cases also the term "Millennials") to describe those born from 1975/1976 up to the early 2000s. I don't know why some anonymous users are changing "mid-1970s" to "late-1970s Though it's true that the late 1970s are used more often than mid-1970s, several sources use "mid-1970s". I don't know about the "western" bit. Where else would we use the term "western"? By this, I mean where else in the generation articles would we want to use the term "western"? Also, Peregrine, I forgot to notify you, but Educatedlady and I discussed keeping an eye on the generation pages for excessive anonymous edits or drastic changes. We are in agreement to request a temporary protection if necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is so important then I will not object to "usually not later than 1981", even if I don't think it is necessarily the best way to define the generation. I don't think it is such an important point that it is worth keeping the page frozen, and everyone distracted for months on end. I can accept it as compromise wording as long the usually is left in, in order to keep the possibility of a later date open. But I would warn that this wording will likely require constant battling with new arrivals who are convinced that 1982/83 etc... are more "usual." However, it is unlikely that we will escape them anyway. Also, keep mid-1970s for Gen Y.

As far as "western" goes, we use it sporadically at the moment, mostly because I don't think it is really clear in most of the literature exactly what the geographical definitions of these generations are. It seems, in my lay opinion, that western more or less applies to all pre-ww2 generations. Baby-boom I am not certain, but it would seem logical that it is largely a phenomenon of countries who fought in WW2. From Gen X onward they seem to become more "global" so don't necessarily need the geographic qualifier.

I certainly have no objections to your final proposal, and will agree to keep an eye. However, we should be careful not to become an old guard or "cabal" who will not allow any changes to "our" work. Newcomers may bring fresh ideas, and we should be careful to encourage them to bring constructive edits. But certainly, if they are just randomly changing things to suit their own prejudices I will help out. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok I will change it back to reflect what I posted initially usually 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982. If you all agree I am okay with it. I think the sources will back up the intro, and decrease potential battles, although it may not eliminate them. I am all in favor of others coming to make changes and bringing in fresh ideas, because research changes. Even GenXKid4Life brought a new article that stated that millennials are defined as persons born 1980-2000. All this time I have been supportive of using all resources that use various dates. If we have made a consensus I will contact an adminisrator about the protection status. Educatedlady (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok it looks like we are on board reaching an agreement. I am contacting an administrator about placing the article on semi-protection status, and placing this consensus at the forefront of the talk page, to show validation that a consensus was made in regards to the introduction, to attempt to decrease furture intense debates like we have had. I hope to work with you guys and other editors in improving other areas in the article. Educatedlady (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

*CITATION for "Along with early members of Generation Y, Generation Xers are sometimes referred to as the MTV Generation.[citation needed]"
The Simpsons, Season Four, Episode Eleven; Homer's Triple Bypass. Where Homer is about to tell Bart and Lisa about the surgery,

Bart: Nothing you say can upset us, we're the MTV generation. Lisa: We feel neither highs nor lows. Homer: Really, what's it like? Lisa (shrugs): Meh...

Just had to put this here. I found it too ironic that there was a citation needed for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.247.141 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

ABC of XYZ
I wonder if this is really a legitimate source, the website makes it look more like the book was written to make money than to be a legitimate source of information for accuracy purposes. Also including the link might constitute spam since the only purpose of that website is to make money.--174.45.204.124 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

75.11.156.74 and 76.206.29.76 has been reported
This user has been deleting my comments and has been attacking me via my talk page. They have been reported administrators.Educatedlady (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Just on here for a short bit. You said you reported these IP addresses. I have had to deal with anonymous vandals who repeatedly engage in disruptive edits. I would also suggest you keep track of these IPs yourself, and perhaps leave the appropriate warning template on the IP's talk page. This way, other editors can see a history of warnings and can apply a stronger warning next time, or administrators can fully block the IP if necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

In the United States
If the article is going to link Gen Xers to particular presidents, it does make sense to mention the 2-term presidents, but does not make sense to leave out Bill Clinton. My belief is that linking to particular presidents should be left out of the article entirely. --98.180.18.161 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree because it doesn't make much sense, as Bill Clinton became president in 1993 during all the Gen X hype, so wouldn't he be connected to X also? (as well as Y?) Also many gen xers grew up during Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford's administrations. The fact that the article states that Gen Xer's are linked to Reagan and Bush gives the impression that persons born in the early 1980s are linked to this generation, however the article states that the generation is linked to these presidents states that Generation X dates are 1965-1978. Its conflicting. Plus this statement doesn't apply to persons living in other countries. Educatedlady (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

1982 start of the millennial generation??
First off, wikipedia clearly states in the 3rd millennium section that the new millennium began on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000 like it is widely accepted as. Technically that is correct, as 1 BC rolled over into 1 AD and there was no year 0. To be politically correct the class of 2000 was the last graduating class of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium. That also means that those born in 1982 turned 18 in the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century. Those born in 1983 are technically the first ones to turn 18 in the new millennium and the 21st century. But I am just playing with specifics here. I have found more than an equal number of sources that use 1980 or 1978 as the start year of Generation Y as Creative Soul has found articles that use 1982 as the start year. Plus 21 is when you technically become a full blown adult anyway, not 18. Wikipedia also lists 20-40 as young adult. I would post these news articles here, but I am afraid they would just be erased by Creative Soul as he seems obsessed with keeping his birth year of 1981 as the last year of Generation X. Plus this page would just grow longer with more to read and that just bores a lot of people and turns them off. I have all of these articles ranging from CBS to USA Today posted on my personal "My Talk" page. I have also found saved and stored these in my favorites box on my computer, and most are from the last 5 years(most from the last 3). Bjoh249 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 * What's your point? The article just says gen x ends "usually" not later than 1982. That gives a wide degree of lattitude for dates before that, and also some after. I believe that CS has agreed to the current wording, so what is the problem? Or do you seriously want to get into a debate of counting whether it is in fact "usually" 1982 or 83? Would that really add much to the article? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born in 1980 and even thou I grew up with all the gen x stuff as a kid, i identity myself with the gen y generation. being born in 1982 or 83 and thinking you're part of generation x is insane. Like i said i was born in 80 i don't even really consider that a gen x kid imo. I think the driving force behind this whole 1982 thing is a lot of people don't want to be identified with gen y, but if you were born in 80,81,or 82 you will have a hell of a lot more in common with gen y then someone that was born in 76,77,or 78 tru gen x. 1982 is just to ridiculous... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Read through the commentary on this topic, and you will find many reliable sources discussing this very issue. If you have a dispute with the validity of the sources, please let us know. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

IF you don't consider yourself Generation X then why in the world is your username GenXKidforLife??? Proves you are a confused person.Educatedlady (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Again I find it VERY interesting that people like you have NOTHING to say in dispute of 1961 and 1965 BOTH being used as a beginning to Generation X. This just proves you have an agenda. You are a complete phony. Educatedlady (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself a GEN X KID because i was born in 80 and the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SOURCES use 1965 to 1981 as the dates for gen x kid. But with that said i feel people that were born from 78 on have more in common with gen y then gen x. And you still haven't said what year you were born. Because you have been on a personal mission to get the dates to end in 1982 does that mean you were born in 82 and don't want to associate with gen y? Because i personally consider 1982 as gen y since the overwhelming majority of sources use 81 as the end date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been other users who have also wanted the date change. We have shown the sources that use the date. If they are reliable sources they can be used. If you look on the archives you will see some of the sources that were posted. 75.148.160.76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Personally as a person who graduated high school in 1981 i don't feel anyone of 80's born people are generation x at all. Generation X was targeted to 20 something year olds in the early and mid 1990s. The movie Reality Bites, Nirvana and the tv show Friends were not targeting persons born in 1980, 1981, or 1982 but 20year old people. I don't think you remember what generation x was really about in the 90s. The reason why some people choose to end the generation in 1981 or 1982 is because it has to end somewhere. But gen x is really only about 1965-1975. I was born in 1963 and I have Baby Boomer attributes mostly, but some Gen X as well. People born in the early 1950s are bona fide Boomers. People born in the early 1960s are Boomers/Gen X, people born in the early 1970s are bona fide Generation X. People born in the early 1980s can be Generation X and Generation Y, and people born in the early 1990s are bona fide Generation Y. Despite some reports that I am Gen X. I am a Boomer. Heavymetal81 (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

