Talk:Generation X/Archive 3

message: As a member of Gen X, I am shocked by the glaring omissions on this page of some of its more salient characteristics.  The cynical attitude which is commonly seen as the hallmark of our generation is, I submit, attributable largely to two factors.  First, we are the AIDS generation.  We came of age, and began to explore sexuality (or many of us did, anyway) in the early years of the epidemic and thus have equated love and death in a way that is unique to us (see also the goth movement).  Second, we were kids before society cared so much (far too much) about kids.  We were not over-parented and over-protected.  We did not wear bicycle helmets and were not taught to see a pedophile behind every corner.  Our mothers were encouraged to leave us at home alone and seek fulfilment outside the home.  Much of our cynicism stems from our sense of having been deprived our fair share of society's attention and resources; the senior citizens get their social security and our younger siblings, nieces/nephews receive attention and concern that we never did.  RLC
:I have to concur on the first factor here and I'll try to do a little research to add good information into the entry.  I recall clearly the moment I first heard about AIDS from the mom who was fortunate enough to supervise the favorite swimming pool in the neighborhood.  That was during the summer following my freshman year in high school and there were many irrational rumors about becoming infected with AIDS through sexual contact.  I remember grim breaking news flashes on the new Mtv (Music Television) channel about early discoveries concerning this new disease, much of those reports containing very little information.  Having been exposed to our parents and their hippie-love influences, the debauchery of the disco lifestyle through television and motion pictures (many of us were able to see Saturday Night Fever on BetaMax!) and the often overt sexuality of the New Wave and New Romantics music movements (Adam and the Ants had a slogan 'Ant Music for Sex People'), much of what our hormones and culture had been telling us about how to enjoy life was suddenly recast as 'risky behavior'.  In that Reagan-era atmosphere, I don't recall anyone explaining that it was impossible for young virgin lovers to contract AIDS from each other.  Instead, I remember it being clearly said that when you had sex with someone you were essentially having sex with everyone they had ever had sex with, magnifying the fear of the risk exponentially.  (Of course, this was moderated once the fury died down over use of the word 'condom' in public!)  If you're looking for a source for "lack of optimism for the future, nihilism, cynicism and lack of beliefs and trust in traditional values", I'd suggest that it was this early information about AIDS that took much of the wind out of those young sails. Economy1 12:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah,but, we havnt had a real depression since the 1930s, and the 1980s was boom- prosperity time. Like the nice clear cut defention tho. it works (?)if we skip depression - boomers obvioulsy prosperity, x recession, y recovery, z prosperity (most economies in growth now,)??. 58.178.233.241 13:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Generation Discussion

message: I don't have a problem with this mysterious table, but it's very presumptuous to include birth years that are so in dispute, especially regarding Gen X/Y. Ledboots 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Generations table is misleading 

message: The whole Outlook section seems rather US-specific, with references to US television, US wars, and the US political system. This is in stark contrast to the more balanced approach in other sections. Also, the table American Generations doesn't seem very nation neutral at all. -- Scjessey 13:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outlook 

message: Uploaded Brad X comic to History section as a further support to a late 80s origin. It is pretty evident that, starting from the late 80s, there was a widespread percieved "division" between those in their 30s and those in their 20s, thirtysomething v. twentysomething intergenerational conflict. The Wikipedia "Baby Buster" makes a good case. I personally know people born in the late 50s that have no affinity to Boomers. At least this cohort, now roughly 42-48, are "cuspers" if you will, the bridge between Boom and X. Ledboots 22:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, we do not need all that whitespace. Also, "Vista Magazine, 1988" is not a proper MLA citation. And it's worth noting that the current state of the Notes section, along with the cramped situation made by your photos justify keeping the clean-up warning. No offense meant by all this, but it has added to the workload for clean up. -- LGagnon 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, in regards to the Notes section, you need to redo all those references. They're all badly done, none of them in MLA, ALA, or any form of proper citation format. See Wikipedia:Citing sources to get yourself started on fixing them. And please move all that stuff to it's own section; the Notes section is for footnotes. -- LGagnon 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload 

message: I'm twenty now (almost twenty-one), and was born in 1985...
From what I've read on Wikipedia as-so-far, there is no generation that I belong to...
The latest Generation-X seems to end is 1984 (which is a fairly good novel, by the way), however Generation-X is superceded by Generation-Y, which apparently starts 1986 at the earliest...
I'll guarantee you that I'm not part of the MTV Generation for several reasons:  I've never watched MTV, I rarely watched MuchMusic (a Canadian version of MTV), although for a short period in my preteens I watched it quite a bit.  Since the age of around fifteen I haven't been able to stand it at all.
I'm a lost child of an Unknown Generation...  To be honest, I think what truly makes one a Gen-Xer is the anonymous feeling we all seem to have been given by the other generations.
I know many from the MTV Generation, and they're all between a year, and four years younger than me...  I know many from Generation-Y, and they're all either annoying idiot-kids, or super-genius-kids...
I have no Generation...
- A Vigilante
:According to Strauss & Howe, you'd be part of the Millenial Generation (not Generation Y, which is about as content-free as "Baby Busters" was).  Characteristics would be all about trend turnarounds:  an increasing preference (and willingness to affiliate) with groups, an increasingly polarized gender role structure, and a general "no negativity!" way of dealing with hardship all come to mind.
:Keep in mind that generations are only one way to identify with a specific culture, and in many peoples' cases -- particularly those who don't partake of popular culture and/or live in a tradition-based community -- it might not be a dominating characteristic.
:And all that said, at 20, you're just beginning to find your way as a member of "adult society" and determine what that might mean.  Hang in there, and by the time you're 28 it will have snapped into place when you weren't looking, whether or not you'll still feel that you have a generational affinity or not. - a mom Kitode 23:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1985 

message: Anyone know what these 2 tags are referring to specifically? Since Jan, this article now has uploads (a previous tag), lot's of personal POVs removed, and additional international references. Just curious... 4.239.159.150 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it off. Let's see if anyone disagrees. John wesley 12:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up / neutral POV 

message: I would like to inject some sociological rigor into this, also.  The overarching question is whether people form cultural norms based on peer groups and cohorts.  I'd love to see that researched and discussed.
Then the second point, assuming it all hasn't been disproven!, would be to make an inventory of all the available models and discuss their strengths and weaknesses.  Presumably the models have different parameters by which they differentiate the cultures; the parameters may or may not be related to geography, political system, etc.  I would also expect there to be a wide variety in the descriptors of the generational cultures as well as what ages they encompass.
The third point, as someone (scroll up!) said, is relating these cultural groupings to other ones, such as "movements" in arts and politics.
Kitode 23:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the models? 

message: I'm sorry for my language but, who wrote this SHIT?!?!
Or maybe it's just the shitty attitude the generation gets from the "powers-that-be!"
And a PS to that comment: who in their right mind would put everyone in a 20 year time span of post WWII modernity in the same generation in the first place?!?!!... 
I feel that people just five (+/-) years of my birth year are vastly different from me. I think whoever makes up this piffle about generational description needs to realize that one, not everyone is going to be the same, and more importantly, two, our cultures change so much more rapidly in modernity than they did (let's say--pre-WWI/WWII times) that the generations will change much more rapidly as well. 
I don't agree that the outcome will be the same, but everyone must come to realize that the theories of such as Ray Kurzweil are reality. 
Everything, including cultures, experience exponential growth.
: Who wrote that (because you didn't stamp it)?
:1) You obviouly have selective reading habits because it was mentioned above that cohorts, rather than generations, are more predictive, and that "accelerated culture" is evident today.
:2) No one is claiming every member of a so-called generation is a clone, if you will, but age groups undeniably share certain realities in common.
:3) No, your expletives aren't condoned.
:4) Your discussion about Kurzweil is better suited for a science fiction discussion, not this. Ledboots 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this... 

message: It seems assumed in this article that Gen X are all children of Boomers. Not so. Many (such as myself) are the children of the so-called Silent Generation. Ace-o-aces 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Me too. 67.168.216.176 08:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all children of boomers 

message: 1940–1959 = boom · 1960–1979 = X · 1980–1999 = Y
Too bad anything simple and clear is original research. 67.168.216.176 08:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  must present stupid contradictions ... not resolve them 

message: Since when was Generation X a purely (North) American phenomenon? It may have been coined by Coupland, but it is a form of provincialism to suggest this. Please American editors, there's about five billion non-Americans out here, will you please take note? --MacRusgail 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an international section in the article ... interestingly devoid of coherence or source citations ... in order for the summary at the top of the article to include more international material, such material has to exist ... how is the term "Generation X" used in Germany or Russia or India or China? can anybody provide a single example that the term ever has been used in any of these places? at all? and especially in a manner distinct from the North American usage? 67.168.216.176 13:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with the person who put in the "globalize" tag. What's the first thing you see when you view the article? It's that table of "American Generations" that I've complained so long and bitterly about. Virtually all of the example baby boomers (with the notable exception of the European rock bands) are US or Canadian. And the Oxford dictionary link is the only external link which isn't US or Canadian. -- KarlHallowell 03:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag doesn't solve anything, or belong there regardless.  GenX, as a label for people born in the '60s, is a concept created in Canada, to describe North Americans, and it's got no obligation to be relevant to anybody else.  If it HAPPENS to be relevant to somebody else, then great.  If it doesn't, that's OK too.  The onus is on people outside North America to add material relevant to them, if there really is any. 67.168.216.176 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This article or section may deal primarily with the U.S. and may not present a worldwide view. (What ???!!!!)::
In globlobalized culture, US is like a province (the richest and important, I don't denial some facts) but Are not more that a provice in the Earth Country, think that the US culture don't have any incluences, concecuences and bounces and reations -someones very reactionary I know-, is a too small provincialitic view.
Now the Facts: 
Painfully the titles of the movies are translated in Argentina, -luckly the most of the speeches are subtitles yet- the movie Reality Bites was presented in Argentina like "Generacion X", the same title that the book of Coupland, and this book has a paperback very cheap edition in spanish, for this reason in Argentina, at least, this works (the book and the movie) are like a unit concetual work. Soo Generation X caractristic indeed. --Seriousmoon 17:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Generation X is a concept specific to the United States" - yet it was popularised by a Canadian, Generation X (band) were an English band around in the 70s and "The term was first used in a 1964 study of British youth by Jane Deverson."  --MacRusgail 03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalise?

