Talk:Generation X/Archive 4

Copyvio

I've removed the "Comments by Generation X Writers" section, as it simply mirrored text from an article in The Independent, and thus a copyright infringement. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MTV Gerantion?

I do not think that people born during the time MTV first aired would be in the MTV generation. Actually if I recall that was a slang used to describe teens that were watching MTV when it first came on. Also, becasue of that, Pepsi tried to coin the Pepsi Generation thing. No The MTV Generation was created by the media and should be removed.

YES"....Your right, MTV Generation is in fact to describe the core of the Gen X, in that if you were in the school system k-12 and College aged then you are the MTV generation. In Summer 1981 MTV started those children are theat generation I'm 38 and I was in seventh grade. So I know this term and it is quite acurate as any one who in in their mid to late thirties can tell you we say it's birth just like we saw the birth of the home computer. So I think it means to speak to those most core X-ers who were the actual teens of the 80's. I think some have just included (right or wrong) those younger Xers who may have always had' Mtv on the tube. Not sure but you are correct in your notation, still in this designation one can in fact can include the younger sibs...of x-ers. I define it in general terms that it can be a designation for all' those school aged children & youth ages 5-18 who only grew up with it's inception in the eighties. Which in reality is itself a pretty selective group now ages 30-45. As far as the flop of the Pepsi generation;...they tried to make very generation the the Pepsi generation..it was a marketing ploy they used from the 50's on to the 90's it just did not work with us because we were the target of the the cola wars...remember Old Coke was the New Coke...arrgg (ha). This commentary is pretty right on, even though it is my opinion. From Martin WA State.

What happened to 1974?

I couldn't help but notice that in the generation succession at the end of the article, 1974 is omitted! I probably wouldn't have noticed, except that's the year I was born (lol). I have always considered myself a Gen X-er even though the beginings/ends of generations are definitely blurry (when does the "Baby Boomer" generation really end and when does "Generation Y" really begin?). From what I have learned, '74 is far to young to be a Baby Boomer, yet far too old to be Gen Y. Who really knows what the generation "boundaries" are anyway? There probably isn't a strict boundary really. They seem to phase from one to the next over the course of several (three? five? seven?) years. And then there's all the "sub-generations" (MTV Generation, etc) filling in the "gaps" maybe? I've always been taught that I'm either middle or late Gen X. Anyway, just wanted to bring up the 1974 omission. No big deal really, just something interesting to think about... J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicali00 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Due you are and Xer' anyon in their 30's is a gimme'..anyway 74 is always included most often especially when most historians go to 1981'. There is no doubt you are all X.' 76 is when the birth rates began to rise again so even at a conservative assesment you wouls be X. Sometimes years are not listed but it does not mean it was not pivitol, I have nieces and nephews born then or near and they remember much of what I do growing up they were just the younger tikes. So you are in the heart of X, just think of it this way you are only a year older than another X-er Drew Barrymore born Feb 22, 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Generation X is the shadow of the Baby Boom

First came the "Boomers," those who benefitted from the post-war (World War II) economic boom. Author Douglas Coupland describes, as best as I can recall, Genertion X as those who came after the Boomers — those born in the shadow of the baby boom generation. I think the usual mistake made in defining generations is that a line is drawn at the beginning and end of a birth bell curve. From an economic impact perspective, the real impact occurs when a generation enters the workforce at age 18.

In other words, if we accept that Boomers enjoyed the fruits of the post-World War II economic boom (cheap higher education, affordable housing, and abundant quality jobs) then we're really talking about those born between 1945 and 1954, with those on the leading eddge of the curve (1945-1950) enjoying the greatest advantage. I would propose that Generation X (those born in the shadown of the Boomers who struggled with skyrocketing education costs, unaffordable housing and "McJobs") really belong to the 1955-1964 cycle. It's interesting that Coupland characterizes Gen-X as those born after 1963 when he, himself, was born in 1961. So he is really right in the center of my proposed definition of Gen-X.

When the media talks about Boomers, they are usually characterized as those who were teenagers in the 1960s; with the free love movement, Vietnam War, a particular style of "rock" music probably best associated with the Beatles, and a major social rebellion in the acceptance of casual drug use. Having been born in late 1956 (almost 1957) I have nothing in common with the Boomer generation. I had to register for the draft, but we had pretty much pulled out of Vietnam by 1974 when I turned 18. Most of my "teen" years were in the early 1970s, so the Beatles are about as foreign to my "teenage soundtrack" experience as, say, Bing Crosby. The cost of a college education was just starting to escalate out of proportoin to its ROI when I graduated in 1979. By then, I could not afford to buy a house on one income, as the Boomer's generation had done. And I had to settle for inferior jobs because the Boomers got to the good jobs first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulboswell (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello'...for the person who graduated in 74, you are a Boomer (NO Doubt) you are sooo 70's in fact you were in a disco no doubt. X-ers knew the death of disco and remember the records being broken and later the inception of walkmans and video arcades. These markers are not really in dispute, I have Boomer bros and sisters you are in the Rowe/Wade, Vietnam and Hippie demise era. Generation Jones are those whom were the teens in the very late 70's (78-80) some may or may not identify with boomers it can depend, these were the Grease and Close Encounters....kids'-simple. It is unfortuante that those graduating 78-80 are in between but that always happens in every generational shift. Generation Jones really only encompases a few years and most often is Gen X encompases them as the older or elder of Gen X, Barak Obama would be in that camp. Just think of it as 61-81 is X, that is the best understanding: After JKennedy and to the sunrise of Regan era; Gen X were in fact the Regan generation our parents were those from the Greatest generation (the last of the large families) and those young parents of the 60/early 70's who where Boomers. Author martin cline. wa

Actually, Coupland originally considered "Xers" to be those born in the late 50's and 1960's. The 1956 to 1965 cohort is sometimes referred to as "Generation Jones". I agree, a bell-shaped curve has nothing to do with peer personality. Furthermore, I asked the Census Bureau in an email 3 times to define exactly what constitutes the Boom, with no reply. As Strauss and Howe pointed out, birth rates began to rise in in the early forties. You have valid points, but for all the problems you had, it was much worse for those after you. College costs only started to rise in 1979, and you still had much better job opportunities and much less unemployment than those born in the early 60's. Ledboots 20:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

GENERATION X was and is the "Antidote" to the Boomers. We exist to remind them that their time is over and ideals failed or at least was not based in truisms or morality but humanism. We were those children that resulted or were the little brothers and sisters of those who were Boomers. We inherited the sexual revolution with "Safe Sex" montra's, Condoms and Anti-Drug campaigns. Instead of Tie die we had the "Izod" and breakdancing. It is best to think of anyone born after the Kennedy asassination and to the Regan revolution as Generation "X". In reality we are the most education generation and saw the major world change and the rise of the internet. Be glad' if you know Footloose, ET, Raiders, Breakfast Club, Star Wars, Jaws and the first walkman you are an "X"er. Our desire for relationships, authenticity and upward mobility is a unique mix. Author Martin Cline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Gen-Y is the REAL Internet generation...Gen-X was more like the video-game arcade generation. As for "Star Wars", more than one gen can claim title to knowing that because George Lucas felt like making prequels and re-runs. I'll concur on the Walkman, Footloose, and ET, though. As I was born in 1979 I kinda consider my generation to be the "Back to the Future" generation - the ones who grew up with that time-travel flick. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is true but you must see that Drew Barrymore and Barak Obama are all X-ers, so it is just a reality of scope and demographic context. It is a bit big; your movie reference may be eluding to generation Jones' which in fact are the oldest of our group they actually were teens in the very late seventies and early eighties. So Tom Cruise and as you mentioned Micheal J Fox would be in that lot. But the core are in their mid to late 30's now, so when I speak of movies and historical markers those of us who actually in Junior High or Highschool when Ferris Bueller, Breakfast Club or Top gun were out are just claiming that we were the Regan kids-genration. M-TV began in the summer of 81 and home computers began being intergrated into homes and schools for the first time in the years to follow it took some time though. Companies like Google and Facebook were created by this generation. Yes as kids some played pong, Donkey Kong, Pac Man, Mario and later Doom. So some will vary on an end or age point but mainly the age range stands at about 26.5-47 at it's widest if you are in your 30's and 40's your the heart of X not getting around it. Anyone under age 26 is in no way a X-er but Y they had way more advancments but we were the fist kids to get the slower versions, ha. But this led to the dot-com boom/bust and boom. So You are right when you say that you are much like Y but some would say that you are just in the tale end of the X. Gen Y are 25.5 years (born after 1981) old to 13. We had Madonna, Y had Brittney. Still the Millenials (Class of 2000) are 12 and under and have Myli or whatever..? You get it. Author martin cline :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is all too specific and too ideological a definition of Gen X to be useful. While some people in our generation view the Baby Boom achievements of Civil Rights, the Free Speech Movement and the Sexual Revolution as successful, others do not. If you want to paint a sharp division, it would probably be most useful to note the point at which American men no longer feared conscription. This produced a profound change in the outlook of US youth toward their country. It was the fear of conscription that made Vietnam such a passionate cause amongst members of the elder generation, and made them so anti-establishment. Our generation was a bit more measured and realistic in its political outlook. Nonetheless, Gen X inherited and expanded on many of the Boomer's achievements. Amongst Gen Xers it is almost universally accepted that racial segregation and discrimination is unacceptable, whereas the Baby Boomers were split on the issue. We are the oldest generation to accept open gays as members of society, although our generation is somewhat split on the issue. We are the first generation to return to urban life, after the Baby Boomers abandoned the cities for fear of race riots. 76.108.177.119 (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)N. Landau

The coming problems in the USA, especially, are a direct result of the Gen X being so small...the Boomers will reap what they did NOT sow...that is, they didn't want to have kids when they SHOULD HAVE, they thought of me, me, me (despite being SOOO in love with socialism as a concept), and that they would be young and live forever, both impossible...NOW, Social Security is going to go belly up, OR the Gen Xers and GenYers are going to get taxed into oblivion to pay for it...the culture that the Boomers know and love WILL perish along with them...People need to know, it's OK to have more than 1 or 2 kids, its OK to have those kids when you are young enough to have the energy to properly raise them and discipline them, and its OK to know that some day you will be gone (as will we all), so what and who are you leaving behind to take care of things and carry on?...Sad, sad Boomers, I will not mourn you the way I am mourning the loss of the Greatest Generation, they gave YOU the WORLD and look what you have done with it!...thanks for nothing but the MUSIC! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.24.73.60 (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

America, America, America, me, me, me

This article drones on about America and puts everything in a US perspective. Generation X is a global theory. I'm gen X and do not have any post 9/11 fears or over protective parenting habits - get over it and stop being so US centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.146.140 (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is very true and is especially true of this attempting to make "grunge" music a defining feature of Generation X. That may have perhaps been the case in America but it was nowhere near as important in Britain (the rest of Europe?)with the acid house/rave/dance scene(call it what you will)being far more influential and of greater cultural importance amongst those of this generation in Britain. In the light of how this defined such a high proportion of British youth I'd set the parameters for Generation X as to include those born between 1963 and 1973 or those who aged 15-25 when it all kicked off in 1988.