^ this person hit the nail on the head. Smartest thing i've heard. I call my self "genxkid" because the dates say i am. If you were born in the 80's and even really late 70's for that matter you're not true gen x imo. Because of what the above user said the 90's "GEN X" lifestyle was not marketed to kids in there teens. It was marketed to the "gen x" crowd, people that had just turned 18 by 1990 on up. If having 1982 as the end date makes some kids feel better that fine. But go up to someone that was born in 1970 and tell them you are gen x because you were born in 1982 they would laugh at you. I think one thing that should be added to the article is what age range gen x was truly marketed towards and that's people born from 65 - 75. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.170.26 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh Genxkid that goes for you too. You are not Gen X either being born in 1980. There is no difference between persons born in 1980-1982. My daugther was born in 1981, the same year I got out of high school. There is no way we are part of the same generation. Regardless of what the "dates" say, you were not part of the market of the generation in the 1990s. So I am really laughing my a$$ off at you for being born in 1980 and callin yourself genxkid. Sorry "Kid" but you need to grow up. You're not bona fide gen x. You need to stop basing your life on books. Heavymetal81 (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bona fide Generation X definitely begins somewhere in the mid 60's. Given the non-existence of definite boundaries, border years like 64 or 83 can be swing years between generations depending on the individual and how he or she self-identifies. As someone born in 1963, you identify as a late Boomer with Gen X traits. Many born in that year would agree with you. Some 63'ers would also say "we're Gen X". Thus a classic example of a swing year, though I'm more inclined to see 1963 kids as Boomer/X'er cusps or "second wave Boomers" (as opposed to Woodstock boomers), considering these people would have been in high school mostly in the late 70's, only graduating during the first spring of Reagan's year of office. 1965 kids, however, spent the bulk of their high school in an 80's Reaganite America. They are the first real "Generation X'ers" as far as I'm concerned. With regards to early 80's babies, I don't think it's set in stone. I definitely don't see them as "core Generation Y'ers". I was born in 1989 and I self-identify as being part of Generation Y. I definitely don't see myself in the same cohort as someone born in 1980. A person born in 1980 would have graduated high school in the spring of 1998. I would have been in third grade then. How am I in the same generation as that individual? I have a friend in born in 1985 (another Generation Y) and even between us there are some notable differences in our teenage/adolescent experiences. He went to high school in a world without facebook, myspace, youtube or even commonplace ipod ownership (until his senior year I think). You may not see early 80's born kids as part of the core of Generation X, but they sure as hell aren't the same those born in the mid-late 80's and early-mid 90's. I think late 70's and early 80's kids belong in their own generation, consolidating my personal view that generations are 9-12 years rather than 15-20. During the Obama election, commentators felt that as a "post-Woodstock Boomer" president born in 1961 who didn't fit into what we would call "generation x", Obama should be placed in a separate category for Second-wave Boomers called "Generation Jones". This would include people born between 1955 and 1964. Those tail-end boomers basically, like yourself. Similarly, I think births ranging from 1976-1984 should be given a separate generational moniker, a cohort of kids who came of age with the rise of internet technologies, as opposed to core Millenials who experienced that rise as little children (I was 5 when both internet and cell phone came out). Just my two cents. Afghan Historian (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting observation Afghan Historian. Like your friend I went to high school without the world of Facebook, Myspace and the like. We didn't have cell phones. I learned to type using a typewriter not a computer. I think persons born in the late 1970s and early 1980s are very unique because while we have characteristics that are associated with Generation Y, we have those associated with Generation X too. For example I loved N'Sync and the Backstreet boys when I was in high school, but I loved Van Halen and Bon Jovi as a young child. I remember Columbine in high school, and I remember Challenger as a preschooler. I self identify as an XY Cusp. We don't have all the characteristics of Generation X nor Generation Y. Educatedlady (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC).

 * All great points, and good, reasoned discusion. And what do all of these comments really have in common? Generational dates are not cast in stone. This is not a hard science, which is why I find it so hillarious how much time and effort is taken up on wikipedia debating the exact nuances of which year is and isn't in a certain generation. I'm almost tempted to create a banner at the top of every generational talk page pleading for people to realise that you cannot possibly cut an entire generation on January 1 of a certain year. It just doesn't make sense, even if lots of authors do it, just to create a short hand guide to a generation. But I'm sure it would make no difference. Peregrine981 (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you have an idea there Peregrine about the banner! If its possible please do it! Many of the authors I have read that have drawn exact lines for generations have no specific reasoning, (or at least concrete reasoning) for doing so. That's why in my own study I am defining X as the early 1960s to the early 1980s. This may seem "vague" to some, but it is certainly a lot more accurate. Educatedlady (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't know that it would have any real effect other than to incite more debate. Plus, I'm not sure what the "rules" are, regarding that kind of POV posting on a talk page. SO, for the moment I'm inclined to avoid the potential headache and focus on the articles. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure, I will ask an administrator. I know I have seen some other pages that have banners with warnings on them. But you're right I want to avoid potential headaches as well. God knows we have had plenty Educatedlady (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent CNN article from 2011:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/24/singer.young.leaders/index.html

"History will mark 2011 as the year the baby boomer generation, which has so dominated American politics and society, first became eligible for retirement. But little is known about the new guard of American leaders, the Millennial generation, born between 1980 and 2005."Bjoh249 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

When does Generation X really end and begin?
I've heard the following spans for Generation X.

1961-1981 1965-1976 1965-1981 1960-1985 1968-1986 1965-1985 1965-1982 1965-1974 1958-1985 1966-1984 1963-1985 1961-1983 1964-1986 1964-1985 1967-1981 1968-1980

In general, the start date is no earlier than 1960 and the end date no later than 1985. Are 1958-1967 and 1975-1985 kind of grey areas? I ask because some self-identify in different generations in those grey areas. I have a brother born in 1967 that calls himself a baby boomer, while I know someone that was born in 1962 that calls herself Generation X. I think that's why 1954-1967 as well as 1975-1985 have been partitioned off as subgenerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVillani1985 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Welcome. First, please make sure to sign your comments when posting on talk pages. I have left instructions for how to do so on your talk page. Just read the section WP:Tilde. Anyway, to answer your question: There are no exact time frames for generations, but in general, for Generation X, the earliest date used is 1961 and the latest is usually 1981 - though some sources end the generation with 1982 (the year for the sharpest increase in birth rates - Echo Boom), it is more common for 1982 to be the starting point for Generation Y/Millennials (who graduated in 2000). The association with 1982 as the "new generation" has been around since the 1980s and 1990s. It is more common to see 1965-1981 for Generation X and 1982-2000 for Generation Y, but 1982-1995 has also been used. See my previous posts on the generation talk pages with a variety of sources used for reference. Of course, not everyone agrees with the ame date range, which is why the introductions on generation pages are worded the way they are. The last I checked, the U.S. Census considers birth years up to 1964 as part of the Boomer Generation, and uses 1965-1981 for Generation X (looking for the official Census chart I have somewhere - used in a report), as does Canada, and the Australian Census Bureau (official) - along with New Zealand. Dates range from early 1960s to 1980s, usually ending with 1981, sometimes, though rarely, with 1982. 1982-1986 are usually considered "Older Millennials", but 1983-1985 are definitely part of the Generation Y/Millennial group. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Editor. There have several different variations used for Generation X, and the years are often disputed. However usually anywhere from 1961-1982 have been more recently used. Researchers have been faulty (just my opinion) in defining the last of Generation X and often base their conclusions solely on academics and not common culture. Fortunately there have been a new crop of demographers that have been using alternate dates to define Generation X including the emerging 1965-1982, which seems more accurate because the Baby Boom Generation has ended in 1964 for years until authors Strauss and Howe begin coining generation X beginning in 1961. However it does not make sense to start a generation at the beginning of a decade and not include the first year of that decade (1960) nor does it make sense to end a generation at the beginning of the decade and not include all applicable years from the early 1980s (1980-1983). Happy editing. I do encourage you to sign up for an account, as it becomes difficult to identify users by IP addresses. Educatedlady (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are an American citizen the cut off date is 1981 END OF STORY. http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/clusplan/cr3/pars/2520.pdf If you live in another country who knows. But if you live in the US and were born in 1982 or later you are GEN Y! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GenXKid4life (talk • contribs) 09:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Because of a report from the archdiocese of Philadelphia? Give me a break. Your tone is confrontational and one sided. If you want to have a debate about this, fine, but please try to engage with the point of view of others rather than simply asserting you know "the truth" IN CAPITAL LETTERS, with no room for debate. Thanks for your understanding. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

There are sources that use the early 1980s date. We have shown sources that use the 1982 date. If there are reliable sources they can be used. There are different dates used by sources. If you look on the page and archives you will see the different sources that were posted. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

i haven't posted here in a while but i have been observing. why such a big debate on this issue? if sources says gen x ends in 1990 then use them! Heavymetal81 ([[User talk:Heavymetal81|talk] ]) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There arent any sources that use that date. Thats why its not used. There has to be reliable sources that use the date. If there arent any sources it cant be used. 75.148.160.76 (talk)