message: Baby boomers were not the parents of Generation X. (The Silent generation, and WWII vets were.) Personally, my grandparents were of the Lost Generation. Coupland originally meant Gen X as those born in the early sixties, in the shadow of their older baby boom siblings. We were the younger baby boomers. (eg. 1964 was hardly a "bust year". Over 4 million births (U.S.) occurred, which is more than any year in the late forties though the early fifties. This didn't happen again until 1990!)
We were the generation stripped of identification with our older siblings, simply because we didn't remember the Kennedy administration, although we remember Nixon and Kissinger well enough.
Then, we were the generation stripped of our Gen X identity - (the original "twenty-somethings" of the 1980s, when the phrase was first popularized as a riposte to boomers in their thirties.) Somehow (mainly corporate marketing) it was co-opted by those younger than us, who really wouldn't remember the 1970s. Personally, I didn't like the term Gen X, but the ideas of being lost and forgotten in the crush of humanity prior to us, is accurate. And, oddly enough, once a term is stolen, it becomes more precious.
As for the use of Generation Jones? First time I heard of it was on this wiki. I'm Canadian. Is it only an American term? The only memorable reference, to me, is "keeping up with the Jones'". I am curious.
:"Generation Jones" is a gimmick invented and promoted by one guy.  It may meet the definition of a "hoax" at Wikipedia. 67.168.216.176 13:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One definition of "baby bust" refers to the decline in births following an incline. Although there are relatively a large number of births, the birth rate is trending downwards, the trailing ege of a normal distribution curve. This is in contrast to those who take the whole curve including leading and trailing edge to define a cohort. Which interpretation is correct? The latter example, a "pig in a python" representation of baby boomers, implies a baseline is present. I'm not sure how possible that is for something that is in constant flux. Both seem to be justified, though. What you have to watch out for is the nomenclature, however. The echo boomers, born from 1977 to 1994, span the years that boomers would normally be having children. But the generations mentioned in babybusters.org don't seem to fall in line with the parental groups. For example, the baby boomers would have to give rise to at least the latter post-busters, and there is only 9 years of echo boomers. Ledboots 18:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking back our generational label 

message: The following is my opinion on the matter.  
Although the generations are largely grouped under Baby Boomers, Xers, Yers, there are distinct subcatergories in each generation.  Since the Baby Boom generation, the following generations have become fragmented, affected by major events, such as political, economic, cultural and etc.  I agree in theory the term Generation X and Y covers a long period, but even as short as four years, there is a difference in generational tone.  I believe you should categorize according to the period in which a person is born under, not after the environment they grew up in.  Therefore, I propose the following.  
Baby Boomers
  Post WW2 & Korean War Generation
  1946-1953
  "the Fifties Generation"
  1954-1959
  The Kennedy Generation
  1960-1963  
Generation X
  Vietnam & Civil Rights 
  1964-1968
  Woodstock, Moon Landing, & Watergate Generation
  1969-1974
  Post Watergate & Bicentennial Generation
  1975-1980
  The Reagan Generation
  1981-1988
Generation Y
  End of Cold War/Gulf War Generation
  1989-1992
  The Clinton Generation
  1993-2000
  The 9/11 Generation
  2001-2009 ?
This is how I categorize the current dominant generations.  The years always start Jan. 1 19** and end Dec. 31 19**.  
Culturally the divide is the following.  
Baby Boomers 
  Start: End of WW2
  Finish:  Kennedy's Assaination
Generation X
  Start:  Introduction of the Mustang
  Finish:  The end of Reagan's 2nd Term.  
Generation Y
  Start:  The Fall of the Berlin Wall
  Finish:  ?  (presently) possibly the end of G.W. Bush's 2nd Term or end of the Iraq War.  
Also, you can break Generation X into two subcategories, Gen X Version 1.0 would be from 1964 to 1974.  Then Gen X Version 2.0 would be from 1975 to 1988.  These are two distinct, but closely related subgenerations within one category.  They both relate better with each other than with the Baby Boomers or Gen Yers.  
I have the cut off date for Gen X at 1988/9 because those born at that year are most likely to be significantly aware of or remember best New Year's 2000 and the Election of 2000.  
There is a significant argument to support the idea of a new generation now after 9/11.  Until further data is collected to support that argument, I will personally continue to classify it under Generation Y.  If there is enough evidence or consensus, Generation Z or 9/11 will start in 2001 and continue into the foreseeable future till another dramatic shift in society.  Generation Y shall then end with Clinton's 2nd term.  
Again this is my personal opinionated definition of the dividing the generations.  
Thank you.
: First, this is original research and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Second, it doesn't make sense to classify a generation by what happened when they were born. The "Kennedy generation" wasn't old enough for the most part to remember events from that era. It makes more sense to classify them by events that occured later on, eg, Nixon's impeachment, disco, or the release of Star Wars. -- KarlHallowell 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing the generations 

message: I don't see a reason to keep this table. First, it is a US-centric point of view and should properly be called "United States Generations" not "American Generations" since the US is the only country in the Americas covered by this table. Second, the divisions are arbitrary, subjective, and uninformative. As far as I know, demographers don't even bother to categorize historical populations into cohorts especially to this level of detail. The book, Generations is worthy of some remark, but I don't see the table as notable.
Given that these complaints reappear through the discussion on this article and never are addressed, I think it's time to just remove the table. -- KarlHallowell 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been expressed before. Then, the two options are to edit the article or delete the template (which I'm surprised dosn't appear to have been edited). After all, the table only appears to support this and other similar articles, probably none of which are really justifiable. Ledboots 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually liked the table. I'd advise you to put it back. it may not be greatly relevant to all, but it is good for some! The article was started by an American, so it seems okay to me--Read-write-services 02:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the table doesn't reflect the demographic history of Americans, just that supposedly of US residents. Even Canadians and Mexicans have different histories. And that's before we consider the rest of the Americas. I think an appropriate place for it would be in the discussion of the book that it comes from. -- KarlHallowell 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I REALLY LIKE THe table and think it needs to be brought back., it is not the be all and end all - but is a good over view- and the click able links are VERy useful. iT IS now headed US generations, so it should be ok.Cilstr 08:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should American Generations table be removed? 

message: There is way too much text in the lead section! This should be a concise overview of the article. It should be able to be easily scanned by a reader and certainly should not be pushing the Table of contents off the viewable part of the page. It would be really good if someone could pull out the revelant points to create a summary of the info in the article and move the rest of the content into the body of the article. I'd do it myself but I don't know enough about the topic to know what the most important points are. Cheers. JenLouise 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly the last paragraph should go elsewhere (intergenerational conflict?), it's not very introductory. Also, the new "common denominator" section is a good addition to the article. Ledboots 01:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That Census Bureau study, as far as I know, exclusively bases their definition from the book "After The Boom: The Politics of Generation X" by Craig and Bennett. The one review of that book I've seen was not very kind and it doesn't even raise a blip on the "famous Generation X book" screen. For one, C&B uses multiple sub authors, something like a different one for each chapter. The birth years for Generation X when mentioned (by different authors) vary a good deal, hence the "Various studies define..." caveat. It's not clear to me why this book was chosen, nor why the Census Bureau doesn't use 1965-1976 (the dearth-in-birth "baby bust") as their "official" definition, like other people do. Nonetheless, The Census Bureau should probably not be considered as the authority, because they don't really consider that a viable demographic at any rate, and furthermore, have no opinion about it. As far as Coupland goes, I don't think too much is written about him so much as not enough additional other information is written.Ledboots 16:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what to say.  This is the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia.  It's almost like deliberate satire at points.  References to Wicca and the Bretton-Woods system are complete non-sequiters.  I wouldn't even know where to begin to change it.  My suggestion is trash the whole damn thing and have someone serious start over, and keep it brief and to the point about cultural references (e.g. Coupland), because it is hard to argue that there is much real sociological merit to generational categories anyway, as mentioned previously here.64.53.191.103 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I looked over the gen X page and see things that may not be correct.  Have you looked at the american generations page?  http://www.timepage.org/time.html  
Are you talking about American Generations?  It seems as if you are putting all generations from everywhere under your titles.  While I do like the sub generation names (baby buster, gen X, MTV) I do not think I saw where you got this information.  Also, I see that you do mention Strauss and Howe, but you seem to vary from their information.  
Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.167.53.220 (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is all this correct? 

message: Several of the comments about this article can be grouped into a general class of, “Why write about this?  What is this all about?”
Here are some observations that might be helpful:
There can be no question that over a time scale of decades, societies experience changes in fashions, attitudes, and the arts (not only styles, but beliefs  about the place of the arts and their contexts).  We can also safely say, that these trends tend to cluster in waves, if only inchoately, that they can overlap, split, spurn reactions, and so forth.  Furthermore, we can say that generally,  they are more pronounced in dynamic societies than in static ones, affect big cities more than isolated places, affect curious, creative, leisured, and younger people more than their opposites. And, that they are  more similar between societies as societies are more related. Finally, we can add that  trends may spread with decreasing or at least changing understandings, seguing for example from creativity to imitations to poses. 
There is no reasonable doubt, for a prime example, that there was a sudden burst of cultural change in the Anglophone world and beyond from around 1965 to 1969, universally felt and noticed at the time, that affected  appearances, music, sexual roles, opinions about pleasure, freedom, policics, religion, and race, and that was reflected in all arts and in the personal lives of many people, directly, partially, or in reaction, and that this boom both gradually diffused into the general culture and lost momentum in the early seventies.
These waves of change directly affect people’s lives in various ways, and they are constantly referred to in literature, social writng, and conversation, often with accepted, if imprecise labels.  These labels (“The Jazz Age”, “Punk”, etc) and what is thought to have been behind them are part of the knowledge of a literate person. However, any person who has followed all of these movements and their offshoots and counter-movements within living memory would probably be too exhausted to function.  Anyone else needs some filling in, and therefore articles such as this one serve a purpose. If someone forgets the difference between “The Lost Generation” and “The Silent Generation”,  it should be nice to have an encyclopedia to help. 
However there are several problems in trying to write about these things. First, these labels apply to complex, overlapping, non-discrete, varied, and plural trends of many sorts over many dimensions.  Even to write well about them is like trying to put a hurricane in a filing cabinet.  Secondly, people are affected by these matters to differing degrees, some people almost not at all, relatively few people totally, and some people negatively, that is, by moving in an opposite direction.  Therefore, describing social trends like these might give a false impression of people massively and uniformly adopting certain politcal views or fashions, which is totally false.  Example:  This article describes the American “Generation X” as being against religion.  But that would mean that, as defined in the article by dates, people who are now in their thirties and early forties in America are mostly  anti-religious.  Obviously not the case at all!
The third problem is that consideration of these matters can be emotional, eliciting resentment toward the go-befores, disdain toward the come-latelies, and envy,  of both the “I missed it” and “I lost it” varieties.
There is also a problem of modality of the terms that are used.  The terms are not co-ordinate: Some represent fairly coherent movements, some with people consciously  identifying, some are media inventions, or literary labels after the fact, etc.
Given all these problems,  it seems any writing about these things would be almost insurmountably difficult, even before the task is delivered to a shifting committee of people of varying skills who don’t know each other.  A topic such as this surely stretches to capabilities of the Wikipedia to its limits.  However, the topic is too significant and intriguing to leave out of the encyclopedia.  I would  recommend just being especially careful with citations, definitions, origins and scope of terms and so forth.--Sukkoth 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why  write about these things at all--answer 