This is the Wikipedia. Pretty much every article could be summed up by your phrase "America, America, America, me, me, me". 80.254.147.52 16:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

well, blokes and chaps, this kinda started in America to begin with, so of course it's america america me me me....204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this is en.wikipedia, if you are an Xer from an English-speaking country other than America, feel free to add your own section! Ledboots 13:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I would love to hear your thoughts. For example, I have added a few "Famous Gen Xers", but they are all Americans. Who else could we contribute, particularly from other countries? Thanks in advance.--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU' both are VERY right, it actually is a context of demograhic realities that was reported on in several other countries before the US picked up on it. Canada, Europe and some of Asia I believe....but people are forgetting that there is always some lag years between generations. So some need to realize generation Jones...(look it up)! Are just those whom are often forgotten they usually are split up into either Boomers or X-ers becuase they were the kids of the very late seventies into about 81'. Nevertheless it is easiest to make the distinction after Kennedy to Regan or to the fall of the Cold war? This is not rocket science and anyway the Millenials 12-under are already being marketed to so this is not a very eath changing discussion it is just about historical markers and demographics. I could tell the shift when freinds went of the air (thank God) even though the actors are all my age Jennifer Anniston looks great for 38..almost 39. We have grown up now and have been for about ten years people need to move one. And oh yes please let churches home and youth groups know that Gen x-ers are all well over 25 years of age now. In fact Gen Y is already entered college..hello'. martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, this article should still be tagged "globalize" or "globalize/US". I would do it if it wasn't protected. arny (talk) 03:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Generationxpic.jpg

Image:Generationxpic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Silent Generation

Pulling from an article I read by Robbin Kirkland and Olivia Sheehan from the Centers for Osteopathic Research & Education, I would like to see more discussion on the Silent Generation. This birth cohort was born between 1925-1942. They generally had large families and considered it natural. They married early and lived during the great depression. About 95% of them are now retired. Kirkchenry (talk) 03:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

I do realize that this is an article about Generation X. However, I have not been able to find a higher level article about Birth Cohorts or Generations. If anybody can provide me guidance on that issue it would be appreciated. Also, there is the GI or WWI generation and the Millennial Generation. Although I haven't searched for all of these, I have not really found the right information. Kirkchenry (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Honeslty I'm intrigued by your question and I will try to help. The first way to guage or put skin on this generation is to add 18 year to the dates you ascribed. This will help identify the years of formation and the years of highshool and generational independence. As a demographic I would also look at the Presidents, Social Programs and Celebraties of this time. This at first glance seems to be a great opportunity to learn more about this special segment. Honeslty I think this is a very important generation as they actually would be the Korean war generation which really is just the end of the Greatest generation, they would have been their little brothers and sisters. There was some jelousy between those in the 50's and those in the 40's from some movies if you really look as they try to define themselves, the Movie rebel without a cause highlights this. But what may make you more excited is that this is the American Grafitti polulation, Buddy Holly, Doris Day...Lucy'. My Guess is that Elvis was born in this timefame. This is not a forgotten genration just a bit eclipsed. But they were the parents of at least half of the Boomers. My guess is that this generation saw a rise in womens issues, racial and gender issues. Also this is the BEAT generation...easily studied and musically very important mabye the most important to date. You may want to read the book Generation's it was published about 1991. It was really the original book that helped to begin this discussion all over about labeling generations. martin cline response author-good luck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

what am i

im born in 1977 growing up i always thought of myself as generation x wore alot of flannel shirts from round about 92-97 lol, according to this article i am but if you look at the gen y it says people born as early as 1975 are gen y,i dont know what i am anymore,i dont know all the in and outs about generation things but all i know is i was a kid in the 80's a teenager in the early and mid 90's, so what am i i always though anyone born 1965 -1981 was Gen. X than i guess anyone born from 1982 to 1998 Gen. Y or sometimes it seems like gen y is trying to make itself to big by tryin to include people born in the 70's and gen xers trying to make their generation to exclusive by trying to eliminate those born in 80,or 81,--Mikmik2953 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I was born in 1979. My brother came about at the tail end of 1983. Let's take a look at our childhoods: Inspector Gadget, Nintendo, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, He-Man and She-Ra, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, PCs improving from the likes of the Apple II (and, in the high school I visited as a kid, TRS-80s where one could learn programming in BASIC) to IBM PS/2s to Gateways and Dells, the emergence of the Internet (first, America Online; later, Netscape Navigator by my early adulthood), a swimming pool in the backyard, various leftover toys and books from the 1970s mixed in with ones from the 80s and 90s, and library books (I was a little late to the Internet, believe it or not - but then again, I was also late to take the wheel of the car). My brother was, at least for a few years, more computer savvy than I was. But I like Internet culture and anime and I wonder whether I'm really an X-er or Y-er at heart. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To the previous bloggers'....77 and 79' you are both x's sorry. Although I and others may be able to make a case for the 79 being a Y'. First to speak to the 1977 person. The 77' blogger is an easy one because you are already 30's sorry no resercher will claim someone already 30 is a Y'. You may be just feeling your age but you actually are the best age now dont feel bad about that, it is a better demographic. If you have some concept of saturday morning TV and Night rider....you are an X-er even though you were in elementary when I was in Highschool. MY nephew was born in 76 and he loves to talk about the old school days of the 90's. I have nieces born in 78 and they would consider themselves x-ers maybe younger but can remember care bears, cabbage patch and the like plus they can sing some of the 80' tunes. They graduated the year of clueless and even Alicia silverstone is 30 so you are in my research a X-er. Although you are RIGHT- you do have more in common with Y so you could be the first Y's and to some researchers you may be. But in my study and memory, 81 is the best cut off. But you are right in that you can claim or go either way (X/Y) in this discussion. I would say X to be safe because you are still in the seventies and so politically you were born under a set of circumstances that maybe you were not aware of but still defines you and your parents. You really are just the babies of the X. So you get to choose but I still say X manly becuase you knew a less technical time then your sibling that means you have shown your age.' Just think 62-82 and that is the most liberal set of years in this silly discussuion, actually a generation is only really about 14 years or so. Many books would say 64-78....are the only true X-ers, even 66-75. In that way Y may on some level apply to that first person. You can easily monitor your context of generation by matching yourself with a current same aged celeb or look at the president during your teen years this is the easiest way to tell. Others will be able to tell you as well even when you cannot not decide. But I say include those till 1981 because the political change that happened after that, in the 80's is not often desputed. good luck...martin

Thanks for the interesting analysis Martin, but I must respectfully disagree. The first two commenters are onto something. I was born in 1978, so I can identify with both of them. We belong to both X and Y and neither at the same time. Generations do not have a hard cutoff, so anyone born roughly from 77-84 was stuck in a transitional gap between X and Y. This is supported by birth data since it was at an unusual low during this period. I've found that I have a lot in common with people in this time period, but anyone outside of this gap is a typical X or Y. My best friend is only 5 years older than I am, and he's definitely a typical X, although a young one. My brother was born in 1982, and he has the same issues. My youngest brother of course was born in 1990, and he's definitely a Y. My parents were boomers that actually had kids while they were young, which was atypical of that generation, but I'm also an unusual case. We're 80s kids, 90s teens, and 9/11 era 20 somethings. Old enough to remember things before high technology took over (80s), but young enough to be early adopters (90s). There was some interesting information here on Wikipedia about us being a "lost" group. They called us the "XY Cusp" or "XY Gappers". Of course, this was deleted because it was "original research." Well, the problem is that there IS no research on us because we're a lost group. No one really cares about us since we're such a small group. They just don't see us as being worth the time or energy to market any crap to us, so we just remain forgotten.Yorath (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Famous People"

Why is "Dakota Fanning" who was born in _1994_ included in this section of this article (which is clearly about the generation born 1960s to early 80's)? This must have been a joke? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.127.64 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This section gave me a good laugh. What is the point of this section? There are thousands of famous Gen-Xers. Why not list them all? Name your favorite famous person born between 1965 and 1981? Very encyclopedic. Lets just list the entire 2007 New York Yankees Team. And the 2001 Dallas Cowboys. Ok, Ok, lets add the 2005 Vancouver Canucks. NationalPark (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You have a point. What guidelines do you suggest for evaluating truly noteworthy Gen Xers? --Cbradshaw (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I took some time to organize the "nominations" for famous people. I doubt that we need more in the Arts area (they're mostly Americans anyway, who could we put in from other countries?) How about suggestions for sports, politics, and Technology?--Cbradshaw (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You are soooo right. But 'MOST all of the Famous People Today are Gen X-ers'.....Julia, Diddy, Jay Z, Will, Pitt, Jolie and Anniston...too easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This section is getting a little out of control. No offence to Brandon Routh, but he's done one high profile thing! As for "Members of the band...", frankly, I couldn't name one member of those groups. However, there may be a need for a section on influential (or representative) musical groups; particularly Grunge era musicians. But compare: I think most people are familiar with the "Icons" of Cobain and Love...who else other than a dedicated fan can even name all the members of the Pixies (for example)?

Again, I ask for some suggestions on guidelines on who's famous. Right now we need more balance from science/tech, sports, politics, etc, *not* from entertainment or music.--Cbradshaw (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I second the comment about the Pixies not being well-known enough to deserve inclusion, and add that none of the bands the article claims are associated with Grunge actually are. Korn and Green Day aren't even really part of the "alternative" scene from the 90's... I'd even venture to say that they contributed to the end of that era in music. Anyway, the only musicians famous enough to warrant inclusion are Kurt Cobain and *maybe* Eddie Vedder. Ebolamunkee (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This beautifully illustrates something that Wikipedians will have to hash out for the foreseeable future. Nirvana is undoubtedly one of the best-selling bands of the 1990's, but that essentially nullifies their standing as "Alternative". And while you may not think the Pixies are "well-known enough", it would be incredible to deny how influential they were to other bands of the era. By virtue, it wouldn't be difficult to argue that they're a more legitimate representation of late 80's / early 90's alternative than Nirvana or Pearl Jam, despite never having sold nearly as many albums. -- Kevin (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

succession box

The years used in the succession boxes before I just changed them were certainly not years that are commonly used. First of all, Strauss and Howe are just two of many generations experts; many experts disagree with their generational birth years, and further, the years used in those succession boxes didn't even accurately reflect Strauss and Howe's proposed birth years. Secondly, I can't imagine where those birth years could have come from (I've never seen anyone start GenX as early as the 1950's, I've never seen anyone use 1955-1962 for GenJones, etc.) Coupland never said that GenX started in 1958, he said, in fact, that GenX was a mindset, not a chronological span of years. Generation Jones is not a cusp generation; it is actaully the largest generation in U.S. history. Of the many hundreds of articles, and discussions in books, about Generation Jones, I've never seen it called a cusp generation--instead it is commonly now automaticaly included as a bona fide generation. C'mon...for Wikipedia to work, we all need to focus on accuracy, and the birth years in the succession box now reflect the emerging concensus most commonly used for these three generations. 21st century Susan (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect on a number of accounts: First of all, Although Coupland later said Generation X was a mindset, He did say in early 1992, as noted in this article, that they were 20-33 years old. Also, the inside flap of the book states the it is for the “generation born in the late 1950s and 1960s”. His original viewpoint has been distorted by media and marketers soon after it was published. Second, you are basing your whole premise on Generation X with your supposition that there exists a Generation Jones, while, like Strauss and Howe, many so called generation experts disagree with pollster Jonathan Pontell. Third, you are emphasizing a focus on accuracy. I’m not sure that there ever will be a unified consensus, or any “official” definition of any of these cohorts. And besides, can you back up your point that these succession boxes now reflect a common consensus? Who performed such a study? And also, you are decrying accuracy, yet you didn't include the correct years for Generation Jones: 1954-1965 (which I did). Succession boxes are a bad idea and should be removed, as they will constantly be edited. This article is meant to show the many points of view people have, and can’t possibly be summed up in one box. That’s why previous box at least attempted to reflect varying points of view. Ledboots (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Coupland is actually or could be designated as generation Jones...which most often is included in X (look it up), this would mean those born from 58-63. In all honesty most historials and real people you ask that age would use a post Kennedy assasination administration as the best marker for the generational change. Anyway, if one just takes those babies born in the sixties (not in the 50's) it makes the discussion much simpler. Coupland is just the eldest of Gen X and so his assertions of historical influences for that segment still hold true. He was not born in the 50's so he is speaking to a context of life in the US and the political realities for babies and youth culture of a certain time in history. Which I might add lasted to the early 70's as historians mark a baby rise from 76 on before that births were in decline for a period. Now there are other markers to be used but demographics and birth rates still stand. So all generations have 'markers' but Coupland I think some might assert would be in that transition or change span, but it nonetheless was a change so he is an X and it does speak to years and context of perspective one does not deny the other. So you both are right and anyway he was not the firt to write or label this generation. So he does put boundries on X; so those teens between 1978-81 may on some level have to choose if they more identified as Boomers or X-ers. Ask any of them and most often say they do not identify as Boomers even though there is some over lap of shared media, consumer goods and memories but as one of the writer shared they really saw their own explosion.' In many ways they are the pinnicale of Ad and media interest both as children and now. This was the easy bake oven generation. I know because my I have boomers and Xer's in my family unit (8 kids). We cleary know when to draw the genrational lines it is not hard. Coupland is a year older than my nearest brother and he is the very same age as Tom Cruise who is not a Boomer but one of the lead X-ers' in our memory bank. But there always is a few years at each generational shift that may be in some way debated. Still most would say anyone born in the 50's is not an X-er it really does not seem to work longterm, just like Gen X's whom are at their eldest age 27 or 28 now, they may need to decide if they are X or Y. Martin C. WA.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.99.40 (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