Here's a recent CNN article from 2011:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/24/singer.young.leaders/index.html

"History will mark 2011 as the year the baby boomer generation, which has so dominated American politics and society, first became eligible for retirement. But little is known about the new guard of American leaders, the Millennial generation, born between 1980 and 2005."Bjoh249 (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Bjoh249 (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Diversity?
This line caught my eye: "Compared with previous generations, Generation X represents a more heterogeneous generation, exhibiting great variety. They are diverse in such aspects as race, class, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation." This strikes me as statistically improbable, verging on impossible, particularly for ethnicity & race. Unless there was a substantial influx of immigration or massive difference in birth rates, the racial & ethnic composition should be within a few percentage points of the values for prior generations. Sexual orientation is also unlike to have changed in actual numbers, but rather in openness. Class is difficult to nail down, especially with all the economic ups & downs of that period. While the lines above are pretty much verbatim from the citation (to the point of verging on plagarism), they also seem illogical. Surely it would be more accurate to say that Gen X is *perceived* as more diverse in (insert stuff above), or "portrayed" as such in the media, or more open & proud of diversity, or something like that? I do think that GenX brings to mind a more diverse group than prior "generations", but I doubt this is a product of actual population composition changes but rather of certain groups no longer being marginalized to the same extent as in previous generations (and media portrayals reflecting this).

Long story short, while I agree that GenX seems / is portrayed as more heterogeneous, I doubt that there are genuine demographic shifts underlying this, making the above-quoted line inaccruate, even if sourced. While taking care to avoid WP:Synth and WP:OR, perhaps some more digging for references might allow the paragraph to be expanded and give a more complete picture? Mokele (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I agree with what you say. This also seems to assume a US POV. Please feel free to do some digging along these lines. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Educatedlady (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a factual change, as it is the first generation to grow up where interacial marriage was legal in all 50 states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.217.64 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 166.216.128.74, 23 March 2011
I recommend that "cold war" be shown as "Cold War" since it refers to an historic event.

166.216.128.74 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving out lists of famous people (regarding all generation pages)
I agree with the last edit that this list was too long. Also, I recall a previous discussion a few years ago when it was decided not to add a list in the first place. There is debate about time frames anyway, and I think that we should stick to not including people to the generation pages. Plus, I believe that adding such notable names would be against Wikipedia policy. The "notables" themselves might disagree about what generation they belong to, and we can't add a generation category to every biography page. I don't think such lists are necessary. Readers can figure out for themselves which generation a celebrity belongs to - by the person's birth year or read any books listed as a source.

I noticed the generation pages that have long lists don't have much information included in the article. What do you all think? I don't feel like these lists are necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Also I think the whole generation X being linked to Reagan and Bush should be eliminated too. As persons born in the early 1960s grew up with President Johnson and Nixon, and persons born in the early 1970s grew up with Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and some Bush. Since generation X started to be recognized in the early 1990s then that can be linked to Bill Clinton as well. However, if we are talking about the generation as a world wide issue then this would apply to persons in the U.S. Educatedlady (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Maybe I'm just tired today, but I don't see any mention of specific Presidents in this article. I agree that those born in the 1970s grew up with all the Presidents you mentioned. And those born in the early 1980s grew with Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. I rather like the way the article is now - with links to important events in history, such as the Challenger disaster, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think there should be a discussion about the other generation pages as well. I don't mind adding some relevant information to those pages, but having a generation page that is mostly a list of celebrities is not very informative. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey I removed thr part about the presidents because the article really was more of an interview than actual reliable work, part of it was cut off too. Educatedlady (talk) 04:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Leaving out lists of famous people (regarding all generation pages). Changing reasons against it through the years
I tried the list too and tried to make a list and tried harder and harder to make it non-bias and over numerous professions. I got one line after another, after another about it being (for example) a fan list, a start of a long list, are a bad idea, need to have the person personally identify themselves as part of the generation, etc, etc, etc. The truth is they do not want much to this page. Other pages are more free to edit in the name of freedom of information and totally outside of the strange subject matter constantly having to be reverted, but Generation X page is micro-managed by politically connected users that will keep the page beaten down as much as possible, though I have not made a comment on this page for months and months, I have constantly seen user after user being denied content that would be acceptable on the other generation's pages (which has much fuller content which promotes the generations). I am sure I will be patronized by some politically connected user or even "another" snow job, but if you want to actually make this page catch up with the other pages, you are fighting a tsunami of power. I have seen people ask for administrative support and denied, ever changing excuses (and from the same people, but they did not know someone was watching, colleting, and waiting for months), accused of vandalism and immediately revoked for things that were nowhere near vandalism. I have used my investigative skills creating a repository of responses from the trust of users, investigation of the user's background and work outside of Widipedia, contacted prominent generational experts like Neil Howe, Jean Twenge, Douglas Coupland, Tammy Erickson, and Barbara Ehrenreich to name a few about this and when I heard something back (which I did) can be divided into two categories: "just saw your mail after a few months and all is well now I guess" and "I can not even get people to listen to me about what is wrong with the generational psychology without being forced to jump through extra hoops than other subjects". Your not going to break the micro-management of the Generation X page on Wikipedia this way. You have to take it up with other site and will likely have some reasonable accommodation to the subject matter such as "lists". I have and peers (not just members of Generation X) in my online generational research circle have too. You are not going to get this free this page so it can change to the level of other generation's pages by use of usual means. Pwalker1972 (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Who exactly are these "politically connected" users? If you're going to throw around these sorts of accusations at least back them up with specific edits. Are there problems on this page, sure. But if you have credible sources, why not bring them forward and discuss the issues rather complaining about the "management". You have as much right to present your arguments as anyone. Peregrine981 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't. Just a horse and pony show like the other's that have had problems on this page over the past few years.  Anyone that has issues here will be waisting their time going threw the channels.  Its foxes guarding the hen house.  If people are having a problem with this page when comparable pages are not an issue, take it up with other sources than the administration.  Don't hack into accounts or do "true" vandalism though.  Keep the moral high ground.  Pwalker1972 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree you have the right to bring your arguments too. There is no specific "owner" for this page. Kurt Cobain is a common person linked to Generation X. I remember when I was a kid he was named the unoffical spokesperson of the generation (even though he rejected the title). If I can find an article that references it, I wouldn't see a problem adding it. Please bring your sources. Educatedlady (talk) 04:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It goes beyond pop culture. The page is about sociology.  Thing is, this page is tightly held.  There is a reoccurance of "I just think list are a bad idea" from different micromanaging users.  I do not believe in major conspiracies, but this page is being surpressed comparied to Boomer, GI, and Y.  Try to push an issue.  It will not work.  Other pages act differently, but this one is cut throat by a handfull of priviaged users that are politically connected meaning within the Wikipedia world, not necessarily the national politics, though one is and he is the worst.  66.82.9.56 (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush and name names. Who is politically connected and acting outside of the rules of wikipedia? Are you refering to creativesoul? CS and I have had our differences over time, but I do not think that they are "politically connected". If you think they are acting in a proprietary way, please be specific about when and how. I personally think that they have been too attached to supposed "past consensus" in our arguments in the past and would argue for your rights to be able to introduce new ideas. Consensus can and does change. However, CS has also shown an ability to be convinced if you present sources. If you want to introduce a list, or whatever, make an argument for it. I will support you if there is any overbearing editing going on. Personally I do not support a list. I think it will attract edit warring, will be fairly subjective, and will add little value. But I am prepared to be convinced if you want to present an argument. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I wasn't going to reply, but just be an onlooker like I have for a couple of years now and write on the newer user's board instead of entering the fray. I do need to reply because part of my argument is moot now.  I had not been looking at the other pages, but only X over the months keeping track of edit wars, revisions, and lack of content.  Turns out, other pages have worked their way down to X since what I was saying a couple of years ago about there needs to be the same rules applied to each generation's page has finally come true since the same users are on the other pages now.  I could make a point that the GI Generation is the one being shorted now since the content is much much less than it was a couple of years ago and the only one with a list.  Boomers, Y, GI had such a large amount of content and X could not change anything without it being reverted instead of corrected causing a toxic culture.  I do not think X is being singled out anymore.  My main absolute anger (more like rage) was with Arthur Rubin for micro-managing X's page.  He is no longer taking an active role on the page and back to being the enforcer of edits from people that have not taken their meds today with conspiracy theories or educated narcissist trying to push their work as important to some point in the research world though not exclusively which creates another toxic environment.  In other words, if he was not so connected in the national spotlight, he would be banned.  What I do think has happened is this:  the environment is so negative in nature that nothing can get accomplished.  A few users stay on a page and it turns out to be some brain trust.  This happens on many pages and I am not calling anyone out on this page.  But I have noticed (since I had not looked at the other pages, but X at least once a week for months) is that the other pages have lowered themselves to X's content and not the other way around.  Wikipedia's culture is negative in nature.  This is what causes edit wars and hacking.  Take someone you know that has not seen the discussion pages and edits and show them what is going on.  They are shocked because I have done just that and they are shocked.  There needs to be a positive atmosphere.  I have studied this in my forensic accounting and fraud investigation class (along with ACFE meeting speakers points) that bad environments breed fraud and especially inefficiency.  No, I am not talking about all those Boomer lead "feeling" programs that are putting the carriage in front of the horse causing an even more toxic environment worse than if they just left it alone.  But at least try to focus on adding content than taking content off.  As for the whole "appeal" process, nothing has changed.  The mediators might have their hands full or just go with the connected, I do not know, but there is no point in it in its result regardless.  Lastly, look at the history of pages, say, 3 months back at a time for a couple of years.  The content has become worse.  What is happening is counterproductive.  What is really bad is too many people rely on Wikipedia when they look things up.  I stopped a couple of years back and now take some time to look things up from other sites or a subscription service if the contracted account has one where I am working at the time.  But to end on a sort of positive note, the other pages do not contain list now either so X is at least competitive with Boomer and Y.  Pwalker1972 (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the environment can be bad for some who work on the article. I think we should consider all sources and opinions on here. I think the article should try to stay neutral and not push away people. rc03 (talk) 08:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I would agree that the environment on many of the generation pages is quite negative, with constant edit warring, and a complete lack of trust. I'm not so sure that this is an inherent flaw in wikipedia, as much as the internet in general. The problem has been a lack of compromise IMO. The actual issues involved are small (99% involves quibbling over a matter of a few years) so the fights are that much more intense. Kind of like a university faculty.