message: This section was returned. Are there any sources more credible than a respected author regarding a particular subject? Not really.4.234.156.125 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that looks very out of place. Most of the books seem to be how-to guides rather than impartial studies or discussions. 'Best-selling' is an pretty unusual way of describing sources in a wikipedia article. It's advert-like language, and being a best-seller or not isn't a good way of deciding on the reliability of a source.--Nydas(Talk) 17:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The authors mentioned have written about topics that have a sociologic theme. At least some are formally educated a social science, which demonstrates their qualification as an author on the subject. David Foot has a PhD in economics for example. They have all presumably used some  criterea that can be supported demographically or by peer personality, and have left an impression with their (large body of) respective readers. Some of these concepts are actually put into use, like Tulgan's concepts for effective management (he personally interviewed thousands of people in the mid 90's to formulate his peer group characteristics). So, this section shows the gulf of differences that various credible people define as bracketing birth years. There is far from any unified concept of Generation X; this section demonstrates that amongst the even so-called "experts". The fact is, there probably never will be a unified concept, just general terms and a general lack of agreement. Ledboots 14:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe so, but it does seem to concentrate almost exclusively on GenX from a marketing or business persepctive.  Where are the references for broader sociological or cultural perspectives?  Lokicarbis 23:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's true, but the point is that they are best-selling authors and have expressed their ideas to a large collective conscious. Their best-selling status gives them some credibility. If you are aware of any in the genres you mentioned, feel free to update. Ledboots 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Best-selling authors

message: "Generation X has been left in a state of instability due to social problems such as high crime rates, divorce, children born out of wedlock, and lack of a father figure in many families."
how can things like this pass? this hardly seems like a reasonable statement to find on a more or less informative page. especially the two last phrases are oozing political commitment, of a kind that seems horrifying
Jonquiliser 11:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasonable for an encyclopedia? 

message: I removed the incorrect reference to "Baby Busters" as being a sub-division of Generation X.  If you research the many references to "Baby Busters" on Google and elsewhere, you'll see that "Baby Busters" is used interchangably with "Generation X" as a synonym, and I was not able to find any articles anywhere that describe Busters as a sub-division of GenX.  One of many examle citations:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,146033,00.html   21st century Susan 21:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Baby Busters

message: I think the religion paragraph ("The attitudes of Gen X towards religion can be best described as indifferent to downright hostile. They view Christianity as having nothing to offer them in the church sense, however many of them still believe in God or at least "a higher power". Many, if not most Xers, are completely secularized and abandoned traditional churches...") might be a bit of an over-generalization... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.36 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with this.  Many of my peers were swept into the very public and influential evangelical movement of the day.  Christian rock basically emerged around that time as an answer to the desire of those young people to have a Christian musical form they could relate to and enjoy.  Economy1 12:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the paragraph earlier this week to be more neutral in its presentation of religion. Plurality of religious attitudes is an important hallmark of Gen X, so therefore the article should reflect as much as possible which members of which religions had what types of reactions to their own practices. Embellishment of trends in Protestant Christianity during the 80s and 90s, including the emergence of Christian rock music, church efforts to establish groups, camps and programming for young people, and the mega-church-ization and right-leaning politicization of many congregations are significant factors in how GenXers raised in Protestant Christian churches have reacted to or incorporated religion in their lives. This section of the article will become more interesting if perspectives of GenXers raised in other religious traditions were included. Were similar or different reactions happening for Muslim, Jewish, Bhuddist, Bahai, Mormon, Scientologist (etc.) GenXers during the 80s and 90s?   75.72.151.235 21:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: I know the fall of the Berlin wall etc still applies, but it would be good to have a couple of sentences in here that are more specific to the experiences of Gen-Xers in the UK.  I would say it was growing up in the Thatcher Era/protracted conservative government, that defined it for me.  Then when I was elligible to vote, Labour got in yay!  Of course I didn't vote anyway, because like a lot of Gen Xers I think politicians are all the same.  Is my experience GenX? It may be borderline, I was born in 1977.Merkinsmum 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: discuss the UK a bit?

message: Hi, I'll be more specific as to why I put the tag up. What I react to is the first sentence - "Generation X is a term used to describe the generation of North Americans born following the post-Second World War baby boom". I think this is a very exclusive definition which is not correct. The term is apparently used in the UK as well (see the comment above by User:Merkinsmum). The term is also frequently used in Scandinavia, and probably in a whole other bunch of countries I don't know about. I think the opening line should accomodate for these other countries as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 09:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is also used in most of the anglosphere to some extent. It is not a purely American term. --MacRusgail 03:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worldwide view tag

message: I would love to see that cohort of people born between 1961 and 1967 treated as distinct from the boomers and the xers.  We (I'm 1966) have little in common with either group.  Given the fact that the U.S. Census   chooses not to include us as xers, why would wiki?  Also, some discussion of rap music, school desegregation, and other non-white topics seems warranted.  Some of us were listening to Public Enemy, not Nirvana.  Identity politics were as important as gender politics in our formative years.  Remember the Black Panthers?  Well, some of them are our parents.I view my generation as a NOT generation: not the boomers and not the xers.  Our childhood took place during war and recssion.  Schools were closed wholesale because of our small numbers, and white, middle-class  woman suddenly found themselves raising children on their own.All told, it's interesting how influential we manage to be, given what we went through and how few of us there are.Optiaine 18:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the problems with writing about generations on Wikipedia, everyone has their own ideas about what is right or best in terms of dates and characteristics - this is contrary to the WP:OR policy. These articles need to be heavily sourced, more so than most, and they are, currently, exactly the opposite. I don't have the time and energy to clean them up but they are really a mess of original research. -- Stbalbach 02:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re "baby busters" 

message: At last this article deals with countries other than the USA, where the term has been using for almost thirty years! Well done folks! --MacRusgail 03:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hooray! 

message: With more and more GenXers falling into the role of having to take care of aging Baby Boomer parents, while at the same time 
raise young children. More and more, the GenX Generation is gaining a new sub-title called "The Sandwich Generation". 
Anybody care to comment on if this footnote should be added?
Alby 11:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sandwich Generation 

message: "One of the defining factors of Generation X is the transitions resulting from the decline of colonial imperialism to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War."  This is gibberish.  If anyone understands what it's supposed to mean, please clarify - otherwise it should be deleted.  Deipnosophista 08:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement needed

message: The list of names and exemplars should be updated to include more recent activity. I'm surprised to see neither Jon Stewart nor Stephen Colbert.   These guys epitomize Gen X irony.    They, not Cobain, may wind up being remembered as the voice of Gen X in its time.
: You may be right, whoever you are, but freedom is a wonderful thing. Just add him! Colbert is and has been there, I believe, but Stewart absolutley deserves mention for his comedic celebrity. Ledboots 20:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newer names

message: The first point referenced was removed because nowhere in the reference contained the point stated (which keeps getting changed around anyway). Ledboots 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: First point referenced

message: The list seems highly focussed on people in the arts and sports, with a strong bias towards Americans.  If the list is to have any merit, should it not be more balanced, by including more politicians, business people, academics, charity workers etc? Thegn 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable members of Generation X 