About generations X and Y: the Fatalist generation

I came up with my own term "the Fatalist generation": Imagine you are born-raised from 1976 to 1985...you're probably not much of an "innocent" child: You feared global warming, environmental damage, racial strife and "diversity", widening class division and middle class decline, political apathy and distrust of our leaders, Baby boomers' self-absorbed individualism, the rise of reactionary conservatism put a roadblock on many liberal trends, meagcorporate culture like shipping our factory jobs overseas or bring in illegal immigrant laborers in certain jobs still in our country, fanatical materialism when the economy boomed in the late 1990s to collapse in the 2000s (look at the house foreclosure pandemic), the changing economy required more academic requirement and intellectual skill, and now the War on terror threatens our national security in a nearly-failed mission against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "real world" was a common phrase used among many Generation X and some Gen Yers in the 1990's to describe the economic difficulty to obtain and declare independence like young 20-something adults during the recession of 1990-93 that produced the "slackers" who can't get out of their parents homes until we're over 30. We are the "Fatalists" might had "lower standard" public education, ill taught about the "Puritan" work ethic our parents tickered with, matured slower than our elders had, didn't know the value of WWII/ Cold war sacrifice, doesn't hold patriotic feelings in the era of international globalization, and our impaired social etiquette by our free time spent on the internet. We know how tough the "real world" has become as a result of neglect and mishandling of our elders' rule (in this case, Baby boomers) of the order of things, and they will pass all that on (i.e. to fund social security, taxes to pay for our federal budget deficit and preserving American military might) to us when we're older when we can't pay our bills at home, our college loans, our lower incomes and depressed wages.

'Generation X' has aged abit more as the majority of them are ages 30 to 40 and I noticed they are more aware of the realities of adulthood, probably their parents overshielded them or didn't teach or warn them about the world has changed, since they were teens themselves...and we analyzed the Baby boomers are hypocrites in young people rebelling, having fun and playing around with life. Our disenchantment with both democracy and capitalism despite it defeated fascism and communism, and made European colonialism and post-WWII socialism into the trash bin for good. The "fatalist" generation doesn't see any gradual improvement in our political structure: the two-party system is simply a political game of a single government ran by the "military-industrial-technocrat- megacorporate" complex that controls the U.S. and world economies.

Yes, we are more tolerant of change when we feel it's desperately needed, proud of racial and cultural diversity and care deeply on the environment when man has altered the natural process of things (i.e. global warming). More Gen. X and Yers aren't too "liberal" when we emphasized families more (so many of us grew up in divorce or single parent families, or our mothers are working so much) but aren't "conservative" as we both scoff at the Bushes, Clintons, the Nixon/Ford and JFK/LBJ legacies for nearly ruining our quality of life as the "lone superpower" about to collapse in any moment. This is the 21st century, China is stronger, the Middle East may get us back, the European Union is a better example of democratic living, and Mexico is said to influence America more than Canada does. We know the Pax Americana is over, we're in a global technological age and the nation-state as the "Fatalists" believe has served its fate.

In the year 2008, we might have a president who's a Generation Xer who's open-minded, calmer, worldly, concerned on domestic issues and wants to be the first non-White male president. We rather have Obama instead of a Baby boomer psuedo-feminist wife of a former president who cheated on her while on presidental duty anyway, or a 70-year old hawk who's like "George Bush III". He may be "fatalist" but the point of fatalism is to fight it, give the world a second chance and improve ourselves economically, socially or politically. We are more progressive while we want America to be strong again, more traditional on family values while we tolerate gay couples and we want unity while we have different cultures and minority groups. But we got to save the middle class, cut down on military spending, focus more on health care, education and children's well-being, amd stop this "radical religious right"/"politically correct left" stuff that caused more fear, division and impaired civil liberties. This produced "fatalism" to hurt our economy and living standards.

Sorry for such a long diatribe, but Generation X-Yers are not naive or immature, and able to live on our own but it took us longer and we hafta work harder than our parents (it seems like it with longer work days or hours, plus commuting time to and from our homes) when economic conditions are instable or economic booms end up as busts so quickly. We want to get off foreign oil costing us $4 a gallon and go for natural gas alternatives to prevent us more wars for oil and cool down the warming planet. We want to control immigration in a proper legal manner when we need more people to our countries who want to work and contribute to this country. And most of all, we want Generation X-Yers to prosper, retire on time, and save up for the future or give it to our young the same way the Baby boomers and their parents had before. Maybe it's up to us to stop being so "fatalist" and start working to help fix and save the future. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Generationzxthgde.jpg

Image:Generationzxthgde.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the name

It states on the page for Generation Y that "Generation X" was originally a pejorative, yet I see the more unlikely story on this page that it was "uncreative researchers" that came up with the name. This seems unlikely as I doubt that in the days when the name was coined, researchers would just "make up" a name and it would stick - I can't see why Generation X came about, but I'm fairly sure it had more to do with the pejorative and less to do with a group of researchers. Zchris87v 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was neither. Douglas Coupland popularized the term in 1991 with the novel, meant to describe what twentysomethings were not - yuppie boomers. Only later did marketers convolute the term and others use it as a pejorative. Ledboots (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your edits removed numerous fact tags without sourcing statements, malformed the reference template and inserted a bizarre POV about negative stereotypes of Generation X. I've reverted the changes. You may add statements back provided they are sourced under WP:CITE. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cumulus Clouds: my edits were an attempt to remove the cleanup requests that have been there since September '07, that I feel were only slightly revised in the direction of being less POV. If you actually compared my template to the previous, you would know this. Furthermore, if I did mistakenly insert a POV while trying to make positive changes, using negative statements like "bizarre" is uncalled for when one is making an earnest attempt to edit with quality! And, the last section is absolutely an attempt to use "credible" resources to further define this subject, and all of those tags are a little excessive (and likely, unnecessary) to say the least. Ledboots (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing fact tags simply because you don't like them isn't really helpful, they're there to alert others which statements need sources. If a lot of statements need sources, expect a lot of fact tags. Acknowledging a POV and then inserting it also isn't acceptable since this directly contradicts WP:NPOV. If you remove the fact tags in the future, please be sure to do so with adequate sourcing to replace them. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Like or dislike is irrelevant. Like I previously mentioned, my intention was to help the article out by editing preexisting script (with much neglected sources needed), not changing content, but attempting to make it more neutral. Btw, the mediation requested above is to address this and the reference flags. Ledboots (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed significant amounts of original research from this article. Those edits were reverted by an anonymous IP without explanation. I have reverted those changes and if that happens again I will seek short term semi protection. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have returned this article to the version prior to your edits. I have already request a mediation between us, which you ignored, so as far as I'm concerned, your edits are invalid. As you put it, you can't go changing content around just because you "don't like it"! Ledboots (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Removing fact tags and reinserting original research because you have a vendetta isn't a valid reason and is, in fact, a violation of policy. If you want to seek mediation go ahead, but if you continue to revert this material because you want revenge, I'll see administrator intervention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't mind if I disregard your interpretation of my actions. Incidentaly, vandalism is also against policy. Please don't ignore my request for mediation this time; it's what civil and intelligent people do to resolve disputes. Besides, I actually didn't delete the fact tags, just restored the article prior to your editing. And whether or not what you removed is original research remains to be seen, doesn't it? Ledboots (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Undo issues

I would like to submit that anyone who wants to make a contribution to this article postpone until pending mediation is resolved. Administration does not feel an article lockdown is warranted at this time and your edit is likely to be undone my myself or the other party until it is resolved. Sorry for any inconvenience. Ledboots (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you do it again I'm reporting you to AIV. You have no right to continually revert other people's contributions because you're hung up on this stupid edit war. I'm not about to do anything like that and it's ridiculous that you would try to hide behind this minor conflict to justify your attempts to keep this page locked on your version. Give it up. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation

Could we discuss the TIME magazine reference? In particular, does it matter the article doesn't use the phrase 'Generation X'? PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That particular article slightly predates the term "Generation X" as it is known today, which was put on the map by the book written by Douglas Coupland and published the following year (1991). However, it is credited as being one of the first nationally published articles of the recognizable peer-group personality displaying certain characterizations, some of which may be considered deragatory ("slacker"-like references, etc). It is also a possible source of intergenerational conflict between Baby Boomers and Xers, if you will. The article also illuminated the term "twentysomething", referred to as a backformation of "thirtysomething" popularaized by the tv show. After "Generaton X" (in which Coupland often used the term "twentysomething"), the terms were used almost interchangably, which is part of the reason why their is a lot of varying opinion about this so-called peer group. What some failed to realize is that each year that goes by, people get one year older, thus, a twenty-nine year old will then be thirty. Marketers and publications (by those failing to make a distinction) well into the 1990's still used the two terms simultaneously, leading to a dilution of the original usage. David Foot, Canadian demographer, economist and best-selling author on the subject (and published by Statistics Canada), made this point quite clear. Ledboots (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Awesome, but unless you have a published source to back up any of that research, it can't go into the article. Also, it doesn't make much sense as written so you may want to find other sources which make that point more clearly. Furthermore, you can't rely on two different sources to intersect on an idea to try to prove your point. This is called synthesis because the ideas are not published in the papers themselves but are extrapolated by the editors based on the evidence in the sources. This article is not a research paper, it's an encyclopedia entry. 24.17.211.181 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Second footnote of the article, Generation X#History of the Term. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• What's your point? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