 * However, I would disagree with your overall assesment of the situation. I think the articles are considerably better than they were a couple of years ago. They have been streamlined, and a lot of bogus sources have been removed. Shorter, in this case, is better. The topics being so large and amorphous, the articles are still not particularly great, but I think that as a beginning point for research into the generations they are not bad. My advice now would be to completely avoid the issue of dates, where there seems to be a tenuous truce, and focus on adding actual research on the characteristics of the generations. I am personally quite sick of the issues, and believe, so have moved on to more interesting topics for the moment, but would be happy to return actively in some time. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think in the last few months we have been able to work towards a more civil agreement. However, I see your point. I personally think a list can provide more information as to who is associated with the generation, however do we have sources of these famous persons quoting the generation they belong to? I think maybe we can quote the fact the media associated these public figures with the generation if we can find sources to back it up. My whole reasoning for being persistent for change on this article was to provide a neutral view. Also this is just my opinion but a lot of sociology has to do with pop culture, therefore generations are typically based on events that occurred with individuals associated with that generation, ultimately leading to similar sociological characteristics. I actually want others to come and provide their perspective with sources, I don't want to alienate anyone. 08:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

Canada: David Foot's book
I noticed that an anonymous user changed the date from 1966 to 1976. Author David Foot actually ends Generation X in 1979, he never uses the date 1976. However, he divides Generation X into two groups. I have included both the original source another editor previously added (that links to the author's website), as well as a link to an article on the Canadian Journal of Sociology website. The author of that article, Thomas Norman Trenton, cited pages 18-22 of Foot's 1996 book Boom, Bust & Echo. I found the following quote from that article: "In Boom, Bust & Echo, Foot (1996: 18-22) divides youth into two groups: "Generation X" born between 1960 and 1966 and the "Bust Generation" born between 1967 and 1979."

I will double check David Foot's book to make sure I have the correct pages, and perhaps his 2000 book as well (Boom, Bust & Echo 2000). If anyone has any questions regarding David Foot's books, please let me know. I could not find previews of his books online, so I will have to track down a copy of his book or purchase one before I can verify the page numbers. I might not be able to do so for several weeks.

Please do not change dates from sourced material or remove these sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction sources
There are enough sources to support the various start and end dates in the introduction, which has been decided by a consensus. Also, the about.com website is not the problem. The recent source added only shows a list of generations and various time frames. It is only a guide and not an article about generations or Generation X, nor is it a research article written by a reputable demographer. Also, the article by the UK's The Observer is mostly about Generation Y. The Generation Y article already has some UK sources, but thanks for contributing all the same.

I would ask that Peregrine981 weigh in on the discussion since he helped organize the sources, and the other editors involved in the consensus. We already have plenty of sources, especially in the introduction. Please do not add any more without discussion with others involved in the consensus. I have a list of recent sources that can be used for both pages, but will not add them until I can expand the articles a bit. Some of these sources (newspaper articles, research, etc.) are from 2010 and 2010, a couple from May and June 2011. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You either ignored or completely side-stepped what I brought up on your talk page: Where (page #, paragraph) does it state in the current sources that 1982 is the latest year cited? That's not mentioned anywhere in those sources; therefore, it makes the 1982 statement susceptible to reversion, whether consensus supports the information or not. I don't deny that 1982 would be an appropriate date. However, there is nothing in the existing sources that support it. As I already told you, the About.com citation is reliable in that it also cites a reputable think tank. If you actually read The Observer article, you will see that there was a section describing the Generation X years and mentioning 1982 as the last year. Your rationale for reverting these sources thus seems to be misguided and unfounded. Please put the sources I included back into the article; I don't want to request Wikipedia administrator intervention for what is clearly a non-issue: 3 sources that don't support a statement is NOT "enough sources". --Danteferno (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

 * We had a consensus regarding this issue. Several pages worth, including several pages of various sources. I think that 1981 is a more common end year for Generation X, but some sources use 1982, including Elwood Carlson's book that is listed as a source. You can weight for Peregrine981 and EducatedLady to join the discussion as they are the two who wanted to include 1982. I do not agree with Educatedlady, but the Elwood Carlson source (as well as a few other sources) is the main source to 1982 as the last birth year and those born in 1983 who started attending college in 2001 as the first members of Generation Y. I know that The Observer article mentions Generation X, however it mostly concentrates on Generation Y. I believe I adequately explained why the about.com source was removed. It is only a list of generations, and there is no real article. There are plenty of sources already supporting the introduction. My reasoning, therefore, is not unfounded. The sources were not necessary and did not add vital information to the article. I am sure Peregrine981, Educatedlady, and other editors will agree. They can help me better explain the conclusion reached, and Peregrine981 was the one who helped cut down the sources and reorganize them. Also, the Generation Y article already has enough sources, including UK sources, to support the current information on that page. Please do not add the sources back without discussion with the other editors. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * The problem we run into here is that we have not been able to find one or two concise sources that discuss the issue of overlapping years in an authoritative and comprehensive way. So we run the risk of overwhelming the introduction with sources which makes it harder to edit. If you want to add sources I would suggest that you follow the style of Generation Y, where articles are "bundled" into a single citation, and a quote is provided from the article to make it more transparent. I won't object to adding the articles if you follow that style, as no changes of substance are being made. Thanks. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

 * "....but some sources use 1982, including Elwood Carlson's book that is listed as a source." What page #? If a book is going to be cited, there should be a quote, or at the very least a page # for reference. In addition, the summary is not supported by the rest of the article. While 1982 is listed as the last known Generation X birth year, the rest of the article cites 1981 as being the last. Considering the article is rife with un-sourced statements as it is, I find it odd that this issue has to do with "too many" references - and most of all - reputable ones. --Danteferno (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering there is one lone source that uses 1982, shouldn't the sentence read. "usually no latter than 1981, although some sources go as late as 1982"? As it looks atm it sounds like 1982 is the common cut off date which all but one agree that it's 1981, except on e lone source that chooses to be different. The way it looks, it sounds like someone born in 1982 can delude themselves that they're generation X not generation Y. Also "usually not later than 1982"? It is NEVER past 1982. It's USUALLY not past 1981.60.224.2.240 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, I made the same suggestion after the most recent consensus. I wanted to alert the administrators, and suggest we mention 1982, but write "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982 (or what you wrote: although some sources go as late as 1982)." I argued that it is more common to see 1981 as the end date for Generation X, as 1982 is commonly used as the start of Generation Y/Millennials, but this discussion has gone on for months (and several discussion pages). I have been busy with work and family, but am working with a more experienced editor/administrator on how to tackle this issue. I propose an amendment to the sentence, but please do not change the wording without discussion, as Peregrine981 has pointed out that this discussion has been beaten to death. It would also be beneficial if you created a username and joined Wikipedia, as you will have more privileges than an anonymous user. If you know others that are interested in this discussion, please direct them to this page. However, because a consensus was reached regarding the wording of this article's introduction, it is best to mention such changes on this discussion page. Thanks for your input. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was being kind. I said some sources go as far as 1982. Correctly it should be ONE source goes back as far as 1982. Since the vast majority goes back to 1981 and there is one lone source that goes back as 1982, I personally think it should be ignored. The source should be counted as wrong as no other source agrees that it ends in 19812. 60.224.2.240 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is more than once source that cites 1982 as being the last Gen-X birthyear. The problem is the POV-pushing of a small minority here who says "there are already enough sources for the 1982 date". --Danteferno (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I cannot believe how much time we waste on these date issues. Look through the reems, and reems of dicussion on this topic, and you will see why I continue to advocate for a very loose wording in these articles. There are plenty of sources that use dates other than 1981, see below. It isn't a complete outlier. However, I am personally not convinced of the utility of naming particular years. If you go through the lengthy discussions, you will see that the current wording is a compromise. I would rather say early 1960s to early 1980s to avoid having to rehash the debate every few months, and to give a frankly more accurate view of what a generation "is". There are no hard and fast cut off dates, these are amorphous cultural concepts (and increasingly so with every generation since WWII).