message: I wrote several months ago regarding this topic, but I remember only reading a response from Educatedlady. Have any of you noticed that several pop culture "interests" (can't think of a word to encompass icons, movies, video games, etc.) that can be attributed to more than one generation is added to the list? It's early morning, and I don't think I am wording this question well at all. What I mean is (and I see this a lot on the Generation Y page) that I know that icons such as Madonna, Bon Jovi, Michael Jackson, and Van Halen (just a few examples) reached their star power in the 1980s. So, I don't think anyone would argue that they are associated with Generation X (their music, I guess - seeing as how both Madonna and Michael Jackson are themselves "Boomers"). But, people are adding Harry Potter or anime to Generation Y and making it seem as if the phenomena is only attributed to one generation. Again, dang it, I don't think I am making sense. I think music or famous trilogies can have their "start" or "rise" so-to-speak attributed to a specific generation, but when it comes to "interests" or "fans," we need to be careful in our wording in these articles? Educatedlady - do you remember we talked about this? I am proposing a discussion (though maybe this would be better on the Generation Y board?) on how we can better write the Pop Culture section of these generation pages. I also think we need to make sure people don't add "Famous Baby Boomers," or "Famous Generation Xers," etc. This is not only because of the various date ranges, but in my opinion, though generation labels may partly define who we are, they are not labels (or titles) such as "doctor," "catholic" or "philanthropist." Every now and then I see these lists pop up, and a few of us go and delete them. I don't think they are necessary to these articles. There aren't even categories for them on Wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia administrators have already deleted categories such as "1980s musicians" (this might not be the exact name) because (I'm assuming) such musicians might belong to several categories (1980s, 1990s, and 2000s for instance). CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I am not a fan of such lists because of the overlapping categories. I do not see a problem with mentioning the "rise" of artists, movements, etc. in the pop culture section of a generation article. I agree with you on Michael Jackson's Dangerous album. I am not sure, but it may have been his biggest seller since Thriller. Don't quote me on that, because I am too lazy to check the stats, but I remember buying the cassette tape when it first came out. The videos, the award shows . . . lots of buzz surrounding the album and concert tours. I also agree with you that Generation X not being confined to the 1980s. I was just referring to the musicians and other artists during that time, possibly because there was a real boom in the music industry with Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Bon Jovi (among others) during this time, just as there was a music boom in the 1960s. I just wanted to bounce ideas on how we can improve the pop culture sections. I think we can find a way to differentiate between a pop icon's rise in popularity (which can be associated with a particular generation) and that icon's continued popularity on later generations. Another good example would be David Bowie. He was a progressive rock star in the 1960s (and rose to popularity then), so he can be included on the Baby Boom page and Generation X (where he he had new rock/pop albums), but is still popular among older Generation Y members (in my opinion those born in 1982-1989, or to others 1984-1992 for instance - - just theorizing here). I like your ideas regarding research perimeters. We are on the same page. I think for earlier Generation Xers (such as those born in the early 1960s (according to some sources) or mid-1960s, we are going to have to find sources that mention the Vietnam War in some capacity. There is that generation book I mentioned back in 2010 and last year on the Generation X talk page. I need to find the book and the appropriate pages. I think we will find something. I am only a little concerned with all the stuff added and deleted on a regular basis in this section. It's like a revolving door for the hottest interests (music, movies, video games, etc.) of "the times." I am half expecting to see Tickle Me Elmo and Beanie Babies added to the section. I'm not saying these toys weren't popular among Generation Y. But even older generations might have these items. My dad's secretaries bought him a Tickle Me Elmo for Christmas years ago, and I and I'm sure other Xers and even older people have a couple of Beanie Babies. I never "collected" them, but I do have the Irish one and the one honoring Pope John Paul II; and my best friend's mother (a Boomer) was obsessed with them (for her kids I suppose?) and had I think all of them, including the McDonald's ones.Allowing everyone to add everything that was popular during a particular decade would be crazy. I think it's all in the wording. Good discussion.
The vietnam war is culturally more associated with the Baby Boomers, however again with research errors a lot of Gen X were children during this time. For example my sister born in 1971 was 3 years old when the war ended, and then again there are those like Barack Obama who was 14 when the war ended. While they may have not been old enough to enlist or even do major protesting during that time, it was part of the environment in which they grew up in for a certain point.
The article in my opinion currently focuses a lot on the 1980s, great but its not an decade article, its a generational article. And a generation can last for multiple decades. So lets focus on improving the information we have about the 1980s but also expand on portions of the mid 1970s to the mid 1990s as well. I think that is our Gen X target. Also if we look at some of the other Wikipedia pages about "grunge" there is info on fashion we can take and apply it to this article. So I'll be back on later with more info. Edu Lady - Researcher  20:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation X and pop culture (also a note on other generation articles) 

message: Please stop changing the date range in the introductory paragraph. I have provided several sources showing that 1981 is a more common end date for Generation X, but also included 1982, because some sources do use 1982 as an end date. This has been argued to death, and you can search the archive talk pages to see all the sources. I have sources starting from late 1980s or early 1990s to today using 1982 as the start date for the Millennials, and 1981 as the last birth year used for Generation X. That is why I feel it is important to include the phrase "1981 or 1982" in the introduction. There is no confusion because "1981 or 1982" is clarified further down in the article by other sources that I provided. I reverted back to a previous version by Educatedlady. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong, wrong, wrong.You should really re-read the article if you truly believe what you write, because you're 100% wrong. All of the citations that define the 1981 end-date are from the same author: Strauss and Howe. Reports and articles that cite Strauss and Howe are not separate sources, they're merely different articles citing the same author. That does not account as an "overwhelming" amount of sources. Stop pushing WP:undue weight into the article. --Danteferno (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Just thought I'd pipe in again with my standard refrain: Cultural genererations cannot possibly have such incredibly specific cut off dates. We waste so much time and effort in constantly relitigating the battles over the date, that we should stick to a braoder definition such as "early 1980s". Just my two cents. It is the most credible, logical, and easily maintained position. That said, I don't want to continue this discussion any further, it was just for the record, or in case people are willing to go along with it finally :P Peregrine981 (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Regarding the removal of the gen x population cited by Strauss and Howe: Just because something is cited does not mean it automatically merits inclusion. I have several reasons for removing what I did:
* The specific citation is from Generations, which is 20 years old, and therefore quite possibly out of date at this point.
* The construction here is quite awkward... it makes it seem as if Strauss & Howe are arguing that Gen X was in fact NOT a "baby bust", which isn't really their point.
* The whole construction is rather awkwardly worded, in addition to being US centric
* For such a basic fact it would be preferable to have a link to a simple online source
Peregrine981 (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there Peregrine, sorry it has taken me a while to respond, I read the contents mentioned and I agree with the exclusion on it. I have the book "Generations" at home and therefore I may be able to find a better statement to replace or just leave it out completely like you did. Edu Lady - Researcher  (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: EducatedLady, In your copy of "Generations", please look at page 318.  The authors have Gen Xers pegged at 93 million people in the U.S. Media67 (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen X population numbers in the U.S. 

message: Hi, I'm really not trying to be difficult about the digital technology. But as it stands I cannot accept it. First of all, it needs to be reliably sourced. Also, it should say something specifically about Gen X and "digital technology". At the moment every generation from X to Z says that they were heavily influenced by digital technology, but something should be said to differentiate them IMO, otherwise its pretty banal. Everyone alive is pretty much influenced by digital technology at this point. Also, I think that there is no reason to limit our discussion to "digital" technology, since Xers lived for many years without digital tech, and could be said to be influenced at least equally by other non-digital techs. Also, we should try to keep the approach global, and not mentioning major technological innovations such as the green revolution would be a mistake. Peregrine981 (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look for sources and add them instead of just removing content you don't like.  Add the green revolution stuff with sources too Media67 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" WP:BURDEN. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   You're selectively attempting to enforce this policy. The sources are there -- as links to other articles.  Please stop edit-warring.  You've reverted three times in 24 hours. Media67 (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How am I being selective? It's quite straight forward: I think the passage as it stands is completely banal, it isn't sourced, so I removed it. If you want to put it back in find a source and re-phrase. There is no source, unless you count another wikipedia article as a source. Peregrine981 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then you've got alot of work to do on Wikipedia removing all the content like this. Why focus on this page? Btw, it's sourced by other Wikipedia pages.  I'll look for more outside sources when I can get to it.  Removing content is less productive than finding new sources to add.  Why dont you add something vaulable like you did on the Strauss and Howe page? Media67 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm within my rights to select what I think is useful information or not. I'm not a professional editor who has to comb through all of wikipedia, it would be impossible. This is a topic that interests me, and I'm allowed to focus on it. We can leave the statements for a short time while you find a reliable source (and I note that you are now seriously in violation of the three revert rule). But my problem isn't that it isn't "true", clearly it is, but that doesn't make it useful to highlight in article about generation X. Are we going to list every technological development that has occurred since the 1960s? IMO we should focus on the impact these technologies have had, but we need to be careful to keep it focused on the impact on generation X and not just banal or general statements about their impact on society, or on small sub-sets of the generation. In addition it should be put in proper context to avoid giving in undue emphasis. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  digital technology 

message: These sentences do not make sense when read together (under the Australia and New Zealand section):
"One author, and professor at the University of Toronto, David Foot, divides the generation born after the baby boomers into two groups in his book Boom Bust & Echo: How to Profit from the Coming Demographic Shift:[46] Generation X, born between 1960 and 1966; and the "Bust Generation", born between 1967 and 1979.[47] In his opinion, those born between the periods of 1947-1966 were the Baby Boomers, where in Canada they were the largest boom of the industrialized world (relative to population).[48] This large boom complicated the job market for the upcoming generation, Generation X.[  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.245.188.68 (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs clarification

message: This is oddly placed within the article, under the 'Economy' section. Action should be taken.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiersgarr (talk • contribs) 00:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation flux 

message: Hey folks, I added some strong sources which say Gen X are anybody born between 1965 and 1983. The sources appear to be legitimate. If they are not good or legit, or should these sources get removed, please contact me through the talk page with a reason for removal. Angela Maureen/September 1988 16:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed one per Talk:Millennials#Notice_of_Sources_Saying_Millennials_are_between_1984_and_either_1999_or_2000. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

text: References 19 and 20 in this version. --NeilN talk to me 22:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of Sources Saying Generation X are People between 1965 and 1983 

message: There seems to be a lot that has been deleted? I am going through this article and adding back in the sources I references, while at the same time making sure the other legitimate sources are left alone. I seem to remember larger paragraphs. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 12:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it would be more constructive to find new information rather than adding deleted paragraphs.172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Agree, re: divorce. It's an interesting topic that has been much discussed, so probably worthy of inclusion as long as context is provided. I have no problem with reinstating old info, as long as it is worthy. Might be worth checking article history+talk to see if there was a reason for removal. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't agree and I'm not sure why you would include a blog called GenNyu as your source.  Please add high quality information to the page.  Also, I noticed that in the past you have (for some reason) been pushing the year 1983 into these articles. Could you explain why? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding stuff back in 

message: Citations 4 and 5 are youtube videos of billy idol songs, not evidence of the statement made. Where is the original quote of Douglas Coupland mistakenly attributing the original name to somewhere else?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.178.157 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at ref. #3 for the answer to your question.104.173.225.10 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References for Douglas Copland attributing the title to Billy Idol erroneously  

message: With all of the multitudes of professed beginning and ending birth years, I can't understand why some sociologist hasn't taken an average of the more credible publications such as Tulgan, Strauss & Howe, Foot, etc. For example, Carla Patalano (A Study of the Relationship Between Generational Group Identification and Organizational Commitment: Generation X Vs. Generation Y, 2008) cites 30 different publications; with equal consideration given the average for beginning birth year is 1964 and ending birth year 1978. To me, that ends the argument altogether. Ledboots (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would one generation be a 14 year span and another one is a 22 year span? Even the dictionary says a cultural generation is at least 20 to 30 years each.104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider a dictionary the final word with such a broad definition. Up until the late 1980's, Baby Boomers were widely believed to encompass an 18 year span. Ledboots (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already gives a range of birth dates. This information was debated over a long period of time. Based on your talk page -- you already know that. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you being adversarial? Just because there is a range, doesn't make it necessarily correct. I'm only trying to improve the article, and it's ok if it doesn't. Ledboots (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average bracketing birth years 

message: There is evidence Generation X consist of people whose births were between 1965 and 1983. How could I gather proper evidence of that? How could I prove Generation X are between 1965 and 1983 in the United States? Angela Maureen (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already gives a range of birth dates. This information was debated over a long period of time. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation X People are Born between 1965 and 1983 

message: Facing the Draft, especially for the Vietnam War is the single event the divides these two groups, it affects every facet of their experience in the formative teenage years including music, art, and choices about future.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.67.215.8 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Event that Separates Boomers from Gen X'ers 

message: Does anyone really set any store by labels like "baby boomer", "gen-xer", "millennial" etc? There are many accidents associated with birth - epoch, location, ethnicity, sexual orientation etc. My friends have a completely random distribution across all of these and it has never occurred to me to stereotype them under any such headings.81.130.80.62 (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN talk to me 19:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone really care? -- Yes. 