David Foot and Statistics Canada used birth rates; please tell me how vital statistics are considered extrapolations? If what you say is true, than the only definition of Generation X presented in this article should be the one by Douglas Coupland, credited for - giving the generation their name. Or why not just "Generation X is defined as a lot of things by a lot of people." As it stands, anyone looking at this article is going to see in the opening paragraph "Generation X - born from 19xx - 19xx", and that will change via pov on a daily basis. Does that make for a better article or even a good one? Ledboots (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• If you have an actual source for that statement to which you can attribute the dates to, it can go in the article and those dates will be fixed accordingly. Otherwise it is your conjectural analysis, along with that of any other editors and thus becomes a gigantic waste of time. This is why things need to be sourced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We are actually not in such utter disagreement! You obviously are well aware of proper format; I too am in favor of quality, and avoiding synthesis, but not at the expense of completely sanitizing an article. I'm sure there are multitudes of items that should be removed and others cleaned up. Some, however, had direct quotes from the references and ISBNs listed. Regarding pop-culture items, any kind of statistical analysis is obviously difficult to demonstrate. By originally setting this up, my intention was to illustrate a collective conscience using well-known and acceptable sources, such as box-office hits like "Fight Club" for example. Regarding publications though, if it will help resolve this dispute, I can edit the list and leave behind only those items with some methodology behind what is claimed. Ledboots (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your methodology would still be your own primary research into the subject. References have to be made from somebody else's methodology in a published source that can be easily verified. The list that existed here previously were a loose connection of unrelated items that various editors deemed (on their own) to be "representative" of Generation X. There was no reference for any of those items and everything in that list was highly subjective. More importantly, the content didn't inform anybody on the topic of the article and instead existed as a dumping ground for trivial items that were only tangentially related to the subject. This is why the information was removed. If a portion of the material can't be easily included with sourced statements, leave it out. If there are quotes in the references that illustrate an idea in the article, include them in the body and not in a seperate list. All other material should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Are we talking about the same article? First of all, there are plenty of items with sourced statements. In fact, an administrator asked me to include the ISBNs some time ago, nothing more, which I then completed. Agreed, items that were "dumped" there that were clearly pov should be removed. Secondly, this very topic is subjective to begin with, that's why the idea of presenting an "expert" point of view, like a PhD or government agency, is a more valid source than say, a local newspaper article reference, or the next-door neighbor. The top of the section clearly states, "The section below is an attempt to compare differing concepts of Generation X birth years". That is the intent, to present credible (most people would include government agencies or dictionaries as such) research as to what defined the cohort's years of birth. Thirdly, I frankly don't see how the items are unrelated when we are talking about categories such as media, print, best-selling authors, etc. Where else would one encounter this topic to be presented in a wikipedia article? You are stating that you don't have a problem with some of the references, just how they appear, in a "list' format because it lends itself to bad editing practices, but that leads me to two questions: 1) is that any more so than usual? 2) is a "list" format in some kind of policy violation? Ledboots (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• To answer your last question, 1) that's irrelevant and 2) yes, see WP:TRIVIA. The major, glaring problem with the section is the sentence you cited, "the section below is an attempt to compare..." because this is your attempt to compare those concepts by your own standards. This is unacceptable for this article and any others in this encyclopedia. What you've said meets the very definition of synthesis because you're trying to extract unpublished analysis from published sources. If there are any real meaningful references in that section that can be extracted from it, statements can be written in the body of other sections in the article and those references can be cited. Otherwise they are useless in the article, regardless of where they came from or what government agency published them. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I wasn't looking for you per say to answer these questions, just posing them. Regarding your claim it is trivia, the reference you provided WP:TRIVIA states: "This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." That is what my assertion is my disagreeable friend, and you obviously do not concur, which is why this is being mediated. I already stated that as far as defining this cohort's birth years, the present format is impossible. Therefore, the need of the list format is totally feasible in this instance. Your sweeping claim of "synthesis" is incorrect as an abstract notion of a cohort is not be presented as "Generation X", simply restated in an article of the same theme. Perhaps the introduction to the section should be changed, to a less suggestive one, but that should be the extent of any modification. Ledboots (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• In-line citations for statements are always preferred over a list of sources. Anyone would agree that this information is presented far better as prose than in list form. If the birth years for Generation X cannot be cited to a source (or series of sources) that explicitly state what they are, they must be left out. Changing the lead in that section won't change any of these facts and it should be left out completely. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to say that I don't feel prose is a better format in this case, and maybe others don't as well! It should be easily edited so long as the information is viable. Remember, we are taking either demographic or peer-personality items and easily adding or possibly removing them. Whatever analysis the author referenced used is what is important, regardless of what object complement is used (i.e., Generation X, 13th Generation, Generation bowl of red cherries). The fundamental question is, who are they/when were they born? Demographers use birth rates, sociologists use peer-group behavior to define. Let's face it, the concept of a "generation" debatable to begin with. But at least with credible sources, such as Coupland, Tulgan or Webster's dictionary, some validity is gained. As far as the lead, stating birth years as being "contrasted" might be better than "compared". Sorting by demographic or peer-personality is probably pointless as that is often conveyed in the title. Anyone else out there that would like to interject anything into this particular discussion? Ledboots (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If the information can be added to the body of the article with inline citations, add it. Otherwise leave it out. Do not inject your own hypotheses or analysis into the article. I don't care about the semantics of what this peer group is called and that is not what we are debating here. Everything in this article must be sourced. Nonconformed (inline) sources in the article without accompanying statements must be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Besides the obvious concerns about quoting a bunch of disjointed sources outside of a reference list, that section is written very poorly and is extremely hard to understand. The list beneath it of Generation X celebrities, which Ledboots created, is garbage. The hidden message directly beneath the section header illustrates the original research that Ledboots was trying to insert into this article and very explicitly states that he has no sources to back up any of those claims. The sections on "Generation X in literature" amount to pure trivia and none of these claims are sourced. The very earliest portions of that section which detail what study said what about Generation X are useless if they're kept in a seperate section outside of the reference list. This whole debate is a waste of time and I hope it can be brought to a very swift close. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You use the term "debate" loosely. I would say it approaches an argument, which I'm unwilling to undertake. I've said my piece. Incidentally, I did not start the celebrity list, it has made it's appearance on and off for a long time. Wrong again, Cumulus Clouds! Your last statement is definitely something we can agree upon. Ledboots (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

'Gen X' millenials?

How could ANYONE link an early-1980s birth to Gen X? Being born in that range, I have always been lead to believe by impressions given by the media that individuals of a decidedly older, more experienced age were being referenced. Whenever there were TV specials and references made to Gen X "phenomenas", such as an "unemployment crisis", or the "Seattle movement", seeing as this was all coming out at a time before I even hit puberty(or just starting to), how was I supposed to relate to it? Younger children my age were NEVER alluded to in these things. The stuff about being the "first generation of divorce"...I don't know, but I think by the time we got to my childhood, divorce was hardly new anymore.

I am aware that there was a book released in the early-1990s devoted to the subject, one which put forth a birth span of 1961-1981(incidentally STILL an earlier cut off than the one given on the Wiki entry), but I never assumed that was to be taken too seriously since it's release, given that for starters, people born between 1961-'64 are clearly BABY BOOMERS. The Baby Boomer birth span of 1946-64 is one I have NEVER seen disputed. Not to mention, the Gen X birth span is supposed to be more narrow, isn't it? Being as it is IIRC, also reflective of a brief, birth decrease trend that initiated in the mid to late 1960s?

I'm sorry, but the idea of someone being a Gen-Xer who wasn't old enough to have entered high school at the start of 1990s, or worse yet was still IN high school at the start of the 2000s, is one that doesn't register at all. It seems quite a misleading message to send.(Theburning25 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm afraid that is a matter of debate. The reason why so many think the boom is from 1946-1964 is because media put it out there for so many years. Even birth rates, the bread and butter for the Census Bureau, can be a slippery thing. The Baby Boom certainly did start in 1946 for all states, but pre-war baseline ending birth rates occurred throughout the 1960s for the individual states, 1964 being the average. Much analysis has been done to show those born at the tail end of the boom display very different traits than their older peers, and have more in common with those born later (although some like Yankelovich demonstrate "cusp" traits for that birth cohort). The reason why Strauss and Howe picked 1981 as the ending year was because of their 22-years in a generation theory. One thing they did point out; lots of people born in the early 60s (myself included, born in 1964) don't acknowledge being lumped in with Baby Boomers and identify with the "hippie-cum-yuppie" progression as Strauss and Howe put it. Ledboots (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

--- As someone just starting high school in the mid-90's (born 1980) I certainly agree that it seems out of touch with reality to call someone born in the 80's a Gen Xer... I have never considered myself GenX, nor have I met anyone my age who does. I did not feel particularly connected to the traditional GenX touchstone issues/moments such as the Regan Administration or even the death of Kurt Cobain. There must be more research out there that can help settle this, one way, or the other. Adam Clotfelter (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

--i wonder which section you arerefering to.. As someone born in 1975 when i was at highschool- when they stated talking about gen x i was always dissapointed i had just missed out on the cut off. It does seem to have expanded- and these things are fluid. THe event you cite as important were really important to me; kurt and the divorce thing actually, i remember it clearly beign a big deal when someone came along with a hyphenated name (like weird). The real actuall boom in babies only occured for about 7 years post war. i know she IS but my mum born 1953 does not identify her self as boomer citing "i was too young.. to be involoved with all that (relevent) stuff" younger than 16yrs. And some stats would put her into Gen Jones chohort. So lets not forget Gen jones in this debate- trailing edge "generations" are very usefull in clearing up this sort of debate. Again the ppl arguing above (1981s) are clearly IN the Mtv geneneration. (enough of my rant) Cilstr (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

protected?

It is protected and no date is given for when it will be unprotected. What is this all about? I can see that there was some kind of debate (although I can't seem to understand what the debate was about) two weeks ago, so why is the article protected now? Is it because of the debate two weeks ago? JayKeaton (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is protected because of a lengthy edit war relating to content that is deemed to be either original research or inadequately sourced. While I agree there has been no talk page activity in the last 8 days, the dispute has spanned several months, and is still unresolved. At the moment, I think unprotecting could result in a continuation of the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, so this is a very on going problem. Though if it is that big, isn't it time we get someone much higher up to come in and make a decision, rather than let this article suffer for several months? JayKeaton (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Somebody slashed over half the article on March 31. There has been some kind of debate as to the origin of the name "Generation X" and which author should be given credit, but the mass deletions by "Cumulus Clouds" goes beyond that. The stuff I added about Gen X being marked by the love of extreme sports was cut... how well researched does this have to be? Is there any debate that Gen X popularized snowboarding? For that matter, is there any debate that Yahoo, Google, and eBay were founded by prominent members of Gen X (this was also slashed)? Maybe I was wrong to add that stuff... I did not realize that Wikipedia has become a place where even universally understood information needs to be cut-and-pasted from media sources. If it has, then we can expect the type of result seen on the Gen X page often: the only thing left is a tediously academic discussion not of Gen X itself, but of media opinions of Gen X. It is "established fact" that Gen X is apathetic, or that members of Gen X founded Yahoo, Google, and eBay? Is the whole page really to be devoted to old media opinions, and none of it devoted to the quirks and achievements that have defined the generation in retrospect?

Incidentally, I haven't deleted anybody else's edits, so I am not a combatant in the "edit war" (just a random casualty).Nlandau (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Every statement must have a source. If you are unable or unwilling to find a source, it cannot be included because it is original research. Your opinions about the apathy of this generation or what generation the founders of the companies belong to cannot be discussed in this article without a source. I don't really care if you don't like the policy, it's there for a reason and it must be adhered to.

Aside from those concerns, information about extreme sports isn't relevant or germaine to this discussion and even if it were sourced I would disagree with its inclusion. Your broad categorization of an entire group of people as apathetic is also inappropriate and shouldn't be included because it would not demonstrate a neutral point of view. I don't particularly care who invented the term, but if the information about it isn't sourced, it can't be included. Again, your (and Ledboots') unwillingness to locate sources for these statements leads me to believe you are pushing your own POV or you have a poor understanding of policy. The latter can be remedied by reading these: WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but the former will result in an RfC and further dispute resolution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that there has been a lot of frivolous challenges in violation of when-to-cite policy. Items that are not clearly original research or ludicrous to the discussion are fair game. Statements like "Gen-X are often perceived to wear Doc Martens and attend Raves" may have their place in the article; yet their are those who insist on some type of referencing. How absurd! Ledboots (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is to say a source is accurate and if someone was not to come up with something in the first place you would have no source, you my friend are running in circular logic. Somewhere some how something has to be made up trusting "sources" (meaning you found someone else with the same opinion) still does not make something correct or incorrect. As George Carlin said "It's all Bull#$*& and it's bad for you" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.127.159 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:RS describes what can be used as a reliable source. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "unwilling" to locate sources. A number of the most distinguished members of Gen X were listed with links to their bios. The dotcom companies founded by GenXers included links to these companies' histories. You have said that the list is "garbage" in a thread above. Why is it "garbage" to list the one Nobel laureate born since 1961? Why is it "garbage" to list some of the greatest entrepreneurs in history that are members of Gen X (such as Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, and Divid Filo)? These are not trivial persons in history, and they exemplify a generation. This is really more important than the recitals of the criticisms leveled at Gen X by journalists and authors during the very early 1990s.

Moreover, what remains on the page is utterly trivial. All that is left is the opinions of poorly informed journalists and authors written over fifteen years ago, before most of the important events and achievements of the generation occurred. Why is it acceptable to allege that some author of little repute in 1991 accused GenX of "rampant political apathy," as opposed to discussing the anti-globalization protests and Free Tibet movement that flowered among GenXers during the rest of that decade? Mind you, references to the actual political movements were accompanied by links to the full Wiki articles, which in turn contained numerous outside references.

I have to agree with everybody else on this talk page that the "edit war" is merely one person's attempt to dominate a page with his opinions. 76.108.177.119 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Maintaining a list of people born between an ever fluctuating set of years did nothing to improve the article. It didn't explain the term or add anything relevant to the discussion on the topic other than "this person may or may not have been born within the set of years identified for Generation X." This is a waste of time. This was evidenced by the massive number of edits to that list while it was included in the article, while the other sections were entirely neglected. Removing the list encourages people to add relevant, encyclopedic information to this article that isn't pure trivia.