fx: http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.1generations.pdf http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/

Commerce Concepts”: Market Updates, Asset Allocation and Investment Education for Plan Participants and Individuals. Volume 12, issue 2, 2nd quarter; 2008. Generation X: Born Years 1965-1982. “Generations at Work”; Andrew Schwartz; April 22, 2009. Generation X: Born 1965-1982. “Tools for Effective Teaching”; Judy Campbell ARNP: Ed.D. Christine Brooks MSN, FNP-BC; Palm Beach Atlantic University School of Nursing; November 10, 2008. Generation X Born 1965-1980 (1982), Generational Classroom Implications Chart: Gen X (1965-1982).

“Recruiting Ideas for a New Generation” Sharon Cureton, IPMA-CP Human Resources Director City of Daphne; (Year Published Unknown): Generation X (1965-1982).

“The Organizational Generation Gap”; Pharmafocus July 2008; Wiley-Blackwell Publications; Generation X 1965-1982.

“NJPS 2000: Jewish Baby Boomers”; NORTH AMERICAN JEWISH DATA BANK; Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz; Director, Research and Analysis United Jewish Communities; June 5, 2006. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Opinion: American Generations and the Happiness Index”; Samantha A. Torrence; July 1, 2008; Digital Journal; Generation X 1965-1982. “Facilitating the Career Development of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Academic Rheumatologists”; Janet Bickel: Career and Leadership Development Coach and Instructor; March 14, 2009. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Steadfastly Forward”; Timothy R. B. Johnson, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI Received for publication February 24, 2005; revised May 5, 2005; accepted August 1, 2005. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Maximizing Return on Your Training Investment: A Reference Guide for Managers”; Michael Polowy, Andrew Reitz, and Floyd Alwon: (Year of publication unknown). Generation X 1965-1982.

“Generations X and Y in Law School: Practical Strategies for Teaching the 'MTV/Google' Generation” Joan Catherine Bohl Stetson University - College of Law Loyola Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 1, Winter 2009 Stetson University College of Law Research Paper No. 2009-21. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Sizing Up Tomorrow’s Customer”; Floral Trend Tracker; Glen Hiemstra; Winter, 2005; Generation X 1965-1982.

The Nielsen Company; Client Communication: Final 2009-2010 National Universe Estimates. “Compared to last year, the 2009-2010 UEs for persons 18-49 showed a small decrease, which was driven largely by declines for persons age 35-49, an age group that is comprised largely of the smaller Generation X cohort (born 1965 - 1982).”

“Generation X and the Millennials Will Have Major Effects In the Future”; Kim Ehlers, Holly Sisson, Paula Theilen, Marcy Kratochvil, Nathan Jantzi and Jason Love. Generation X 1965-1982.

“Factoring for X: An Empirical Study of Generation X’s Materialistic Attributes” Nora M. Martin: University of South Carolina and Diane Prince: Clayton State University; Year of Publication Unknown; Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Generation X 1960-1982.

Caroline Perkins; “Don't lose all the best Gen-X talent.” (Generation X, born between 1964 and 1982) (Editorial) ID: The Voice of Foodservice Distribution, May 1, 1998, Vol. 34, Issue 5, p15.

Peregrine981 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sources I previously included, the evidence above seems overwhelming enough that 1982 should be considered the last birth date. Therefore, it's bizarre as to why there's a bid to keep the year out (or simply minimize its prominence) and to make 1981 the penultimate year. I'm not against making the introductory line include just "early 1980s" rather than 1981 or 1982. However, in the body of the article, there should be some examples that go into specifics of the beginning and last years rather than just "the early 1980s". My opinion. --Danteferno (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree this date issue has been beaten to death, this proves that hardly no one wants to improve the article as a whole, just keep debating dates back and forth, what about the rest of the page? If we are only going to discuss dates then why don't we just remove everything else from the article and rename it "Dates of Generation X"? I personally believe that people born from around 1977-1983 are part of an XY Cusp like those born from about 1958-1964 are Generation Jones. As we can see no one can really acccurately place Barack Obama with the Baby Boomers or Generation X. He has charactertics of both. However, there has not been enough research published on the XY Cusp. Therefore again there are a number of sources that use 1982 as an end date for X and a start date for Y. People can ignore these sources, or act like they are not good enough, they are legitimate. I agree with using an introductory line that says early 1980s, however that was not the previous consensus, which is fine, but are we going to keep debating this or are we going to improved this article in terms of sociological aspects?Educatedlady (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, I think that "early 1980s" is a bit vague, and it's more common to see 1981 than 1982. I think the distinction should be made, and I think the wording I use is better without removing the 1982 date. I already mentioned that we can discuss this with administrators. Enough users have also brought up the fact that many people see 1982 as a common start date for Generation Y/Millennials, and I think it is less confusing overall when people see 1982 dates associated with GenY. I don't see why the new wording would be a problem. We can link to the previous discussion if necessary, but I think several administrators have already read those discussions. I will be adding the various sources in those discussions later tonight. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Enough users have also brought up the fact that many people see 1982 as a common start date for Generation Y/Millennials"...Uh, Quite the contrary. In fact, it was just you and one other user - an autoconfirm anon - who seem to think so. And guess what? Most of the references claiming the 1981 X start/1982 Y begin dates are references which source the same reference, and that's the writings of Strauss & Howe. When someone emphasizes duplicated source material to try to justify a point, that's called undue weight. Strauss and Howe are not the "say all and end all" on the topic, and the same goes for any other biographer, researcher, etc. The 1981 thing seems to be POV-pushing for sure at this point. --Danteferno (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What "users" are you referring to Creative? Yourself and "genxkidforlife" who I believe was a fake user? I have always agreed that yes many sources use 1981 as an end date, but there are some that use 1982 which I have posted several times here, that you continue to ignore, or insinuate are not resourceful enough. The early 60s-early 80s timeframe is not necessariy "vauge", its a more accurate reflection of all the researchers who have coined the generation. We already have "people born in the 1960s" in the article, how is adding early 1980s harming it? I'm not saying to change the current wording, but there is always room for improvement. But again I would like to focus on other areas in the article.

Can I ask you something Creative? Do you really know anything about cultural generations? Because you have made no effort to improve this article to bring it from a C rated page to a featured article. Also I have not seen you post on the discussion page for the Baby Boomer article. Just here and Generation Y, not even the MTV Generation page. Why is that? Are you really interested in generational studies, or are you just here to because of the end dates? No offense, because I have also been guilty in continuing this fierce debate about dates. However, there is so much more to generations than this. Has anyone noticed that many of the statements in the article have no citations. How are we working on improving this? Educatedlady (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I see 1982 as part of Generation Y/Millennials. But, other editors decided in a consensus that 1982 was common enough to be included. Finally, I agreed. But I and another editor, and more recently, an anonymous user, think that 1981 is more common. So that's at least 3 editors. Even Peregrine981 agrees that 1981 is a more common end date than 1981. Not only in the United States, but in Germany, Canada, U.K., New Zealand, and Australia: 1965-1981, and sometimes 1961-1981 are the date ranges most often used (in newspapers, studies, official Millennial Conferences around the world). I'd say that it shows that 1981 is in fact, more commonly used as an end date for Generation X than 1982. However, author Elwood Carlson has published a book sometime in the past few years using 1982 as the end of Generation X and 1983 as the start of Generation Y. I will be adding the Carlson quote to the source, and add as many sources as I can to support the 1981 end date. I have no problem keeping 1982, but I would like the clarification added to the statement. I thought having another person agree with me was enough to edit the wording. However, '''I am going to wait for more editors who agree with me before I make any changes, and even then, I will wait and request that administrators look at the numerous sources (see this discussion page's archives) before deciding on my wording, perhaps even get a committee to look at the issue. I also have plenty of recent sources to support my edit. If more than one administrator thinks the previous wording will suffice, then we leave the wording as decided by consensus.''' I think that's only fair, as I've tried to include both dates on the article pages, and even added more sources when necessary. So, until further discussion, no reverts from me.