message: The term Baby Busters specifically redirects to this article, yet no mention of the term (which predates the somewhat derogatory "Generation X" by quite a bit) is made in the article. I'd suggest that be rectified... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baby Bust" or "Baby Busters" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130701155250/http://www.notterconsulting.com/Articles/generationaldive.html to http://www.notterconsulting.com/Articles/generationaldive.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Gen Xers will join the “idealist generation” in encouraging the celebration of individual effort and business risk-taking"
as generations before and since have done.
"As a result, Xers will spark a renaissance of entrepreneurship in economic life"
entrepreneurship never went away anywhere.
"Customers, and their needs and wants (including Millennials) will become the North Star for an entire new generation of entrepreneurs".
no more or less than any other genegration. Yet more cobblers
Just because someone writes something doesn't make it of any value. 
86.10.62.169 (talk) 08:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is reliable and they have written books on the generations subject.  2606:6000:610A:9000:5DA0:7E4:1677:8A5A (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  junk quote 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110722215457/http://www.bc.anglican.ca/pages/news/garynicolosimarch08.html to http://www.bc.anglican.ca/pages/news/garynicolosimarch08.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The addition of this section is intended to very briefly and generally broach the issue concerning thousands of Gen X. Chiefly, that many of the year ranges given often fail to include, or over-include, those born the in the late-70s and early-80s, for both the Gen X and Millennial generations. The section consists of a mere two sentences; it is not an attempt to start an article or topic that isn't germane to Generation X. It contains ample citiations. I'd be happy to rework or change the section or content  as desired, but baring any superseding policy considerations, I don't think this otherwise unaddressed topic should be entirely censored out of the article. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean. We have an article regarding Lewis and Clark Expedition. You wouldn't normally ask why its also briefly addressed on the Oregon trail page. Why do you seemingly have such a vendetta against broaching this topic? Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please tell us why Generation Catalano should be included on a page about Generation X? Wwwma (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you will please take a moment to look, the content is only mentions that page and topic as it's simply one idea/name for the larger issue I'm raising. How about this, we remove any mention of generation Catalano. Would that make you more comfortable with the edit? Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I have submitted an AfD on Generation Catalano, as I do not feel a one-off Slate article on the name merits an article, when other terms have not been given their own articles (and in fact, some of them have been deleted.  Justinm1978 (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "micro-generations", such as Xennials, [[Generation Catalano]], The Lucky Ones, Inclusion & self-identification debate

message: User talk:Wwwma - you know I heart you and all your passion for the topic, so I'm trying to avoid the kurfluffle that occurred last time (and in that respect, thank you for solely using your user account this time). Any chance you could link to the consensus convo you are citing for the terminology of the the intro? I will then duly shut my mouth :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll if you look back through the archives you'll see all the discussions over a long period of time (many years in fact).  It doesn't seem productive to relitigate the dates over and over again.  If you want to remove "most" and "often" then it could read like this "Demographers and commentators use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s". Wwwma (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough my friend, perhaps it is unfair of me to bring up the contention and then necessitate you to find the sections in question when doing so appears to be cumbersome. In truth, I only asked as your mention of it made it sound like something you may have quickly had at hand. No big deal. I should say however, that while I'm no master of searching the archives, it would appear that the debate on dates (insofar as I could find) revolved most often about which dates should be the more or less conventional and the like. I think in this way, there is far little (if any) disagreement between our positions. My main concern is regarding whether or not "most" is a weasel word, that doesn't get a pass on its use in the intro as the dates we do formally cite so often appear outside a nice, clean "early-60s to early-80s" range. I will be the first to admit it could be wrong on this issue, and I appreciate your conciliatory candor, so how about this? I'll post it up for a neutral, third opinion and see what some fresh eyes might think. In all honestly, it was only just recently that I learned just how much synthesis could be allowably used in the intro, so perhaps there is a similarly vast clearance on weasely sounding words there as well? :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Wwwma (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most vs often...sigh 

message: Using exact dates for those on the cusp, when those exact dates are only supported by one of the multiple references seems like original research, because the way this is written it is attributing those dates to the content from the other refs which do not use those dates. Changed this to late 1970s to early 1980s as this is supported by multiple sources.  Also, this section in general seems problematic in terms of original research. Perhaps some more experienced editors could take a look at it. Some of the ref links don't seem to work, but I couldn't find a reference supporting naming this sub-generation "generation Oregon Trail", instead only a mention of that computer game as something people on the cusp might happen to remember. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, I see that this source actually did use phrase "Oregon Trail Generation" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-garvey/the-biggest-and-best-difference-between-millennials_b_7438370.html.--DynaGirl (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research on "Inclusion and self-identification debate" section 

message: I think this article should be restructured to be similar to other generation articles. It seems this article should have a separate section for “date and age range defining”, similar to the millennials and generation z articles. Currently, that info is mixed in with other details in the “characteristics” section, but this seems hard to read. Also, I don’t think it’s good to have separate sections for “Canada”, “UK”  and “Austrailia” . Structuring the article this way seems to suggest the U.S. is the default, which seems contrary to Wikipedia. Also, perhaps to make it so the characteristics section is easier to read,  it could be split into separate sub-sections for characteristics as children, characteristics as adolescents, characteristics as adults, considering this is an older cohort. 
I was planning on starting to work on such changes, to try to make this article more readable and informative, but since it would constitute  a significant change to the status quo, wanted to open discussion first.--DynaGirl (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. Generations, something which seemingly should be well-defined, with understandable parameters and definitions, always seem to be all over the place. Bringing some uniformity to the articles is a good step in that direction. One of the big reasons why this occurs might be because no one entity can really claim to be the definitive authority on these constructs. Wikipedia might be the closest thing to such, and all the more reason to bring more consistency. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restructuring to be similar to other generation articles 

message: User:SolomonSalem, the lead has said researchers and demographers use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s for a long time. This has been the wording at least for months (and I think for years). Per WP:BRD, please attain talk page consensus for your desired changes to the lead instead of continuing to change these dates. The dates in the body of the article show about half the demographers/researchers use 1961 as starting date while about half use 1965, and the reason for the debate is explained. We could mention the debate in the lead as well, but I think it's probably unnecessary because both dates fall in the WP:STATUSQUO text which is "ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s". However, your repeated changing of the lead to say this generation starts in mid 60s leaves out what about half the demographers/researchers say.
For the date range and defining section, please limit sources to those from demographers/researchers. This is an old cohort and we have so many quality sources to chose from that we don't need to rely on random non-notable staff writers or news-bloggers writing articles such as "Generation X has less Sex" for dates. Relying on such sources, especially for unusually late dates such as your desired end date of 1985 for Generation X is wp:undue. Of the sources you recently added for a 1985 end date, only this one appears to maybe be from a credible researcher/demographer: http://www.craigweiland.com/thesis/lit.php. You attribute this to the University of Missouri. I left that in the article for now, but do you have a source that links craigweiland.com to the University of Missouri? It doesn't say that anywhere on the website and it's not clear at this point if this is from notable researcher/demographer or student or just someone's random website. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the http://www.craigweiland.com/thesis/lit.php ref. No evidence that this website is connected to a notable researcher from the University of Missouri has been provided. Considering the link has "thesis" in the title, it seems probable even if it tied to University of Missouri, it's student research. On top of this, the link no longer seems to work. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Probably because much of the research on generations is done by various ad agencies hoping to better target demographic cohorts in order to sell them things. --DynaGirl (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: There's a current discussion on Talk:Millennials regarding the dates from Survivor (U.S. TV series) that might be of interest to readers of this article. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Millennials#Dates_from_Survivor_TV_series --DynaGirl (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates from Survivor TV series    

message: Either this article needs re-introducing as a purely or largely US term referring to US citizens or it needs extensive rewriting. I couldn't even start to edit it to remove the bias. There are some things which were international issues: AIDS, birth control and so on, but 'post-integration', 'crack epidemic', cult of the adult... they don't resonate with me as a Gen X Brit and I doubt they would if I were from anywhere else. Btljs (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm currently collecting references to add a section on GenX music/entertainment and a lot of it UK Centric. Also, I don't think answer would be major rewrite or removing the US content, but rather adding more content from the UK, Canada, etc.  Are there political/cultural examples from the UK that you recall as a GenX'er from the UK that you can suggest to expand the article? The article currently contains recent employment research from UK, content from France, as well as dates from Australia and Canada.  The article previously contained separate sections for Australia, Canada etc, but it was mostly just dates with little in the way of characteristics to flesh out the rest of the article after the creation of the separate date range and defining section.  --DynaGirl (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Centric 

message: I noticed the previously very brief lead was recently expanded. This seems like a great idea, as the previous lead didn't give much info beyond dates, but a lot of the new lead seemed copied and pasted from body of article. I summarized the recently expanded lead in order to avoid repeating text in body of article and attempted to provide an overall summary of the article. I also removed the references, because if I understand correctly, repeating these references in the lead section isn't necessary. --DynaGirl (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaroneditor1, I didn't add the specific dates/ages. That was done by various IPs. Now that the article is locked down, hopefully such edit warring will be reduced.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