• You keep insisting that you should be allowed to include information because it's absolutely and totally necessary to the article, but you refuse to find sources for it. If you cannot find a source, it cannot be included. References from other articles may be used -if they support the statement appropriately- but wiki-links themselves are unacceptable as sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe those involved should agree to step back for a while and let uninvolved editors take a go at it. Powers ^T 12:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Provided that the article isn't continually reverted to this diff, you can knock yourselves out. My only concern is that this article comply with policies on NPOV and original research, so please look out for that as well (or I will probably keep complaining about it). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had done a lot of work on this article (pre Cumulus Clouds ) and as such i was most upset to see the article ripped to shreads with out a please or thank you. I lIKED the list important people. I think its an important reference (yes it made the article overly long but that could have been resolved). As For other thinngs Cumulus Clouds says i also disagree with - numerous times in the (mass) media gen x has been refered to as apathetic- your own personal disregard for this -blanket- statment must only stem from the fact you are a hard working dilegnet gen x'er- thats Fine! Everyone must know that individuals dont really fit the sterotype- but thats beside the point. Get over it.! I'm not going into the research/pov/citing debate now, its too much effort! (hmm is that the gen x in me comming out- oops) at a latter date i may- it takes time- and i dont know how to fully access the edits i want to research- which thousanth edit woiuld i look at?? I'm sure i have hard copy newspaper articles that would clear most of this up. It jsut seems that Cumulus Clouds is being overly nit picky and semantical (if thats a word). And hey, i also loved the generations table along the side too,! pah! Cilstr (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediator, please make a call

All I see is the slashed page when this dispute began, with Cumulus Clouds giving blessings to go ahead and edit as usual. Give me a break! What has changed? You sit there and decry how pov this article is and all of original research, and it's ok for you to slash items, of mine at least, that I know were properly sourced. What about wiki policy concerning that? Isn't that vandalism? Mediator: I'm asking that you please make a call here for the sake those who properly contributed here. Bring back the unslashed page and go from there. Not everything was unsourced and trivia. And lets face it: if we resubmit our items as this page stands, the edit war will only continue with it's prompt removal by Cumulus Clouds saying it's "trivia", then I'll "keep complaining about it"!! Ledboots (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's up with Cumulus? S/He continues to remove well-cited info and refuses to acknowledge the citations. Anybody out there that can explain the background here? I'm not going to continue to spend time sourcing this info if it continues to be removed. The goal was to be helpful but when my time is wasted by Her/His quick reverts I'm ready to move on. Thoughts? 24.98.135.148 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Your sources were inadequate since they did not support the statements they were citing or they were referenced by unreliable sources. You also removed a reference template and then attempted to hard-cite those same poor references. You will need to read WP:CITE to understand how to use in-line citations, then you'll have to read WP:RS to understand why blogs and are considered unreliable sources and lastly, you will have to stop cutting and pasting material from other websites since this constitutes a copyright violation. I'm also going to warn you on editing under an anonymous IP address, since I suspect you have an account that you're choosing not to use to try to support yourself here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you look at this reference for example, it doesn't fully support the sentence "As the first of their cohort reached adulthood, they experienced the collapse of the Soviet Union and the United States of America's emergence as the world's lone superpower". While it confirms the US is the world's only superpower, it doesn't provide any linkage to the concept of 'Generation X'. More citations similar to this are required - citations that are specifically about Generation X. This approach is explained in the No Original Research policy. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, this version of the article is supposed to maintain some kind of integrity. What a laugh! First of all, the first reference (Time Magazine, 1987) does not in any occasion mention Generation X. Why? Because the term was pretty much only used in the generational context in British Columbia (via Vancouver Magazine). Why is it included then? And if anything, why not put 1965 to 1980 (the supposed "Baby Busters") like the article mentions, unless, the editor wants to use their own pov, which is totally the case and evidently acceptable by all in lieu of the default article. Secondly, the "Twentysomething" citation needed flag; Wikipedia is a tertiary reference [1]. The date of the "Thirtysomething" TV show absolutely predated the article. Do I have to spell this all out? I guess ignorance prevailed in this case. Thirdly, it is a matter of historical common knowledge that Twentysomething became interchangeable with Generation X, reproduced a million times in media. Fourthly, Coupland mentions the "trailing edge boomer" cohort in the article by age "those 20-30" (roughly). The citation with the twentysomething born from 1987-1991 is evident in the #4 reference. Aside from the plethora of things that are still wrong with the article ... why is it still edit protected? This dispute was taken to arbitration and promptly dismissed as being a simple case of "obvious content dispute". Ledboots (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Because anytime it's unprotected you immediately set about returning it to the same diff and then trying to get it protected on that version. And by the way, ArbCom's rejection of your case should in no way serve as an endorsement or de facto decision in your favor. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe Correction

Regardless of whether Strauss & Howe properly delineated their "13th Generation" and its association with Generation X, it's definitely the case that they identified it as 1961-1981, NOT 1965-1982 as currently in the article. In particular, the book Generations, listed as a reference for this assertion, definitely has it as 1961-1981. Can this be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbowman (talk • contribs) 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to second Patrick's correction of the Generation X birth years according to Strauss and Howe. I am one of the believers of the Gen Hist theory and can assert unequivocably that it's 1961-1981. Here is a verifying link to their official website: [2]

PLEASE CORRECT THIS!!!!! Thank you, Aimeslee Winans 6/27/08 15:29 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well first, that's not a reliable source, second, Strauss and Howe are not necessarily the primary authorities on these birth years and this information will have to come from multiple sources to enforce NPOV. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In this section, which uses a term specific to Strauss & Howe, and which references one of their books, and claims a particular range of years based on what's in that book, the range of years shown should match what's in the referenced materials. I'm not suggesting that the overall article should use the range, just this section. Patrickbowman (talk) 07:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I extended this section to better explain why it's called the 13th generation - the number of generations since Ben Franklin is only half the story, and the other half helps to better describe one view of Generation X. I've attempted to keep it short, appropriate to its importance to the overall article. I don't want this to become an S&H-specific page again, but where Strauss & Howe are referenced it should be as accurate and complete as possible.Patrickbowman (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Citation "no longer" needed?

In view of the fact that "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators", this comment is on the talk page, instead of a ('be bold') edit to the article. The footnote [8] refers to an article, referenced by this ref tag: <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963617,00.html</ref> (at least, it was footnote [8] "as of" the date/time shown in the time stamp on this comment). One could add a name to that ref tag, and put another copy of it (does the copy having the URL have to come first?) up at the intro to the quote from Time Magazine, where it says << "The perception of Generation X during the late 1980s was summarized in a featured article in Time Magazine" >>. It seems wrong to me, that this intro is currently followed by a {{Fact|date=April 2008}} tag, which causes it to have a little superscript complaint reading "" right after the intro to the quote from Time Magazine, where it says << "The perception of Generation X during the late 1980s was summarized in a featured article in Time Magazine" >>. Why is a "[citation needed]"? Maybe someone forgot to remove the "[citation needed]" squawk (some time after adding it in April 2008?) once that footnote [8] had been added? (by someone else)? That is one theory. Actually, it probably could be checked, by looking at the history, _{but I am too lazy}. Thanks for any help. Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• To answer your first question, no, {{cite web}} template does not need to come in the first <ref name=XX> tag in an article. It can appear in any of them and the template will automatically fill in the appropriate ref. To answer your second question, the time magazine citation should be moved, in its entirety, to the place where the fact tag is now. That tag would be the normal place such a reference would go and not at the end of a quotation. The misplaced citation and subsequent fact tag were probably just overlooked by someone (probably me). In fact, that article is cited three different times and all those references could be combined using the ref name tag. This should probably be done once the article is unprotected. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

"This article or section has multiple issues."

LOL, is there any better summary? M0llusk (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Opening remark

If a comment is going to be made that Generation X is a generation that exists in many countries that spans from 1965 to about 1980, how about using a reference that states that? Ledboots (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the Time magazine referenced is interesting enough, but it's from April 2008, and doesn't mention definite birthdates,"baby bust" or that blockquoted section. Which just means, I think, that the wrong article is referenced.Patrickbowman (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Again - let's quote what the Time article says if it's going to be repeated here. The author of the article suggests the birth years are roughly born from 1965 - 1980, not exactly in 1965 to about 1980. Btw, that is the author's opinion of the Gen-X birth years; the YouTube vid (@6:54) shows Jeff Gardiner professing 1961 - 1977, or possibly 1961 - 1980. Ledboots (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• The dates are conformed to the references. New dates cannot be inserted without verifiable and reliable references. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, do me a favor; show me where in the Time article the dates are quoted as you say they are. Because frankly, I'm not seeing it. As it stands, the meaning conveyed in the Time article, as I just mentioned above, is not saying quite the same thing as the meaning in this article, is it? The quote I see in the article is "roughly defined as anyone born between 1965 and 1980" not "born between 1965 and roughly 1980". To me that conveys two different meanings. Are you saying otherwise? Ledboots (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, the reason it's phrased the way it is now is to prevent it from being identical to the Time article, which would appear to be plagarism. Feel free to delete the word "roughly" in that line and add "around" somewhere in that sentence, but it's important that it not look substantially similar to the text in the Time article. I do agree that it's not precisely supported by that source, however. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Then not to have any double standards as to what is proper or not, I insist! If you want anything more exacting, you'll have to use another source. Ledboots (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Begins in 1968?

From what I know, those born after 1964 are NEVER considered Boomers.

~~Oregond00d~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

In this study, the Census Bureau uses "After the Boom: The Politics of Generation X (1997)" as a guide. Maybe they want to err on the side of caution. Even though they are the governments official demographers, they are far from being the final word on the matter. They're inconsistent with defining anything but Boomers. Ledboots (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Our personal interpretations are irrelevant. We can only use information cited to reliable sources. Whether we believe those sources to be accurate is equally irrelevant until better sources, more reliable or academic sources are found. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge University definitions.

The OED defines Gen X as those "born in the 1960's and 1970's. The Cambridge definition simply stated "early 1960's". There is no mention of 1965.

This is consistent with the Harvard definition, which, more specifically, lists a start date of 1961.

All three of these establishments are of course renowned for their stupidity, so I suppose we ought treat them with some cynicism. Bloomberg is probably a better source. (....?).