 * I will update the 1981 sources later (including U.S., Canada, and other sources from the list). I will also add a quote from the Elwood Carlson book to the reference listed. I found the quote using Google Books. Educatedlady: Since you have the book, you can make any corrections or add an additional quotes. If you don't get this message, I will check them again when I get a copy.

 * I mentioned this earlier: Does anyone else agree with me and Educatedlady regarding the pop culture section of the generation articles? I always thought these sections referred to musicians, fads, movies, etc. that reached their peak during a generation's time frame. Many rock bands, musicians, and popular franchises are still around or "active" (e.g. Bon Jovi, Madonna, the new Star Wars trilogy) during the time frame that represents the next generation. I hope I am making sense. Any ideas? There must be a better way to word these sections. I don't like how Star Wars is only included on the Generation Y page. And there must be a way to mention the Harry Potter franchise on the Generation Y page without making it seem as if the books and movies are only popular with that Generation. I know plenty of Generation X, Baby Boomers, and even older people who love Harry Potter. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Educatedlady,I know a lot about cultural generations. I have studied many subjects at university: cultural generations just one of the topics. I have also extensively studied literature, history (medieval and renaissance, Celtic, American, and Ancient history just a few of the topics), several languages, music, theatre, and the arts, and was an honors student. I have written several papers, and am currently working on publishing fiction. I have been studying the subject of generations since I was in the ninth grade, more so after leaving high school. I have actually been editing these articles and others for several years now. And I have brought up several discussion topics, like the one above, at least a few times. Please see the above post. I was trying to post this when you submitted your edit. So, what is your view on the pop culture section? The Generation Y page seems to refer to mainly one source. Thanks. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

 * I think the present wording is a good compromise. In general all generation articles should use a loose wording. As I have pointed out many times, these time frames are not hard and fast. Even in situations in which specific events can be used to measure a generation (such as the end of WWII) the cultural influences on people are diffuse enough that a vague terminology is appropriate. And for generations as this, where there is a great deal of disagreement about what it even means, I think that the "early 1980s" is the most "truthful" definition.  Not only that, but it will help to avoid these endless arguments, vandalism and time suck. Peregrine981 (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with the wording now, but leave it open to revisit the discussion if there are more editors who may prefer my wording. I am not trying to start up an edit war - just to be clear. It is a nice change when everyone can be pleasant. I would prefer this wording over the vague "early 1980s".

So, Peregrine981, what do you think about the pop culture section? I would like to start a new section for a new discussion. Please see my above post regarding possible discussion points. Would you also be interested in tweaking this section? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thank goodness we can move on to other things. Just let it be for the record Creative since you have studied generations, then you should know much about Generation Jones and the XY Cusp. According to more accuracy persons born from the late 1950s to the mid 1960s are in the Jones cohort. There is a Wikipedia page about this. Also those born in the late 1970s - early 1980s are in a XY Cusp. However again this does not describe everyone's experiences in relation to any generation. What you don't seem to quite grasp, or accept is that our experiences are highly similar, placing us in this Cusper period. For example I recently went to a New Kids on the Block/Backstreet Boys concert, and I could sense I was one of few who attended the concert, that had nostalgic connections with both bands, because I attended school while they were both popular.

Moving further on to pop culture, I found this article with the NY Times. However I really don't agree with it, because its associating persons born in the early 80s with Harry Potter and I swear I have no connection to this, like Creative said, and I barely no anything about it. However the article does associate the pop culture with Gen Y, Harry Potter Is Their Peter Panwhich should be helpful for citations here. I really wish more research would be conducted on the XY cusp, then these uneducated researchers would see many persons born from about 1977-1983 have common characteristics of both generations. I have nostalgic memories of Peter Pan. Harry Potter...hmmm not so much. When I was a kid I couldn't wait until the new Sweet Valley High or Goosebumps book came out. Check out some of the comments from the article, they mirror much of what is being discussed here. But Creative you are so right on the money with older people liking Harry Potter. My friend who was born in 1982 and I discussed this a few days ago how we have no knowledge of the franchise, but their boyfriend who was born in 1958 loves it. But it does seem pop culture is associated with generations in terms of childhood/adolescence and early adulthood. For example, my first experience with national tragedy was the Challenger explosion (early childhood/Gen X), then Columbine (teen/gen y), and then 9/11 (My birthday is September 12, so I was a day shy of 19, early adulthood).

Let me know what you guys think about the article. I think it will helping establishing the culture of Generation Y. Thanks!Educatedlady (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the "Date range" section to reflect the mixed opinion of when the "new millennial" generation started - that's key to when the X generation ended. I did a Google Books search and many - if not most - sources point to 2001 as being the official start of the new millennium. 2000 may not be the 1990s, but those who graduated from high school in 1999-2000 did not technically graduate in the "new millennium". 2000 - 1990 = 10 years, hence part of one decade. The new millennium started 2000-2001. Of course there's going to be disagreements on this, so the article's paragraph doesn't really confirm either side. Some time ago I read an interesting article that defined the American Generation X as graduating from high school sometime during Reagan's terms and the full terms of Bush Sr. and Clinton. By the time the 2001 class (birth year 1983) graduated from high school, Bush Jr. was in office. --Danteferno (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To Danteferno. I agree with you, however the information about the new millennium has not been connected to studies in regards to generations. So therefore it can be considered "original" work, unless you have found a source that discusses it. Also I was born in 1982 and graduated HS in 2001 because of the Kindergarten cutoff date implemented by the state of Texas and many other states as well. However again, this has not been used in any generational studies that I have come across, so again original work. Can you post the article that described Gen X as graduating high school during Reagan, Bush and Clinton terms? This would be a great addition to the article. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "the information about the new millennium has not been connected to studies in regards to generations." Actually, it has. This is the reason "Generation Y" are referred to as "millennials". The deviations we read from many researchers is when said generation officially started and there isn't just one, final answer ... that's why I edited the "date range" section since the 1981 date was too heavily emphasized. As far as the article I read about Generation X and presidential admins, the only thing I remember about it was reading it in either in the NYT or Village Voice...back in the summer of 2000, during the 2000 elections. That will require some digging. --Danteferno (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

To Danteferno. Im sorry I guess I should have been more clear. Of course the new millennium has been connected to Gen Y ("Millennials, duh!). What I meant was the true millennium which started in 2001 I haven't found any sources that connect to generations. If you have come across one please post. Thanks!Educatedlady (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone had the chance to look at the article I post. I know we're all busy, just wanted to stay on track.Educatedlady (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

 * My responses were not saved as someone exited out of the window before my changes could be submitted. I will add my response later, including my comments on the pop culture section. I'm sure we can improve this section on the generation article pages. I am also posting a new section to invite Peregreine981, Educatedlady, and others to add their responses to the Generation Z talk page. The article needs to reflect the correct dates for Generation X and Generation Y. See the Generation Z section on this talk page for a link to the discussion started. Thanks! CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on responding to previous posts. I just lost my train of thought. This hasn't been a very good week or so since my cousin's wife passed away from Leukemia and other complications, and my mother got in a car accident (nothing serious), injuring her elbow and getting a concussion. We've had CT scans and MRIs, and thankfully, everything is fine; nothing is broken. Just a sling for her left arm.

Since another editor disagrees with the 1982 date, that makes 3 total including me and another editor. I reverted the last edit, and included both the 1981 and 1982 dates. I think this is fair to both parties and reflects the majority of sources out there.