text: No problem, and thanks for restoring earlier version with the various date ranges used. I can see the argument for more succinct dates, if they can accurately reflect the various ranges, but I tend to agree that it's best to use the various ranges, even if it's longer, because it leads to less conflict and better summarizes the date range and defining section of the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160703075922/http://booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William+Strauss.aspx to http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William+Strauss.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160808195038/https://www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/97_Strauss.php to https://www.angelo.edu/events/university_symposium/97_Strauss.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116084906/http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov:80/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011 to http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529155632/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/sawhill/200705.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/sawhill/200705.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: DynaGirl and any other editors who want to comment, could you please review this sentence in the lead "Generation X is a relatively smaller demographic cohort “sandwiched” between two larger demographic cohorts, the Baby boomers and the Millennials."?
There are several problems with it:
It's a duplicate sentence already found under the "Characteristics" section below and the words "sandwiched between" and "relatively smaller" are awkward.
In the second paragraph, Jon D. Miller's research/words are used like this "research describes Gen X adults as active, happy, and as achieving a work-life balance" (someone removed the ref.) But in that report, Miller says that Gen X is a large generation at "84 million Americans". See http://home.isr.umich.edu/files/2011/10/GenX_Report_Fall2011.pdf
Further down the Gen X page Strauss and Howe are used as experts. However, in a recent Forbes article, Neil Howe "estimates that today Gen X comprises roughly 87 million adults". See http://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generation-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5-of-7/#3f6960f85d2a
Additionly, down the page it says "in a 2012 article for the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, George Masnick wrote that the "Census counted 82.1 million" Gen Xers in the U.S." http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/11/defining-generations.html
And if you add up the numbers in this U.S. Census report there are approximately 83-84 million Gen Xers in the U.S. See page four http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
The words "sandwiched between" is awkward. Its not used that way on any other the other generation pages.
DynaGirl I noticed that you've improved the page and care about the integrity of the generation pages in general so I thought I would ask you. Thank you.128.125.252.192 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that many people in that number aren't always included in Generation X, the upper bound are sometimes lumped with Baby Boomers and the lower bound with Millennials, and in fact the years with the highest birth rates are the ones not always included with the Generation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:403:3F70:99FA:284D:2C1D:1380 (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede 

message: I moved the new "Arts and Culture" sub-section out of young adult section and into a separate section, so editors can add content from any age, and added MTV to this section (which is sort of borderline childhood/young adult). I think the addition of an Arts & Culture section is a good idea and I'll try to expand on it by adding content regarding television  from book Gen X TV: The Brady Bunch to Melrose Place, when I get a chance, which also spans childhood as well as adulthood. I also added undue weight section tag to music section, to encourage editors to expand section beyond just Grunge music. Grunge is obviously important, but section should be expanded to include other alternative music and also rap and hip hop. I added a few lines about rap and hip hop to start off. --DynaGirl (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Arts & Culture section  

message: I seem to recall a conversation with a friend (he was born in 1968 and I was born in 1967) where I asked him where the term came from. His explanation was that it was from the Roman Numeral 10, X, and that it was because it represented the 10th generation since the Declaration of Independence, with a generation generally representing a twenty year period and 1976 being near the midpoint of the generation. Anyone seen any references backing that up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.169.231 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a lot of reading on the topic of generations, and I've never seen that. --DynaGirl (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Always thought a generation was 25 years. Can't see 20 as the average age of a mother or 40 of a grandmother. Btljs (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 

message: :Template:Edit semiprotected
I propose to remove this wording below in quotes from the lead because it's already covered in the body of the article. We should avoid making endless lists of things that may or may not describe an entire generation. For example, we could add 10,000 different things positive and negative that occurred from 1980 until 1999. 
Today, Gen X is not associated with the grunge genre that was popular in the early 1990s. That statement is clearly not very accurate (should we add The Boy Band era in the late 90s in the lead too?).
"As adolescents and young adults, they were dubbed the “MTV Generation” and characterized as slackers and as cynical and disaffected; at the same time, they saw the emergence of AIDS. Gen X is associated with the loud, nihilistic, introspective music genre called grunge and with the rap of the golden age of hip hop, which raised social issues".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.42 (talk • contribs) 
:I removed the recent changes to the lead. They didn't seem to flow and I agree that Gen X is not really currently associated with grunge music. I left the part about being characterized as slackers and disaffected as young adults in. This has been in the lead a long time and seems to provide context, as leaving it in provides text regarding the cohort in childhood, adolescence and adulthood  --DynaGirl (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I removed recently added notable people section, because it was completely unreferenced. Also, it seemed to have some unusual additions like  Beyoncé, who I'm pretty sure I've never seen described as a Gen X performer. She's born in 1981, so has a cusp birthday, but by many sources she would actually be considered a Millennial. --DynaGirl (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Beyonce can be removed if her birth year isn't considered part of the generation, but Kurt Cobain for instance should be on it. The list seems notable to me, I think it should be restored. J390 (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs reliable sources. We shouldn't have a notable people section based on who Wikipedia editors think are notable. If we're going to have such a section, it needs to be based on who reliable sources identify as notable Gen Xers, and actually, Kurt Cobain is already mentioned in the music section which is referenced.  Also, I'm not sure we need such a list. For example, it  seems referenced notable people can be included in the existing sections such as the Arts and Culture section etc.  --DynaGirl (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced notable people section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/17548-1/William%2BStrauss.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/rankings/States/Generation-X-Volunteer-Rates/2011
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081123092309/http://citypages.com/databank/18/854/article3420.asp to http://citypages.com/databank/18/854/article3420.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: They found much of the cultural identity of the baby boomer generation is associated with the "older boomers", while half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby boomer cohort and a third of those born between 1956 and 1964 actively identified as members of Generation X.  This gave rise to the creation of a "Tweener" Generation called Generation Jones, described by the author Jonathan Pontell as those born from approximately 1954 to 1967. TRCIII (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , Please see above talk page section. You've yet to address that there's no reference for "Tweener" etc. The sentence you are requesting to be added appears to be original research. Also, the source you listed for Jonathan Pontrell does not use dates 1954-1967. It uses 1965. --DynaGirl (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017 

message: This article (and the other "Generation" articles listed) ignore the fact that there is a widely-accepted "Tweener" Generation sandwiched between The Baby Boomers and the Gen X'ers.  It was first posited by the author Jonathan Pontell to describe those born from approximately 1954 to 1967, https://web.archive.org/web/20110713115711/http://www.jonathanpontell.com/aboutgenjones.htm although other sources state it did not start until 1956.  Generation Jones was the name given to the half of the "late boomers" that did not associate themselves with the values of the boomer generation (and did not reap its benefits, because they were born too late), but were too old to be generally affiliated or self-identify with Gen Xers.  There's a handy Wikipedia article with many more references describing Generation Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones and there are other articles and discussions all over the net about them. They are an accepted target demographic for marketing, as well as being considered a rough voting bloc with a propensity for making up the "swing vote". 
I have proposed adding a single line to this article, including an internal link to the "Generation Jones" Wikipedia article, at the end of the following paragraph:
They found much of the cultural identity of the baby boomer generation is associated with the "older boomers", while half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby boomer cohort and a third of those born between 1956 and 1964 actively identified as members of Generation X.  
This gave rise to the creation of a "Tweener" Generation called Generation Jones, described by the author Jonathan Pontell as those born from approximately 1954 to 1967.
Please consider this addition to the overall discussion.
:We would need a reference for your proposed sentence:  before including it in the article, otherwise it's original research.  I'm not aware of any reliable sources calling Generation Jones a "Tweener" generation. It's not really in between, as it often includes a large portion of the Baby Boomers and a small portion of Gen X, depending on which dates are used. 1967 seems to be a late end date. Generation Jones is often described as ending earlier than this.  It is listed in See Also section, so Generation Jones is already currently linked in the article. --DynaGirl (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Generation Jones is a valid term and has a wikipage. My point is it's not typically described as "in between" baby boomers and Gen X but more as the latter half of the Baby Boomers and a small portion of Gen X, depending on dates used. Also it's not clear where you are getting 1967. The sources you've linked use 1965.--DynaGirl (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generation Jones 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129055856/http://www.footwork.com/book.html to http://www.footwork.com/book.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: To whoever put in the Macintosh photo with the silly caption about it being the computer of the Gen Xers (I don't have time right now to dig into the edit history):
You've got to be kidding...A computer in Jan. 1984 that sold for $2500. The CPI inflation calculator indicates that in today's money that's $6004. For this small fortune you got 128 KB RAM and one 400 KB floppy drive...and monochrome monitor. Think on that for a minute. What Gen Xers could afford that? The Mac may have looked cool in Hollyweird movies but in real life normal people did not get Macs.
Anyone who lived during this time will tell you that ordinary people got Atari 800s or Commodore 64s. We were a little better off and had a TRS-80. But a Mac? The computer that almost sank Apple (unfortunately, did not). I am contemplating removing this rubbish from the page. Objections?
Oh yeah, One More Thing: how about a reference. Considering the audacity of the supposition, two or more.
 After all, Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Proof. Wikkileaker (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Photos should have sources and/or at least context. Someone born in 1979 would have used a number of advanced computer systems to play video games, including the Macintosh photo that was removed. It's probably better to leave out a photo unless you have references that enhance the readers understanding and explain that there are a range of systems that were used because there is a range of birth dates in the article. Thanks. Catcomm89 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption for the Odyssey photo had a wikilink to the article which is chock full of sources and context.Wikkileaker (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macintosh for Gen Xers ??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Generation X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120731004847/http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/trenton.htmL to http://www.cjsonline.ca/articles/trenton.htmL
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Readers here might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Oregon Trail Generation#Requested move 17 November 2017. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move discussion on related page 