No, I'm not attaching links. This is all on Google. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The Cambridge dictionary is not as authoritative as it sounds. OED is not on Google; you need a subscription. Anyway, dictionaries typically only give general definitions of generations. But Harvard starts Gen X in 1965. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Harvard Business Review defines Gen X as 1961/65 to 1979. You're right about Cambridge University (currently ranked in the top 5 universities in the world) probably not "being as authoritative as it sounds". Bloomberg is probably a better source. :) The OED does require a subscription (which I have), though they're kind enough to indulge the likes of you with a specific Google question, gratis. Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear. All recognise that the number likely starts from the early 1960's and none are prepared to be more specific. With good reason, I imagine. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Writers in the Harvard Business Review use many different years, and you're cherry-picking one ten year old article. The Cambridge Dictionary is not the same as the university. You state: "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear." The article is full of reputable sources using that year. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

So, I guess that given all the variables, what makes you think that 1965 is universally accepted. Or accepted at all? It's clearly an imprecise science with no real expertise possible. Best to reflect that in the lede? Rather than defending obvious shit and ignoring the subtleties? Hanoi Road (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You stated "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear." This is patently false. The article is full of reputable sources. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to get into a source war, I can do a lot better than Bloomberg. The US statistics Office cites 1960 as a start point. Most Top 100 Universities (or relevant faculties therein) concede 1960 as the most accurate starting point, based on hard sociological research (Empirical data is clearly impossible in this case). However, your rag-tag of 1965+ "sources" does not bear serious scrutiny. Hanoi Road (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

PS: As a Cambridge graduate (Clare College), let me assure you that the Cambridge corpus releases nothing under its name without full university approval. In other words, it is not a Forbes set-up, where anyone can chip in with impunity. Otherwise, it wouldn't be Cambridge. It would be Pig Knuckle College, Arkansas. Hanoi Road (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the "US statistics Office", but the U.S. Census Bureau does not define Generation X, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics does use 1965 as a start date. Again, you stated that "Nowhere in any reputable source does the 1965 figure appear", but you have not discussed any of the sources in the article besides Bloomberg, which you have cherry-picked because you found it to be the least authoritative. It is clear you are not acting in good faith. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

NYT and The Washington Post obviously employ writers. A couple of them (probably copying each other) casually and without research mentioned 1965 in some article. These are not "sources", dude, any more than Bloomberg is. Cherry picking? Almost ALL of your sources are illiterate, re-hashed garbage, and to push your ridiculous agenda, you relegate the only REAL source (Strauss & Howe) to some sort of supplementary counter-argument when it is in fact the only reasoned case. When cornered, you then resort to indentation? Wiki procedure? Where's your dignity? I can't find a single other contributor on this talk page who agrees with anything you have to say. What does that tell you? Hanoi Road (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

It tells me you don't know how to read the archives? Sorry, I can't help myself. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't you help yourself. Really. Tell me this: Could you help yourself from not seeing the following major article as you were trawling the internet in search of support? So if quality broadsheets have the final say, where should this one go? "Smashing the Gen X Stereotype 1961-1981" Los Angeles Times. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to argue pointlessly, could the lede not be reworded along these lines: "Researchers and popular media typically use birth years around 1965-80 to define Generation X-ers, though others position the starting point for the group as early as 1961"? An Investopedia article I've just read uses 1961. Atlantic magazine uses 1961. The LA Times has used 1961.A whole raft of other, reputable sources acknowledge the differing views on the start year. So should this article, and it ought be stated in the lede. We can leave Strauss & Howe where they are, if you like. I can do it and provide the sources, though I don't have time today. That surely makes the thing more balanced.

Hanoi Road (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you continue to argue in bad faith.  I doubt anyone is reading this, but I feel obliged to point out that your LA Times reference is twenty years old, and we have recent LA Times references in the article.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I read your LA Times article, referenced. ("THE TRUE GREAT GENERATION"). In your stampede to get support, did you bother reading the piece? It cites 1961 as the start date for Gen X (....?). So...you know.... that sort of defeats your own case, I would have thought. If we're applying the age of articles as a factor, you've quoted Toch from 1984, Foot from 1996, Gross from 1990, and U. Wisconsin from 2003. The oldest of your sources was written thirty-five years ago. Sorry, but Wiki is not your personal playpen. I'm taking this elsewhere. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have referred this mess to Admin. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Admin has responded accordingly. And they made the right call. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I did not use any administrative powers, Hanoi Road. I simply made an edit. I suggest that you abandon your belligerent style of interaction with your fellow editors and try a more collaborative style instead. If you continue on your current path, things will not end well for you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I tried a collaborative idea earlier (which you implemented yourself) but it was shot down, and pretty much arbitrarily. And I am not the only one to get this response. Sometimes, courtesy just doesn't work. Hanoi Road (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I was distracted by all of your false statements and unwillingness to work collaboratively, but now that a good faith editor is involved, I have been able to work with them to hopefully improve the lead.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, you were correct on the content issue but completely wrong in your style of interaction with other editors, Hanoi Road. This is a collaborative project, and I recommend that you conduct yourself accordingly. This situation called for a neutrally written Request for comment to pull in uninvolved editors, not endless verbal sniping at your opponents on the content issue. Courtesy and following established dispute resolution procedures always works best. Always. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No. Not always. Read the well-reasoned "Original Research" topic with another contributor. The responses are a facsimile of the ones I received. Anyone challenging Butternut would have received the same treatment. I agree with you in general on the courtesy issue. But when the responses consist of disrespectful, passive-aggressive evasion (and I can spot such tactics instantly), the courtesy has to stop. Thanks for your input. Really. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not about me; I have been defending the consensus which was made with many other editors, both through editing and through discussions which are now archived. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

This makes me laugh. For days, you've resisted basic common sense. Only when brought to task do you start running around like Biff polishing McFly's far in Back to the Future 11. "Thank you, Mister Editor! Pleasure working with professionals, Sir! Thank you, Sir"!

Get out of my sight. Hanoi Road (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like we are done here, but as you have made WP:PERSONALATTACKS and are casting WP:ASPERSIONS, I warn you that if you make another attack or dishonest statement I will take you to WP:ANI. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're done. The article is now correct. Hanoi Road (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead section compromise

Since there's so much fighting about the dates in the lead, here's what I think could be put there as a compromise:

"Researchers and popular media use the early-to-mid 1960s as starting birth years and the early 1980s as ending birth years, with 1965 to 1980 and 1961 to 1981 as widely accepted definitions."

Does this sound good?--98.235.178.140 (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Consensus has already been achieved, and besides, there is no source for your suggestion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem with Core Content Policies with this article

The lead paragraph cites no independent, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The lead paragraph states it is a "demographic cohort", with sociologic implications, and should be referenced accordingly. 73.10.6.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Bracketing Years

It seems obvious that Generation X has been totally influenced by the Baby Boomer concept, the only generation the government defined and we were all force fed their definition. The front end Boomers have no cultural similarities with the back end Boomers whatsoever. The bracketing years of Generation X are so diverse, to try to nail it in this article, or even say "around" this year or that year, is the height of stupidity. So often a publication about Generation X will refer to Douglas Coupland giving them their name, when his definition is drastically different that what is stated in the publication! So, at the end of the day, it's just a lot of research with opinions that are biased from the start and have been repeated so often that everyone believes the lie. 2601:8D:500:5950:1D08:5FA4:F6D5:3861 (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

We are encyclopedia editors not social scientists. We make our edits based on what the sources say, and unfortunately when sources don't seem to make any sense all we can do is try to find the most reliable sources possible.  That being said, social generations are a social construct; we shouldn't expect them to mean much.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I was born in 1964 and recall on my south NJ county college campus fellow classmates referring to ourselves as "twentysomethings" as a backformation of the "thirtysomething" catchphrase popularized by the tv show. That was in 1987. So, the lines were drawn then (with Time Magazine slacker articles and such) and to hear anything different now to me is false. So, what kind of non-original analysis verifies that the birth years are around 1965-1980? If you are lowering the expectation as you say, as an encyclopedia, you should use a loose definition, especially when there is all of this controversy involved. Why is this page locked from editing? I would bet a small number of Wikipedia pages are locked. This article has been back and forth for a very long time. You say it is only a social construct, which it is, but you give it a demographic flavor with the lead paragraph. 2601:8D:500:5950:1D08:5FA4:F6D5:3861 (talk)

Maybe it's locked from editing so people who don't know WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE won't edit.  The North and the South in the United States are social constructs too, and if you think Wikipedia is wrong for saying Chester, West Virginia is in the South, you'll just have to publish your own influential sources until the idea becomes mainstream.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, you're a Cusper.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Allow me to correct you on two accounts: 1) This page is locked because the lead paragraph constantly changes. 2) I'm an Xer. Right now, there is no (reliable) source and goes against Wikipedia's content policies. Are you a Wikipedia content monitor? Because, you are a little too opinionated, which is ok if not. 73.10.6.239 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

What are you saying there is no reliable source for?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1987 Vancouver Magazine Generation X article

This is Douglas Coupland's first published use of Generation X. The scanned magazine has been archived, but not the whole thing. As of this writing the citation links here. I think it would be better to link to the actual scanned images , but I'm not sure how best to do that. p. 164 p. 165 p. 167 p. 168 p. 169 The story is continued on p. 194, but this was apparently not scanned. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

More scans of the old articles: [4]  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I figured out one way to add them. [5]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

US-centric

Yet another US article seeing the USA as a template for the world. This whole idea doesn't work elsewhere. The dates would be different for people who grew up in Iron Curtain countries, because there would be a clear divide between those who grew up under Communism and those who didn't. No corresponding thing exists in the USA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.82 (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Most editors are from the US and have knowledge of US sources. If you know something we don't please make suggestions.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed this is quite ridiculous! House music, techno music, rave culture, etc... are not even mentioned although they were absolutely massive culturally and sociologically speaking in the 80's and 90's in Europe! How can this article be taken seriously if these are not even mentioned! 81.154.24.81 (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

https://www.papercitymag.com/culture/generation-x-earns-respect-conronavirus-pandemic-stay-home/ 172.74.99.12 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. What about it? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

he's trying to say that Gen X are better handling Coronavirus than other generations.213.230.78.90 (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unclear statement - what does the following mean?

The following wording (under "Adjusting to a new societal environment") is pretty unclear: "Furthermore, 3 decades of growth came to an end and the unwritten social contract between employers and employees, which had endured during the 1960s and 1970s and scheduled to last until retirement was no longer applicable with, by the late 1980s, large-scale layoffs of Boomers, corporate downsizing and accelerated offshoring of production."

What is it supposed to mean?

86.120.209.121 (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

request for reduction in protection level

Lead paragraph needs cleaning up. It is original research and sites no sources. Every other generational cohort follows that policy. Ledboots19 (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Ledboots19 The lede section doesn't require sources, it is a summary of the body of the article which is correctly sourced. Theroadislong (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

And, what is the quality of the correctly sourced entries? Are they sociologists or anthropologists? The listings of news media outlets covering certain stories; what makes that particular reporter an expert on the topic? And, how do you know they didn't do a quick internet search to complete their story, go to Wikipedia and use the lede paragraph? One could pick a multitude of "legitimate" agencies, media outlets, etc, and come out with a multitude of ranges. That's why a broad definition, such as born roughly in the 1960's and 1970's, is the best solution. Any narrow definition of birth years is only a perception. Ledboots19 (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

If you can find better sources please share them, but your unsourced suggestion doesn't show that you are ready to edit the article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Abortion Rates, semi protected edit request

" Between 1970 and 1980, on average, for every 10 American citizens born, 3 were aborted.[52]"

Article references is not a functioning link. Commenter believes this statistical reference is FALSE. With no actual reference believes this sentence should be deleted and removed.

I updated the functioning link. Between 1970 and 1980, on average, the proportion is 3.38 over the period. Roughly for every 10 american citizens born, 3 were aborted.

Number of US Live births 1970-1980: 36,921,243 Reference: Live Births, Births Rates, and Fertility Rates, by Race, United States (1909-2003), 2003. Number of US Reported Abortions 1970-1980: 10,900,577 Reference: Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Abortion Surveillance: United States, 2005.

Year Live Births Abortions Reported 1970 3,731,386 193,491 1971 3,555,970 485,816 1972 3,258,411 586,760 1973 3,136,965 744,610 1974 3,159,958 898,570 1975 3,144,198 1,034,170 1976 3,167,788 1,179,300 1977 3,326,632 1,316,700 1978 3,333,279 1,409,600 1979 3,494,398 1,497,670 1980 3,612,258 1,553,890

FrenchScholar (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Best voice tip: XENNIAL GENERATION

google trad- 08 yuli 2020 PCN Who are xennials? Between the X and Y generations of millennials, another was identified, that of the "young" born between 1977 and 1983. It is the Xennials, a small world (but not too much) that contains a hybrid generation, born and grew up in a world that is still analog, but which has adapted well to the use of digital technologies. The Xennials are the living symbol of ... (complete source). http://www.facemagazine.it/1977-1983-chi-sono-gli-xennial-la-generazione-migliore/?fbclid=IwAR0PMFjRsgJMMm36SbjZxsg-bREitxUPCEoDYOhoXP8M1aIWQYRjtLLOHtw in the italian version of the wikipedia the tree scheme is missing. I add the template ][\/][ 79.40.108.115 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC) {discussioni}

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

Please change X - Some of the cultural influences on Gen X youth were the musical genres of grunge and hip hop music, and independent films.