I will be adding a few more sources to the United Kingdom section showcasing a couple of different date ranges. '''But other than that, I would like to work with others on the pop culture section and the newly proposed "divorced" topic. I think I mentioned this somewhere else, but maybe we can list some sources like EducatedLady has done, and compare notes.''' I'll try to include links to web pages in addition to pdf files if some people can't open them. Have a good weekend, everyone. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading all this stuff for a while and i think this whole thing is ridiculous, Educatedlady was born in 1982 and since i guess it's cooler to be called GENX she has been on a mission to change it to 1982 as the last date for gen x. I think it's very simple you take a poll and the amount of sources and books that say 1981 is the end date for GENX far outweighs the sources that use 1982. That should be enough right there to simply use 1981 as the cut off date send all the information to the admins and be done with it. I mean do you have any idea how many wiki articles you can change if you start using sources that are outweighed by there counterpart. I mean out 100 sources 85 of them use 1981 and 15 use 1982. That should be enough info to simply send to admins to have it permanently changed to 1981 as the end. I mean my god Educatedlady even tries to control the generation y page because that interferes with the gen x. The admins have to stop this madness. It's extremely simple the sources that use 1981 over 1982 are 10 to 1 maybe even more. I wish the admins would finally step in and stop this insanity and use 1981 as the cut and dry cut off date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.189.216 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture
I have been asked to comment on a proposed pop culture section. However, I am not exactly sure what the "proposal" is, as I can't quite find a comprehensive one, though it is referred to several times. At any rate, my general feeling would be that a pop culture section should discuss things that were clearly popular with Gen Yers, that seems relatively straight forward. As usual these things should be reliably sourced, and I think for this we should rely on some real quantitative data, not just "puff" pieces in the entertainment media. Ideally there would be some analysis of the trends, rather than just listing off bands/movies/books that enjoyed periods of popularity with young people in the 90s-2010s.... IMO simply listing items has the potential to lead to edit wars, and massive time suck without adding a whole lot to the article, so we need to be careful. Anyway, if somebody wants to take a stab at it, please go ahead, and we can see what we can make of it. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine were you able to take a look at the article I posted from the New York Times regarding Harry Potter? It should help with the pop culture section. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could certainly use it as a source to say that Harry Potter was popular amongst "Gen Y" since that is basically what the article says, and has some fact to back it up. My own comments are:
 * In general this article seems pretty shallow, and doesn't look much beyond the obvious cliches.
 * It doesn't make any real attempt to separate out different components of Gen Y. It says that they are now 6-28! This is a massive age range for this type of article. What does a 28 year old have to do with a 6 year old as far as pop culture preferences? A 6 year old can barely read, whereas a 28 year old was probably too old for Harry Potter "mania".
 * It focuses only on the US. There is no discussion of regional or class differences, which immediately makes me suspcious that this is just a lazy puff piece.
 * There seem to be no real dissenting opinions presented, and a lot of pop psychology is presented more or less as fact, ie September 11 represents an age of innocence, etc... That may well be true for many people, but it doesn't seem substantiated in any way, other that Howe's say so. I would want further sources, preferably peer reviewed, to substantiate most of these claims if we are to present them as fact. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Peregrine. In attempting to find sources in regards to pop culture of Generation Y, it has been few and far between in terms of reliable sources. Many are message boards that cannot be used here. I know Millennials Rising references to "Pokeman" for Gen Y, that may be construed as a bit more reliable. Educatedlady (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 14 October 2011
Generation X was preceding Lost Generation II

GenerationD (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not done, no reliable source was given, and that article is up for proposed deletion.
 * Please ensure you give references to support edit requests in future. Thanks,  Chzz  ► 05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Long-term University of Michigan study on Gen X
I believe the following study is relevant to this Generation X Wikipedia article:

According to the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), a long-term University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey, despite being stereotyped as a bunch of insecure underachievers, most members of Generation X are leading active, balanced, and happy lives. The study, funded by the National Science Foundation since 1986, includes responses from approximately 4,000 Gen Xers – those born between 1961 and 1981. A report of the study was released today, 10/25/2011.

Sources: 1- http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2011/research/xplaining-generation-x-u-m-survey-paints-a-surprisingly-positive-portrait/ 2- http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122088&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click 3- http://www.lsay.org/ 4- http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/study-of-the-day-as-it-happens-the-gen-xers-turned-out-all-right/247152/ 5- http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-10-24/Generation-X-a-bunch-of-slackers-Not-so-says-new-study/50896198/1

--Emenezes (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

"Failed" currency union?
Why is generation x in the UK supposed to have lived through "discussion over joining, an ultimately failed currency union, switching from pounds sterling to the Euro (1999)". I don't understand. Because the UK didn't join it, it failed? Because it hasn't. At least not yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.226.14 (talk) 20:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Divorced Generation
Gen X has been referred to the generation with parents divorcing in record numbers. While this is mentioned in the article there is no citation for the quote. I found a recent article on the subject, very informative that discussing the subject entailed. Before I add it to the article I wanted to post the link here for you all to read. I know we are all busy, I am just wanted to reach out to everyone in hopes of gaining some support/assistance with finding other articles that describe the generation in hopes of improving the article. Thanks all!

--Educatedlady (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576430341393583056.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read The Divorce Generation

 * Looks like a good article. I would encourage you to be bold! and just add it to the article. The best way to move this article forward is to make changes to the article itself, so I would greatly encourage you to do so, and maybe that will encourage users to do so as well. Personally I have to admit to a certain amount of "generation fatigue" at the moment, but initiatives like this give me some hope for the future of these articles. Thanks.Peregrine981 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Peregrine. I understand the "generation fatigue" myself, which is why sometimes I take a break from the Wikipedia articles, and other entities as well like my own study. Thank you for the encouragement as well. I know you are in support of improving the article as a whole, and not so much about solely focusing on the dates. I will add the citation to the article. Thank you again. Educatedlady (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi. I'm trying to catch up with articles I'm working on, and a little frustrated that I lost some comments. I guess I should have saved my work. In regards to the article, I agree that many Generation X members watched their parents get divorced, but I don't think this article would be a good source to add mainly because it seems to be an excerpt from the author's memoir. We can probably use some of the statistics and track down the author's references (I have the Strauss and Howe book she mentions). Let's see if we can pull anything from it. However, I have come across other newspaper articles (I have to search for them) that discusses the issue, and I think that even Strauss and Howe write about the subject in their books. Psychologists/psychiatrists have written many studies about divorce rate in relation to cohabitation rates rising. So, this phenomenon can also affect Generation Y (though I've seen articles making it seem as if Millennial children don't have divorced parents).

 * I'd like to also mention that despite having some friends whose parents divorced, I was a Generation Xer whose parents have been married for over 40 years (Dad is part of the Silent Generation and Mom is a boomer). Also, two of my fellow Gen Xer friends' parents divorced in the late 1990s, 2000. I would hope to add some balance to this section. Funny, I had been thinking about this subject a couple of months ago. I think this is a great topic to add to this article, but we should be careful with statistics. We can post articles and quotes here. Can everyone read pdf? I'll try to post links to articles and books on this topic, or post the quotes and page numbers if links and files don't work. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree with you Creative but we kind of have to be careful in incorporating Original Research here. While my parents (who were both boomers) divorced, in cases like with you some Gen Xers (or XY Cuspers) may have had parents that are still married. Just like I have many characteristics of Generation X (and Generation Y) demographers such as Strauss and Howe, have ignored the XY Cusp, therefore in complying with Wikipedia guidelines I have done my best to reply on sources. I think what the research is saying is Gen X is the first generation where parents divorced in larger numbers, as opposed to the Baby Boom generation, who's parents typically stayed married for the most part. While I think the article is informative, there is no harm in adding other sources as long as we are not oversaturating the wikipedia article. So please post what you have, I can open a PDF file on my computer. Thanks! Educatedlady (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Hi, sorry it's been a while. I've had to deal with a lot of family loss, and it's been a difficult year.