message: Being a 1965 baby, I suggest the Hip Hop section of this article include additional rappers who contributed greatly to the growth of the Rap Music genre:  Whodini, Kurtis Blow & The Sugar Hill Gang. These three entertainers (groups) helped to mold and define this industry with major contributions to the music industry at that time, as well as enjoyed a large group of followers. Those of us who enjoyed this genre during this era, enjoyed the FUN of it. In the beginning, it didn't proparate social reform. It didn't highlight on the injustices of America:  it was simply entertainment. Rapper's Delight, the all time, most known rap song that everyone who follows hip hop ever, was just talk. Rap about music, the beat and bad chicken for dinner. Funny and fun. Whodini's song, Friends, talked about life and the struggles within friendships. Kurtis Blow's song Basketball, talked about just that. Playing basketball. All major songs that were played at most nightclubs and were the songs that would pack the dance floor, but also just entertained. Whodini and Kurtis Blow would be the headliners in concert tours with the Fat Boys being part of their tour. To truly describe the foundation of hip hop and to exclude these particular entertainers is nearly sanctimonious to the roots of this genre. 
In the next section, under Indie Films, I suggest that the Hughes Brothers (Albert & Allen) are included in editing along with Spike Lee. 
The Hughes Brothers movies Menace II Society & Dead Presidents are still movies worth watching, portraying Black America and the American plight associated with it, along with societal revelations of a subculture of pain, struggle and survival. Menace II Society is as profound as Boyz in the Hood, depicting Southern California's inner city battles in the urban areas. Dead Presidents portrays a similar  display of Black America, after the Vietnam War, and one man's struggle and failure to re assimilate into American society as a Black veteran. The documentary American Pimp is a powerful movie about the underworld of prostitution, opening this world of pain and misery up to those of us who have never experienced the effects of it. The Hughes Brothers contribution as Indie filmmakers deserve to be recognized and included respectively. 
Spike Lee's name speaks daring success. He dared to open the door to sensitive topics, such as color-ism in the African American culture with the movie School Daze. He exposed racism that exists outside of the associated territories of the South with Do The Right Thing:  a movie that addressed racism and violence in NYC, during a time that incidents such as Howard Beach were headlines in major newspapers. His movie She's Gotta Have It explored female sexuality in the black culture, which was an undiscussed subject in the black community during this era. The list is commendable regarding his contribution to the Indie industry during the 80s and 90s. Because the timeline for Gen X is varied and stretched with no definitive start date, he is worthy of consideration in my opinion. His contributions have been recognized and rewarded, thus making him a worthy candidate to be included. 
DMPRLP1265
DMPRLP1265 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions 

message: Someone requested a cite in the lead, about the history and place of the generation after the baby boom, and the sobriquet baby bust - I supplied the cite: a real, reliable source encyclopedia, which has it in the lead - putting the generation in place and time and demographics is very much lead information, as is giving alternative names.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead doesn't require citations, and it is suppose to provide a short summary of the referenced content in the body of the article and to serve as brief introduction to the article. Content that is only peripherally mentioned in body of article, such as the content you've been adding about the baby bust terminology, seems to probably be undue weight in the lead. I didn't remove it earlier because it seems like a minor issue, but technically, it probably shouldn't be in the lead.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No. First of all, you misrepresent the sentence, it's not only about the name, its about history and demographics.  Second, your comment is hypocritical, when you read the other things in that paragraph. Third, Your comment is false original research, when the reliable source cited is an encyclopedia and it has it in the lead -- indeed, it's your comment that is pushing your own POV contrary to RS and the NPOV policy - its clearly not undue.  Finally, you're wrong about the WP:LEAD guideline, it requires just such historical context as this and if someone demands a citation in the lead it goes in per policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might misunderstand my earlier comment and WP:LEAD. Basically, if something isn't discussed in the body or article, or if barely discussed in body of article, like the baby buster terminology, it doesn't usually belong in the lead. Very often editors come along with new content, and they drop it in the lead instead of the body of article where it usually belongs. After it's significantly covered in the body of article, then it makes more sense to add it to the lead. However, I never even moved your recently added sentence out of the lead. That's between you and another editor. --DynaGirl (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is extensive discussion in the body of the article in several sections describing, comparing, contrasting, between the Baby-Boom Generation and GenX(Baby-Bust) - the lead sentence introduces that demographic/history in conformance with LEAD. (And yes, I was fine with or without the cite but LEADCITE gives the deference to the one who wants it.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a ref. that shows why its super significant to include this information in the lead. It's already covered three times in the body of the article. It fits better under "birth dates". It's covered in "Birth Dates" and in "Origin of the Term". The Jackson ref. is there too. If you do a Google search on the term, Millennial parents and their lower fertility rates in the U.S. are currently causing a new "bust", so the term applies to birth rates and not a social generation. We're discussing a social generation on the page but it could include some demographic information in the body.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboutbo2000 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for cite in lead

message: I disagree, My generation should be mentioned as having to take care of aging parents as well as children.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.229.69 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen X 

message: I removed the recently added section on Punk Rock because it was completely unsourced.  I have no opposition to a subsection on Punk Rock but it needs to be sourced and the sources should link the music to Generation X. DynaGirl (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that any text regarding Gen X and punk rock needs WP:reliable sources connecting these two topics.  No reliable sources were cited. As written, it appears to be WP:Original Research which goes against Wikipedia policy.  DynaGirl (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been restored, new and improved with citations. --Shoreranger (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this section so big compared to the article? 2606:6000:6111:8E00:7D25:984F:ACFC:9F5D (talk) 03:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punk Rock  

message: I removed the recently added Globalize tag at the top of the article per WP:DETAG. There was no discussion started on talk page and article as a whole seems fairly global with info from South Africa, Australia, Russia, Canada, US, UK etc.  However, I notice somewhere along the line someone has added “United States” subheadings. I’m not sure this is helpful.  If info in a certain section seems too U.S centric, it seems preferable to add a "globalize section" tag to encourages editors to add more multinational content to that section, instead of adding a header which limits the info in that section to only one country.  I removed the United States subheading in the Economy section (the section actually contains info from the U.S and Canada) and added a globalize section tag instead. DynaGirl (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure we need a globalize tag because we could theoretically put a globalize tag on every section in the article if it doesn't discuss other countries. Does this makes sense or should we leave it?Aboutbo2000 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aboutbo2000, the entire article does not need a globalization tag. It contains info from from South Africa, Australia, Russia, Canada, US, France, UK etc. The economy section needs globalization, which is why tag was added to that section and also User:Dimadick helpfully added the tag requesting an expert on economy assist with that sub-section, which you've been repeatedly removing without explanation or discussion. Please respect WP:BRD and do not continue to add a U.S subsection header to the economy section and please do not continue to remove the tag requesting an expert in economy without attaining talk page consensus. DynaGirl (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize tag 

message: There is a current RfC on a related page. Please see RfC regarding how Xennials should be described in the opening sentence of the lede . DynaGirl (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xennials RFC 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Greatest Generation which affects the Generations template on this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Please add citation https://www.workfront.com/campaigns/state-of-work after this sentence to cite the state of work report: In the United Kingdom, a 2016 study of over 2,500 office workers conducted by Workfront. Samanthaleo (talk)
:  The page contains links to multiple PDFs. The closest match I could find is this report from 2016, but it's a U.S. report. Do you have the URL to the report itself? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Done  RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 15:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019 

message: Change the 24th Citation link Masnick, George (28 November 2012). "Defining the Generations". Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. Retrieved 29 May 2013
http://housingperspectives.blogspot.com/2012/11/defining-generations.html. to
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/defining-the-generations-redux/
it is the same article, but the housing perspectives website has changed, therefore the original link redirects you to the jchs home page. Scpruett (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done NiciVampireHeart 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2019 

message: , the source actually does state that "Robert Capa employed 'Generation X' as the moniker for a global generation" (p. 31) and at the end of page 32 states "Capa's use of the term 'Generation X'.  It's not clear that the editors used it first. I am not confident that your edit was correct.  Hopefully we can find other sources which are more clear.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of the term ''Generation X'' 

message: Over half of this section seems set up to give weight to Strauss & Howe's birth dates.  The Baby Boomer self-identification section is unrelated to Gen X birth dates and only serves to validate Strauss & Howe's birth dates.  The relevant text is below.  I propose the following changes:
A 2009 study from MetLife examining the boomers split their cohort into "older boomers", which they defined as born between 1946 and 1955, and "younger boomers", which they defined as born between 1956 and 1964. They found that most of the "older boomers" embraced the term "baby boomers" to describe themselves. Half of the "younger boomers" were averse to being associated with the baby-boomer cohort, they overwhelmingly rejected the label "Generation Jones", and a third actively identified as members of Generation X.[17] In a 2015 survey, the Pew Research Center found that 79% of all boomers embraced the term.[18]
Demographers William Strauss and Neil Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981.  They argue that those born between 1961 and 1964 are part of Generation X rather than the Baby Boomers because they are distinct from the Boomers in terms of cultural identity and shared historical experiences.
Demographers William Strauss and Neil Howe rejected the frequently used 1964 end-date of the baby-boomer cohort (which results in a 1965 start-year), saying that a majority of those born between 1961 and 1964 do not self-identify as boomers, and that they are culturally distinct from boomers in terms of shared historical experiences. Howe says that while many demographers use 1965 as a start date for Generation X, this is a statement about fertility in the population (birth-rates which began declining in 1957, declined more sharply following 1964) and fails to take into consideration the shared history and cultural identity of the individuals. Strauss and Howe define Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981.[19][20][21][22]
Some researchers use dates similar to Strauss and Howe's such as the University of Michigan's Generation X Report, a quarterly research report from The Longitudinal Study of American Youth, which defines Generation X as those born between 1961 and 1981.[23]
Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the inserted paragraph still cite the sources [19][20][21][22]? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 15:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what the books were referencing, but the link to the interview seems to cover that information so I deleted them.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

text:  My edit was reverted "pursuant to Wikipedia policy".  Any idea what that means?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please explain why you reverted 's edit? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 03:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Ranting aside, point is (78 to 82) was never considered GenX by anyone but some bean counters in 2017.  And, millions of sources for over thirty years will back this up.  Is this a government reference guid, or is it information based on reality.  Reality is that '78-'82 never was GenX or GenY, and beancounters don't make reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.6.188 (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth Dates- Undue Weight 