To read Y - Some of the cultural influences on Gen X youth were the musical genres of: New Wave Music, Hard rock and heavy/glam metal, Alternative rock, Post-punk, Gothic rock, Heavy metal, Synthpop and hip hop music, and independent films. Other cultural influences included: .25 cent Video Game Arcades, the Sony Walkman, portable "Boom-Boxes" and VCR's. Stereotypes included: Populars, Preppies, Valley Girl, Yuppies, Jocks, Headbangers, and Goths. Skeauxsha (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC) (I grew up during this time period. This is my first time suggesting an edit. I hope I did the correctly. Thank You)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Skeauxsha. Seagull123 Φ 15:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Generation X ends in 1981 by the most generous definitions. NOT anywhere near 1984!

The millennial Wikipedia page confirms this. It needs to be corrected but the page is locked for some reason. It needs to be corrected. There are countless articles that make the dates of each generation clear! Please correct this. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/generation-x-genx.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatplop (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Generation X ends in 1979. Millennials begin in 1980.213.230.78.90 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I just want to add that it is absolutely moronic that the universally accepted definition of generation X for my entire lifetime has suddenly changed to meld the historical Generation X with Millennials, all because some idiot on Wikipedia, who probably has an underlying agenda, has been able to pick a fight that only a handful of people can participate in 24.168.17.179 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but the defining factor is the range of years someone would turn 18 in that generation not 20 or 21. With Generation X being first born in 1973 and ending in 1982. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CB00:284:8600:C8C2:7BC6:AC6F:4FE8 (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2020

Please change X - Some of the cultural influences on Gen X youth were the musical genres of grunge and hip hop music, and independent films.

To read Y - Some of the cultural influences on Gen X youth were the musical genres of: New Wave Music, Hard rock and heavy/glam metal, Alternative rock, Post-punk, Gothic rock, Heavy metal, Synthpop and hip hop music, and independent films. Other cultural influences included: .25 cent Video Game Arcades, the Sony Walkman, portable "Boom-Boxes" and VCR's. Stereotypes included: Populars, Preppies, Valley Girl, Yuppies, Jocks, Headbangers, and Goths. References: https://www.presstelegram.com/2015/12/28/grunge-rap-music-movements-of-the-early-1990s-became-gen-xs-soundtrack/ https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/mar/05/top-five-generation-x-anthems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Together against gender bias (talk • contribs) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Literary generation

This review makes the case that the term is centrally a reference to a literary generation, akin to the Lost and Beat Generations: OI: https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.113455 Kdammers (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Generation X

When I first heard of "Generation X", many years ago, it was stated that the X is the Roman numeral for the number ten, as it signifies the tenth generation of Americans born since the Revolutionary War, or the birth of the republic. That would be roughly correct, using 20 years for each generation. But somehow that got lost through the years, as people used the X as a letter rather than a number, and started referring to gen Y, and gen Z, which really does not make any sense at all. Can we please get some clarification about this? John Paul Zenger (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The clarification is in the article (see info about Coupland's book "Generation X", and Strauss & Howe's book "13th Gen"). If you can cite a source of additional information, that might be useful. -- HLachman (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The term was first coined in Britain in the mid-sixties and it was definitely intended to be the letter and not the Roman numeral. Plus, the article doesn't just apply to Americans - there are other countries, you know.

It appears that the above is an unsigned comment from "82.3.237.113" -- it would be helpful if you signed your comments (per WP:TALK, "Sign your posts"). Regarding your comment, please note that the mid-sixties book by Deverson/Hamblett is already mentioned in the article (not sure if you were intending to suggest that it should be). If you have an idea for improving the article, feel free to propose it here (per WP:TALK, "Make proposals"). -- HLachman (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Atari and Nintendo Waves

I added in a subsection under Date and age range definitions noting the subdivision of Generation X into Atari and Nintendo waves (basically those Xers born 1965 to 1970 and those born 1970 to 1980), but Some1 reverted as WP:UNDUE due to one source (Howe). Howe and Strauss did make the delineation, but I don't think the removal is valid. It's a distinction that's in the literature, admittedly usually connected to Howe and Strauss, but that doesn't make it WP:UNDUE. The first ref below is the one used; the rest were others found in a quick search.

• Howe, Neil (August 27, 2014). "Generation X: Once Xtreme, Now Exhausted (Part 5 of 7)". Forbes. Retrieved March 11, 2021.
• Israel, Betsy (February 14, 1993). "Lost in the Name Game". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
• Mlodzik, Kevin J.; De Meuse, Kenneth P. A Scholarly Investigation of Generational Workforce Differences: Debunking the Myths (PDF) (Report). Korn/Ferry International. Retrieved March 11, 2021.
• Zielinski, Graeme (June 29, 1997). "Generation Y". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 11, 2021.
• Wallis, John Paul; Mechling, Jay (2019). PTSD and Folk Therapy: Everyday Practices of American Masculinity in the Combat Zone. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-79360-390-6. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
• O'Regan, Tom; Balnaves, Mark; Sternberg, Jason (2002). Mobilising the Audience. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0-7022-3205-3.

Any comments or objections to adding back in language about the Atari wave and Nintendo wave delineation, either as a separate subsection or in some other manner? Carter (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, Tcr25. I have added the paragraph back under the Generational cuspers section with more sources and proper attribution to Strauss and Howe. Some1 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Some1, my only quibble is that it either belongs under its own subhead or under Date and age range definitions since it is about the Generation X core, not Generational cuspers. Or the cuspers subhead should be edited to something like "Subdivisions and generational cusps." Carter (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this information belongs at all as it doesn't seem noteworthy. The Howe piece is a primary source. I'm not seeing anything in the Mlodzik source about this. I'm not sure how relevant the Wallis source is. I only found 481 results Googling "generation x" and "atari wave".[6] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The Mlodzik source doesn't use the Atari/Nintendo terms, but reinforces the concept of a distinction between younger and older Xers. Wallis similarly follows in noting the idea of a distinction and extends the use of video games in naming generational subdivisions to Xennials. Carter (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Kolya Butternut, given where FrenchScholar added the mention of the early/late waves in direct connection to Howe & Strauss, there's nothing UNDUE in using their labels (Atari & Nintendo). I would recast the sentence as: "On the basis of the time it takes for a generation to mature, U.S. authors William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981 in their 1991 book titled Generations. The authors differentiate the cohort into two waves: the Atari or Reagan wave born in the 1960s and the Nintendo or Clinton wave born in the 1970s." Carter (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, the names of those waves only have 481 Google hits. Not everything from Strauss & Howe is noteworthy. I suggest researching other sources which divide the generation, for comparison. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd remind you that Google has its limits. I'm seeing 603 hits for "Atari wave" and "Gen Xer"; 505 for "Atari wave" and "Gen X-er"; 673 for "Atari wave" and "Generation X"; but only 160 for "Atari wave" and "Howe". A lot of those hits aren't WP:RS, but they are indicators of the common use of the terms, for example in Twitter bios and blogs. I think UNDUE is being misapplied here. Carter (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

"A lot of those hits aren't WP:RS, but they are indicators of the common use of the terms, for example in Twitter bios and blogs." Per WP:DUE: in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Strauss and Howe came up with the subdivisions and that's mentioned in the article, but giving more details such as the names and descriptions ("Reagan/Clinton era", etc.) is giving it undue weight. Relevant section of WP:DUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. Some1 (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, what you're pointing to with WP:DUE is in regards to NPOV. That's not the case here and it doesn't apply. It's neither describing disputes nor engaging in them. It's about level of WP:DETAIL; as it currently stands, the article is mentioning that Strauss & Howe discuss two waves of Generation X, adding the name just gives the reader details about the labels used. It's verifiable and not WP:OR and certainly not violating NPOV. I'd agree that "Atari wave" and "Nintendo wave" would fail WP:GNG for standalone articles, but I added a mention here because it seemed a clear omission in the article. Carter (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

My preference would be to remove the mention of the two waves entirely. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is very USA-centric

The article is very focused on Generation X in the USA, appropriating the concept that was born as references from UK and Canada. The subtitle "Generation X Internationally" listing countries other than the USA is also inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddbon (talk • contribs) 05:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Cannot agree more. Correct title to article with this content would be 'Generation X in USA' or smth like that. Actually, reading that, one could assume that generation x is in reality only USA thing. This is true about this and many many more articles. And is contrary to Wikipedia neutrality policy, I think. When article's topic is anything what is relevant worldwide, there is no place to mention US of A in first section of an article. BirgittaMTh (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Then please amend the narrative. I have done as much as I can. FrenchScholar (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Remove line stating millennials are the children of gen x. The youngest millennial is born 1980. The oldest gen x in 1965. That would make the first millennials the children of 15 year olds, at best. I hope math is good enough Other data: gen x ave age to have children was closer to 30. Older boomers the same. See Wikipedia article noting boomers as parents of late gen x AND millennials. Boomers were a big group! 174.88.94.84 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: There are two sentences in the article that almost fit the description given above, except both also mention that Gen Xers are also parents of Gen Zers, so I'm not sure that a change is necessary. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-NPOV edits regarding birth years

It appears that on and after 5 March 2019, there were a lot of edits that seem to have had the intention, and the effect, of de-emphasizing definitions of Generation X that have a starting birth year other than 1965. The edits in question include:

• (2:42, 5 March 2019) Removal of information about a National Geographic documentary that used a 1961-1981 definition (same as Strauss & Howe). Edit history gives no clear explanation.
• (2:53, 5 March 2019) Removal of statement "the end-date of the baby-boomer generation is disputed" without clear explanation (edit history claims that the date is not in dispute, but the article text immediately following the removed text goes into how there is disagreement on this).
• Various relevant sections regarding the work of Strauss & Howe, as well as Douglas Coupland, were removed (e.g., "Demographer William Strauss observed that Coupland applied the term to older members of the cohort born between 1961 and 1964", and, "Demographers William Strauss and Neil Howe rejected the frequently used 1964 end-date of the baby-boomer cohort"... which also speaks to my previous bullet point). These are important early authors on the subject. The intact sections were still in the article as of February 2019.
• Comparing the current article to its state in February 2019, we see that instead of a single "Birth dates" section focusing on that issue, there's now a "Date and age range definitions" section with multiple subsections. It appears that definitions of the age range starting at 1965 were consolidated in the 1st subsection (perhaps in order to give them prominence), while most other definitions are now relegated to the next subsection titled "Other age range markers" (giving the impression that non-1965 start dates are now somehow "other" that what the reader might want to read about first). Some of the definitions in the first subsection, titled "Declining Western fertility rates", don't show any relationship to fertility rates, they only share the same or similar date definition. In addition, the University of Michigan definition (1961-1981, same as Strauss & Howe), which used to be in the "Birth dates" section, was moved to an entirely different section ("Demographics")... which further "helps" to de-emphasize the Strauss & Howe concept from the date range discussion.

Due to edits such as the above, it appears that the article is now far less NPOV around the issue of the Generation X date range than it was in February 2019. My proposal is to restore what was lost (in terms of both content and formatting/emphasis), without losing anything useful added since then. -- HLachman (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

---

I have noticed this drift as well. Recently, an "I am Generation X" meme has been circulating on Facebook that had the dates starting at 1965, I thought "that's not right" and came to Wikipedia and it certainly wasn't the page I remember. I think it ironic that you have a picture of Douglas Coupland in the entry, author of Generation X and lauded as the spokesperson of his generation...who was born in 1961. I endorse this proposal. Actsasgeek (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I assume I made most of the edits which are being challenged here. Please start by providing diffs of the edits you disagree with. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, for a start, my bullet points (above) provide some pretty specific examples of edits that illustrate the drift in question. -- HLachman (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If you're proposing changes please provide the diffs of those examples. We can look at one at a time if you like. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You don't know how to get a diff for any of the examples I cited? Not even for the ones with the date and time of the edit indicated (such as in my first two bullets, above)? I'm a little unclear why you can't figure out what any of the edits in question were, when they're indicated explicitly. To be clear, are you asking for help on how to find the indicated edit in the edit history and display the diff? -- HLachman (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Then please amend the narrative. FrenchScholar (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

---

In relation to de-emphasizing definitions of Generation X that have a starting birth year other than 1965, I think this recent statement by Douglas Coupland from May 14, 2021 should be included. "But people my age are used to leftovers. It’s the curse of being Gen X." <www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-astrazeneca-fiasco-is-the-latest-example-of-the-gen-x-curse/> I think that this might be important to include in defining the starting birth year of Generation X as 1961 given that he was the creator of the term, and see himself, born in 1961, as being Gen X. Pauly7771 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Coining a term does not mean one is automatically an authority on the subject. Michelle McNamara, for example, coined the moniker "Golden State Killer." Does that mean she knows everything about the Golden State Killer aka Joseph James DeAngelo? Obviously not. Some1 (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

Change the years for Generation X from 1965 to 1980 to 1965 to 1981 2600:1007:B104:6EF4:64C7:7F22:FBB0:D9FA (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Abortion Statistics and Language

Page currently states "Between 1970 and 1980, on average, for every 10 American citizens born, 3 were aborted.[56]"

The citation it links to paints a different picture of the data. That study also indicates that the CDC data used in the chart on the page is problematic.