 * I did manage to find those articles on divorce and Generation X (as well as Generation Y), but I am checking some of the article's sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you agree that we should leave "Divorced Generation" out of the list of names this generation goes by? I think we both reverted a user's edits that included this phrase. I have never heard Generation X (or Generation Y/Millennials/even XY Cuspers) being referred to as the "Divorced Generation." It's true, that many in Generation X are children of divorce (I am not), but isn't divorce now 50%? It's also more common among the older generation since it's now become more "acceptable." I am not comfortable with this label since it's a defining term, and I don't believe this generation is defined by divorce. A person could argue that since children are affected by divorce, then so are the spouses left by their husbands or wives (or mutual separation). And those people could be a part of the Baby Boomer generation or the Silent Generation, for example. I read that some sources (maybe Strauss and Howe were a couple) that stated that the Millennials were more likely to have parents who stayed married? Then why don't we call them the "Married Generation." I think this label is overreaching. I think the section on divorce is sufficient without adding a new lablel to the first or second paragraph. I think you have already been adding sources, and perhaps we can expand that section a little. What do you think? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Cold War. Not just the end of it.
Generation X lived their lives from the start in the knowledge or expectation they could stop rather suddenly due to a nuclear first strike. I suspect this influenced them a little more than the boomers. TO wrtite this off as their expoerience including "the end of the Cold War" seems to miss the reason that that end was significant. Midgley (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would be fair to say Generation X lived through the worst of the Cold War. Someone who was alive during the Cuban Missile Crisis wouldn't really be considered part of Gen X, and by the time of Reagan and Thatcher there wasn't quite the same feeling that the world could end at any point as there was 15 years previously. I think that living through "the end of the Cold War" sums things up pretty well.212.124.225.66 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to Amend Intro
Contrary to what some others like to construe I am not advocating 1982 be part of the introduction for this article. There are "some" who want to maintain 1981 in the article, however since we are not using a beginning year (i.e. 1961) the use of 1981 and 1982 in the article's intro alludes the appearance of a debate in regards to the article. The average person sees Generation X as those born in the mid 1960s to about the mid 1970s, regardless of any source. Therefore when reading this article to suggest that 1981 and 1982 are part of this generation, it has to be somewhat baffling. Therefore to reference that authors, researchers have used a multitude of dates raging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s accurately reflects the number of sources out there and does not place a defining range within the article. The intro sets the tone for the entire article, which is why there has been years of debates in regards to this. I proposed a change to the early 1960s - the early 1980s be set for this article. This will decrease petty and immature debates and move towards a improving the article as a whole. Thoughts? And please look at this from an educational standpoint, not a personal one Edu Lady - Researcher 20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)
 * No objections. The origins of the "1981 > 1982" debate seems to be a single user (using various sockpuppets) who thinks authors Strauss & Howe and their "1961-1981" is the "tell-all and end-all" of the Gen X birthdate range. Those revisions have been redundant, obnoxious and counterproductive. Early 1980s works just fine - neutral/balanced. --Danteferno (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that it keeps the article neutral and doesn't promote any one author's conclusions. Also I'm on to the "sockpuppets" and I have been speaking with administrators about that. Edu Lady - Researcher 20:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs)

 * It seems as if you both are accusing me of sockpuppetry (but mostly Danteferno). I sincerely hope not, since I think that is a violation of Wikipedia. The 1981 and 1982 debate have nothing to do with Strauss and Howe. I am not sure what you have against the pioneers of generational theory, but I assure you these authors have respect across the field. I have mentioned (see previous talk pages) several sources around the world citing 1981 as the end date for Generation X and 1982 as the start date for Generation Y/Millennials. I hope you are not accusing me (since you didn't use my username), but you have accused me of this before. I welcomed administrators to trace my account. I looked at recent history, and noticed some user had changed the intro to 1981. THIS WAS NOT ME. In fact, if you look, earlier I had reverted back to "usually no later than 1981 or 1982."
 * We have been over this several times. The majority of sources usualy cite 1981 as the end date (not just Strauss & Howe). I provided sources from the U.S., Canada, Great Britain (London, Scotland), Ireland, and even Australia. However, since there were also many (though not as many sources) that sometimes used 1982 as the end date, we agreed to keep the wording to include both 1981 and 1982. I do not know who changed the intro again, but I noticed that someone had changed it to leave out 1982. That was NOT me. To say "early 1980's" is too vague. There are far to few sources citing 1983 or 1984 (which are the last two years to make up "early 1980s before 1985, which is considered mid-'80s, and 1986+ is late '80s." Most people I have talked to, and most authors on Generation X (and Millennials - using 1982), and journalists use 1981 as the end of Generation X and 1982 as the start of Generation Y/Millennials. I provided an extensive and comprehensive list of sources from various countries and mediums (see my history and the Generation X and Generation Y talk pages). I prefer using a less vague date range, but including the various sources. As a couple of administrators pointed out several months ago: I made it clear on the Generation X and Y pages that there were several different date ranges, obviously including different start dates.

 * I am not sure why the 1981 end date is only attributed to Strauss and Howe - but that is a blatantly false statement. Several recent authors/researchers have cited 1981 as the last birth year for Generation X and 1982 as the birth year for the Millennials. This also includes an official Millennial Market and Research study held in Canada with speakers from the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada using 1981 as the end date for Generation X and 1982 for the start of the Millennials. The administrators didn't have a problem with "usually no later than 1981 or 1982," so I don't know why we are using a vague date range again. It also doesn't really deter anyone from changing it to 1976, 1979 or 1980 all over again. It's becoming tedious. The sources are all there. I don't find any books or credible sources citing 1983 or 1984 as part of Generation X. Every news report on Forbes or CNN, or newspaper article that I've come across has cited Generation X ending usually in 1981, with some sources as using any year from 1974 to 1982 as a possible end date. 1981 is a pretty widely accepted end date - but since there are obviously sources citing 1982 also as an end date (being on the cusp) - and this was discussed at length - my wording (quoted in bold) seems the most logical. It is not negating an end date earlier than 1981 or 1982 (earlier dates which are cited by sources on both the Generation X and Generation Y pages). I am going to revert back to this wording, and I think we should keep that until we get a mediator or more than one administrator takes a look at the previous talk pages with credible sources - or at least a discussion gets going. Because again, there are no credible research articles or books, or even newspaper articles published by WELL KNOWN newspapers that cite 1983 or 1984 as part of Generation X. I also mentioned earlier that a researcher (Worley) and his partner (can't remember his name right now) had spoken at Harvard in 2010? and also used 1981 as the end date of Generation X and 1982 as the start of the Millennial group. One of those researchers worked with Vice President Al Gore and is frequently quoted by journalists. Not just Neil Howe, but other authors as well. So, I using a vague date range because a few people don't like Strauss and Howe is ridiculous in my opinion - seeing as how other researchers and news outlets use the same date ranges - and since Strauss and Howe are so prominent. I think the vague statement only applies if at least more than 5 credible and well known sources can be cited using 1983 or 1984 as the end of Generation X (and this does not include an arbitrary website for realtors with the date range in the title. It should be a reputable source written by a researcher/author or journalist that cites a social or demographic research article, etc. Do administrators think this is reasonable? I mean, if several reputable sources use 1981 as an end date for Generation X, and there are enough reputable sources that cite 1982 as an end date, then the phrase "usually no later than 1981 or 1982" is not in violation of Wikipedia's rules or neutrality (when fact - several reputable sources back up statements). There comes a point when vague date ranges shouldn't be used anymore. We are already past the Millennial Generation and into a new one, and all the previous generation article pages have specific date ranges with a disclaimer about the ranges being approximate or a generation ending "around" a certain date. Why can't we do the same for Generation X? The phrase isn't invalidating earlier end dates, but most sources back me up: 1982 being less common than 1981 as a Generation X end date, and more often than not included as part of the Millennials, for an end date, but 1983 and 1984 are really part of Generation Y/Millennials. The dates with the most sources should be used. I also invite administrators to take a look at the talk page history and look at my list of sources. I also have new ones from the past year or so..
 * I'd like to add, that if most administrators think my argument doesn't really matter, and that we should put it to a vote, then I propose we do so over a at least a few months so we don't just have a handful of people weighing on the matter. If the vague wording stays, I reserve the right to bring this discussion up again if other editors keep making changes to the date range - and as more definite date ranges are set by what is used by future authors and media outlets. I think there comes a time when we have a more specific date range.

 * Please also see my discussion below on generation article pages'contents regarding pop culture. Educatedlady and I discussed this topic earlier, and I'd like to see what other editors/administrators have to say on the subject. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

 * I forgot to mention that I have noticed in the past year several anonymous users going through the generation pages and changing dates, from 1981 or 1982 to 1979 or 1980 (not just the intro), and also changing dates to cited quotes. I am also shocked at how much "blanking" was done to not just the generation pages, but several Wikipedia articles. I mean, do these people think no one would notice half an article missing? Really? I think other contributors might remember when this page was protected, but I think Wikipedia tends to temporarily protect pages because administrators don't want to discourage users from editing pages. I know there is a user on here who blatantly admitted to using an anonymous IP. He or she was blocked more than once for edit warring, blanking, etc. What can we do about these users? They may create another account (sockpuppet), but how can administrators trace this user's IP, if it's spoofed? I think that's why admins have a hard time blocking IP addresses. Any thoughts? CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting and yet suspcious that there are various accounts or IP addresses (Gen X Kid for Life?? come on) that come here to promote the 1981 end date and to specifically attack me. So I have no choice but to be leery or suspicious when someone comes here with the exact same argument. You've been on Wikipedia for quite some time so you should know by now that Sockpuppets are violations of the Wikipedia policy. What is not being acknowledged is that there are a number of authors, sources that use 1981 with Generation Y along with 1982, again proving that there is not set in stone timeframe. I am asking for an increased neutrality within the article that doesn't promote any author, or source or year. That is why I am have been advocating for the last two years (next month to be exact) to use a less defined date range. Again Barack Obama was born in 1961 but has anyone been able to tie him to Generation X or the Baby Boom Generation? The sources I have found have either placed him in one or the other or "Generation Jones" or nothing at all. Edu Lady - Researcher 01:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Generation X/Archive 2