message: Errrr what is that Michael Jackson image all about is it someone GCSE art homework? 78.69.200.4 (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The Generation Map linked in footnote 41 is incorrect. I can't edit the notes section myself, but here's the correct link if an editor can replace it:
https://2qean3b1jjd1s87812ool5ji-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/McCrindle-Research_ABC-03_The-Generation-Map_Mark-McCrindle.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswba (talk • contribs) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Jimj wpg (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link needs restoring 

message: Stereotypes of Gen X young adults also included that they were "bleak, cynical, and disaffected". Such stereotypes prompted sociological research at Stanford University to study the accuracy of the characterization of Gen X young adults as cynical and disaffected. Using the national General Social Survey, the researchers compared answers to identical survey questions asked of 18–29-year-olds in three different time periods. Additionally, they compared how older adults answered the same survey questions over time. The surveys showed 18–29-year-old Gen Xers did exhibit higher levels of cynicism and disaffection than previous cohorts of 18–29-year-olds surveyed; however, they also found that cynicism and disaffection had increased among all age groups surveyed over time, not just young adults, making this a period effect, not a cohort effect. In other words, adults of all ages were more cynical and disaffected in the 1990s, not just Generation X.
Really? Not everyone is/was cynical. Maybe it's because I have Aspergers (we tend to be happy go lucky types) or something. Does that mean virtually all of my classmates back in the 70s and 80s were "cynical" and they bullied me because I was NOT? Is this (cynycism) why there are so many crazy, psychotic 40-50 year olds roaming the streets nowadays? They were just cynical? This section should be written in such a way that it doesn't paint all of us Gen Xers the same. I certainly wasn't cynical in the 80s. Jimj wpg (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen X Cynicism 

message: I've been monitoring and contributing to this article for a long time, and I see the bullsh*t continues! Here we have the lead paragraph stating one thing, Generation X is generally from the early to mid sixties, which is really as specific as you can get with this topic, and in the same breath, ending it with "widely accepted from 1965 to 1980". That comment TOTALLY slants the article away from what is previously stated. For the sake of consistency, why not also put 1961 to 1981, which is ALSO widely accepted? In fact, it may be MORE widely accepted! So, here we have Wikipedia backing the original research and locking the article to prevent editing wars. This kind of crap has happened so many times before, and leaves you with the impression that opinions rule, at the very least, with this article! Ledboots19 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Under what username have you been contributing? Is it Media67?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Current name, minus the 19 (recognition of a Jeff Beck tune). Cumulus Cloud wholesale scrapped this article down to one large paragraph, and the Wikipedia article monitor defended them, and ultimately locked the article. After a long while, the article gained much of the information back that was deleted. At the end of the day? You can't set hard boundaries on this topic. Yet, they try and try! We all know the Census Bureau's definition of Baby Boomer created the leading edge parameters of Gen X by default. But, that may not be the correct interpretation and the Census Bureau certainly isn’t the final word on the matter. Ledboots19 (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed 1965 to 1980 from the lead for now.  Why do you favor 1961 to 1981?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm observing the bracketing years put forth by Strauss and Howe and their extensive study on generations. Ledboots19 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you favor Strauss and Howe's research?  They seem to be outdated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It may be older, but it is still solid research. I don't think anything earthshattering has come along since, has it? No groundbreaking piece of research about generations, which is pseudo-sociologic anyway, that definitively suggest what defines Generation X? Besides, studies such as Met-Life's, find that general identification is not absolute, and those born in 1965 and 1966 actually identify more with being a Boomer. Demographics and sociology both come into play in defining generations. At least demographers, such as David Foot, recognize that the whole "pig in a python" peak and valley as a whole concept does not work, and those at the tail end are different from those at the leading edge, at least by economic factors influenced by population shifts. Ledboots19 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's both older and rarely cited in modern research.  The Metlife studies are out of date too.  Generation X is a made up concept and as such it can be defined however people want.  It is most commonly defined as 1965 to 1980. Even if Strauss and Howe's theories were widely cited, their birth year definitions are not.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are one of the most cited credited authors right here in this article! Besides, the "13th Generation" publication may be older,  but Neil Howe continued publishing about Millennials up to relatively recently. I believe 1961 to 1981 is still widely cited. Whatever research defines it as 1965 to 1980 is doubtfully more common than 1961 to 1981. And how would you ever prove that it is the case and that the sources are more credible? Ledboots19 (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: .  You admitted you are assuming your preferred dates are more common without evidence, and that you don't believe it is possible to find evidence either way.  Regarding the many references to Strauss and Howe in this article, those are primary sources and should likely be removed.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't admit anything, and I sure don't want to debate it, which is a lesson in futility. I could care less what this website does, because this website is not the final word. Since the 90's, there is way too much differing opinion, whether supported or not by research, what the defining years are, so I'm in favor of leaving it general, like born in the sixties and seventies for example. Ledboots19 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  This website gives WP:WEIGHT "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." What you are describing, "" regardless of "", would be your own original research which is not appropriate for this website.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music 
It was created during Gen X generation in America, Def leppard, Motley Crue, Cinderella, Whitesnake, Bon Jovi, etc, popular television programs demonstrating the period was Headbangers Ball, MTV was almost fully consumed with metal for a period. It was a huge genre during late 70s into 1990. I respectfully think it should be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlabamaSouthern (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need further inclusion of the Heavy Metal & Glam rock musical genre,  

message: The article gives too much weight to the largely debunked Pew 1965+ hypothesis (and obvious parroting of this by Bloomberg, Washington Post, etc). The well researched and scholarly work by Strauss & Howe ought surely form part of the lede since the book gives clear and obvious examples of how this cohort dates from at least 1961, if not as early as 1960.
Someone born in 1961 was 16 or so when Punk Rock emerged.  The notion that these Individuals could remotely be categorised as Baby Boomers is clearly ridiculous. 
Wiki reports facts, but also applies judgements of such facts, where necessary.
Time to analyse? Hanoi Road (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinions are not supported by the sources.  The dates have been extensively discussed in this talk page.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

text: No.  Strauss & Howe's mythology has historical significance, but that is all.  Gen X begins after the Baby boomers, who end in 1964.  You are welcome to argue here that Baby boomers don't end in 1964, but I'm not going to legitimize this debate by participating anymore.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informed Research 

message: Forbes - which I've just checked - lists the starting point as 1961. Several other reputable sources do as well. It might be worth citing at least some of these. Aside from supporting the Strauss & Howe view, they act as a counterbalance to (the apparently random and subjective) 1965 figure.
If nobody objects, I'll include at least Forbes. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I object.  You have provided no sources showing that Forbes identifies Generation X as beginning in 1961.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes 

message: The generational parameters issue is at best subjective and nebulous;  at worst a petri-dish for proprietary views. The worst of it is on display here.
The Strauss & Howe conjecture should be mentioned in the lede. It is the go-to source for students of the generational timescales issue. There is no other. Pew has "stated" (?) that the start-date is 1965. Most other sources listed in support are undoubtedly derivative. I'm not aware of Bloomberg,  for example,  having engaged in specific research on the topic; rather parroting something that has been parroted ad-nauseam elsewhere; as with all the others.  Forbes go with 1961, which suggests that someone there  has at least taken the trouble to read Strauss & Howe and share a conclusion based on hard research and sound statistical models.
There is no "right" answer to this. It's essentially 1961+ versus 1965+. All Wiki can do is present the evidence in a balanced fashion. Entrenched, absolutist positions will not help. Strauss & Howe would seem to have the strongest case. If there is a stronger one, let's hear it. (I will not entertain uninformed trashing of that conjecture. It is rarely disputed and has certainly never been discredited,  so please make counter - arguments/comments as objective as possible - Butternut, take note).
At the very least,  I think the opposing 1961/1965 conjectures ought be mentioned in the lede,  with particular reference to Strauss & Howe.
Please chip in. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you've provided no secondary sources to support your opinion.  Books and articles written by Strauss and Howe are primary sources.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

text: This is not an RfC, and an RfC is not the appropriate next step.  Please see the WP:Teahouse for help on how to build consensus.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write Needed. RfC. 

message: I see how these American mainstreamers want to lock gen x from being FIXED because they want to erase somethings from my generation like music!!! There is NO mention in there about the rise of 80’s metal that was mostly created by gen x people born in the 60’s nor is there a mention about the genre Pantera created called groove metal!!! This is typical of the mainstreamers who only want known what they want & not the whole thing!!! Stop locking things saying it’s to stop vandalizing when it’s these people who lock these that are giving this site a bad reputation!!! Ariafaith314 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen x needs a complete & truthful list of info 

message: https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2014/08/27/generaiton-x-once-xtreme-now-exhausted-part-5of-7/  
Not sure if this link will work, but Googling "Gen x Forbes 1961" will bring it up. Clearly written by Howe, but in Forbes magazine,  which by implication sanctions the article as Forbes output.
Have just run across a Harvard Business Review which also uses the 1961 model. Hanoi Road (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles written by Neil Howe do not represent the opinions of Forbes; they represent the opinions of Neil Howe; see WP:RSPRIMARY.  Forbes more recently and more frequently cites 1965 to 1980 as the birth dates for Gen X.  Compare:  to   Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

text: The lead must reflect the body of the article.  The article does not give equal weight between 1961 and 1965.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works.  For starters you are not indenting your talk page comments per WP:INDENT.  Secondly, the lead section of a Wikipedia article is "not a news-style lead or 'lede' paragraph."  As for the content, please note that the article discusses both the popular and academic definitions of Generation X.  I have found a source which states that "birth year boundaries of Gen X are debated but settle somewhere around 1965–1980."  Lots of people write well-researched books; it doesn't make them relevant.  Strauss and Howe are not as influential as they once were, and their birth ranges are rarely used.  If you disagree the onus is on you to provide evidence.  Please note the existence of Cuspers.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbes Contradiction in article 

message: yes, we need reliable sources, but in my town everyone agrees that Baby Boomer is 1946-1959, Gen X 1960-1979, Millennial 1980-1999, Gen Z 2000-2019. perhaps contributors here should pin my dates as comparison or in finding sources. im assuming good faith, so good luck folks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.94.194 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous statement is inconsistent with current consensus, especially at the current version of Baby boomers.. See WP: Verifiability.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  my take