The language of "for every 10 American citizens born, 3 were aborted" is against page guidelines. The page is intended to be neutral, but the language implies that 3 "citizens" were aborted. Roe v. Wade concluded that there is not enough expert consensus that life begins at conception. Therefore, labeling the procedure as aborting US Citizens carries a bias.

Morefromalan (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Very biased

> For those on the left of the political spectrum, the disappointments with the previous boomer student mobilizations of the 1960s and the collapse of those movements towards a consumerist "greed is good" and "yuppie" culture during the 1980s felt, to a greater extent, hypocrisy if not outright betrayal. Hence, the preoccupation on "authenticity" and not "selling-out". The end of communism and the socialist utopia with the fall of the Berlin Wall, moreover, added to the disillusionment that any alternative to the capitalist model was possible.

Extremely biased to anti-left. - Espírito Espectral (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Reality Bites Quote

"I am not under any orders to make the world a better place" - Troy, played by Ethan Hawke, in the GenX cult classic movie Reality Bites summarizes the perceived apathy of the generation. Jennybholt (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Generation timeline.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

The original root meaning behind the term Generation X was to describe the 10th generation of people born in North America after its 'discovery' and permanent settlement by the 'Pilgrims' arriving on the Mayflower. This was arrived at using the approximation of 35 years between each generation depending on birth cycles. 76.67.125.61 (talk) 08:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Interesting Geek (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These years are so out of whack it's laughable.

Who wrote this and chose these years? Obviously not a kid from the 80s. I was actually there when the term GenX was coined. It was the media's way to describe the sudden violent shift from happy 80s kids wearing florescent shirts, LA Gear with 3 sets of laces and trading Garbage Pail Kids, to the 90s angsty hate your parents grunge and flannel rage against the machine kids. 1965-1980 was NEVER classified and pushing "GenX" back to make someone's chart nice and tidy is a disservice to us that are in those years. You can't be 30yrs old and suddenly get labeled with tweeners that hate the world with a term that was just thought up.

There's never been such a violent shift in youth mentality as the 80s to 90s and to lump them together in a 35 year span is insulting at best. The fact you can tell the difference in "GenX" and "80s kids" proves my point. Zodwraith (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

GenX was a mentality, not a date on your driver's license. Zodwraith (talk) 11:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Jilted Generation

Can you please add a nickname for Gen X as being the Jilted Generation? (i.e., Music for the Jilted Generation) 2601:800:C200:6F50:0:0:0:7F39 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Generation X vs. Millennials

I’m born in 1983, I was a latchkey kid and I’m Generation X! Not a millennial! 174.214.0.57 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Naw bruh you're a millennial, you were more then likely 10 years old when cobain died. and you graduated in the 2000's... You're not even close to gen x, hell 1980 seems kind of laughable as gen x, should be late 70's as the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.138.8 (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree I was born in 1983 as well, while we may have some Gen X traits we are definitely Millennials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:402:9F10:0:0:0:EC0C (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

When does Gen Y stop and Gen Z begin? Because I'm pretty young and seriously want to know if I'm at least a Gen Y. 2601:800:C200:6F50:0:0:0:7F39 (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Around 1996 or so, 1995-1996 is probably on the cusp leaning Millennial and 1997-1998 is probably on the cusp leaning Gen Z. 2601:4A:400:4280:ACE7:8CA1:25F8:76FA (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Music

while increasing genrefication of music has also not been addressed, changes in music technology must be included in this article including sequencing and sampling. a review of the klf "the manual", the akai s1000 and the 1988 "summer of love" is suggested before editing. the opening paragraph shows a derisible bias towards guitar based genres which is irresponsible in that hiphop is certainly the most notable contemporary evolution. the developing state of intellectual property is a key issue for generation x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:7004:FE00:3CF4:C4F1:E6A4:63EB (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Hip Hop and Rap need to be added please 2601:8C0:427F:3BD0:5525:7B81:1FB9:8A3F (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

New Wave/Top 40 (MTV music) and Hair Metal need to be added, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.218.3.202 (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

health outcomes

In the section about health (at least in regard to the US) I think it might be relevant that many of the working poor lacked health insurance and were unlikely to have access to thorough preventative care during a time when healthcare became increasingly for profit.

Fast food and food deserts may also be a factor, however as a former grocery store employee I noticed far better options from the late 1990s to the present. Then again, there's also diner foodie culture (donut burgers, bacon on everything, ranch dressing everywhere) that is I suppose a reaction to the health food and exercise culture, and possibly had an impact on diabetes and heart disease.

I'd also like to know how income factors into this. Not all of us were tech geniuses, grunge musicians, etc. Many of us went from nametag job to nametag job, where we had no vacation time, sick leave, and schedule flexibility, while raising children and/or caring for elders. Stress from precarity may be a factor in health outcomes for this part of the cohort (which I'd argue spans generations).

It surprised me to see no mention of health care availability or environmental pollution and a bigger emphasis on the health stats of people already forced into the health care system because of what appears to me to be lack of preventative care access, leading to early deaths from treatable disease. Laurelpo71 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

1965-1984

According to George Masnick of Harvard University, Gen X runs from 1965 to 1984 SOURCE. I think this should at least be mentioned.MorphinESTP (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Gen X

Gen X is 1965-1980. This is a fact. Correct it and remove Harvard ridiculous citation.

Not at all, several sources give alternate dates, I sort of agree with the 1961-1981 date range with some flexibility on each end.

}} 172.114.230.38 (talk) 09:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Gen X came of age before Y2k

I was born in the first week of 1981 and am definitely Gen X (got my first cell phone at age 30). Many sources say Gen Xers either came of age or graduated high school before 2000. This seems much more pointed than making 1980 the cut off. Please update the page to 1981. Donkeyoattea (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

If you're born on January 1st, 1981, then you're a Millennial. If you're born on December 31st, 1980, then you're a Gen X. Simple as that.84.54.70.161 (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No there is some cusp, it's not you are born one day you are Gen X, you are born the next day you are a Millennial. That doesn't make much sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B01A:DC03:A1F8:3073:C7F:53E0 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Strauss and Howe - too many mentions of authors

There are way too many mentions of the authors. Suggest we remove nearly all. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Heavy bias on American gen X

The article mentions many things that are very specific to American people. Politics, economy, drugs and culture are all almost exclusively about the American experience. Even if this article is aimed at the English speaking west it still makes large assumptions about the experience of American people being similar or the same as people in other countries. The time period where this takes place had significantly less hegemony than modern times as it was pre internet and there was significantly less crossover in media than current times 92.26.113.143 (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Origination of Break Dance

break dancing, also called breaking and B-boying, energetic form of dance, fashioned and popularized by African Americans and Latinos. Not just African dance as is stated here. This was the dance and music of the inner city which was predominantly black and Latino. 2601:19B:800:6DD0:0:0:0:1B90 (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Russian Cold War

Maybe I missed it, but I saw no mention of the Cold War with Russia, and the threat of nuclear war, we Gen Xers grew up with. My homework assignment in the Fifth grade one day was to watch, “The Day After” (referencing life after a nuke bomb struck) on television. In 7th grade we were assigned a book to read titled, “Z for Zachariah”, more nuclear war survival subject matter for young minds. This was a palpable, impactful, part of the Gen X experience, in my opinion. WelliJ (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

UK education

Education[edit]

"The almost universal dismantling of the grammar school system in Great Britain during the 1960s and the 1970s meant that the vast majority of the cohort attended secondary modern schools, relabelled comprehensive schools."

Both grammar and secondary modern schools became comprehensive schools, where these reforms were made. So the article would better read as:

"The almost universal dismantling of the grammar school system in Great Britain during the 1960s and the 1970s meant that the vast majority of the cohort attended comprehensive schools.

Editing of this section is locked. Bronxrichie (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

The graph of countries demographics has only 4 plots but 5 subjects.it shows, us, Canada, Europe, Australia NZ, world as subjects but Canada is not plotted? The colours are also difficult to read. 2604:3D09:3F7F:B200:FD04:C7A4:E5BE:920E (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pinchme123 (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hip hop

How can you list those genre's of music and NOT include rap/hip hop? It's been the most influential genre of the past 40 years, think how small it began and is now enjoyed by several ethnicities all over the world!! 2603:9001:9E3F:8B93:CCC0:C751:F3FD:C4C6 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Years are incorrect Generation X ended in 1984

1965 to 1984 George Masnick of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies puts Generation X in the time-frame of 1965 to 1984, in order to satisfy the premise that boomers, Xers, and millennials "cover equal 20-year age spans".

Also Generation X was about marketing both in North America and the rest of the world. 100.34.234.175 (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Boomers cover 18 years (46-64), Silent covers 17 years (28-45), Greatest covers 26 years (01-27), Lost covers 17. Generations are not 20 years long. Gen X ends in 1980, not 1984.

I checked 3 articles that are currently on the Generation X page, that were added by Deathlands82 and none contain the quotes cited. None claim Gen X ends in years other than 1980 or 1981 (which seems to be up for debate). Lithron (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

link's were removed from 4 articles that stated Gen X ends in 1984 including one from Pew research that stated the dates were vague and not concrete. 2600:6C5E:5CF0:4890:6932:C36D:7137:352B (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Piggy backing on this to further agree it is general consensus millenials start in 1980/1981. The source [1] after the “1984” does not even mention 1984. This needs to be changed. Kgri5508 (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Same. This entry was cited in a Gen X FB group "even the Wikipedia article says 1984." But when I noticed that the citation for 1984 was attributed to Pew, and I know for sure Pew uses 1965-1980, I clicked on the cited article. A search of that article shows that the number "84" never even shows up. Aweaverb75 (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I was really excited when I read that 1984 was now considered the cutoff because I've always identified more with Gen X and kind of resented being grouped with Millennials. Then I saw the chart still used 1980. So I checked the link that is cited for the 1984 cutoff, and it clearly and explicitly says "The birth year boundaries of Gen X are debated but settle somewhere around 1965–80". As much as I would like to alter the fabric of reality in this case by leaving false information up and therefore changing the consensus, this is a lie and it should be removed. I'll just have to console myself with the part about the boundaries still being debated. stufff (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2023

1965-1984. Generations technically span 20 years. Citing Harvard. Current description was edited to only reflect pew research dates.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations-redux 173.69.7.200 (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This has already been discussed at length. It is therefore not an uncontroversial edit which can be made via an edit request. PianoDan (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

With the generation being generally defined as people born from 1965 to 1980. From the sentence above. I’m requesting to have the ending year 1980 changed back to 1984. It was showing 1984 before on Wikipedia. George Masnick from Harvard supports this. I believe that 1984 should be the last year of Generation X. Below is a web address discussing this in detail.

https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations-redux/ Crc1984 (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Source provided in relevant sentence supports ending in the year 1980. The source you have provided, while from an apparent expert and is located at an EDU web address, may still be self-published as it's marked as a blog. I would be uncomfortable unilaterally using that source over the one currently present. Please establish a consensus for this, as edits which have been contested by other editors exclude implementation via an edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Baby buster

Rightfully redirects here; the expression should be mentioned somewhere on the page. Drsruli (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned, though not prominently, in the Terminology and etymology section. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed it. Drsruli (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Generations Sidebar

Why is this Generations Sidebar

not visible in the mobile version? Espoo (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)