Talk:Generation X/Archive 2

message: I would like to know go to use this page please. I have an opinion about generation x and y. I think that generaton y should beging in 1975/1976 and the end of the Vietnam war (most of the troops returned home from the Vietnam war between 1972-1975). If the beginning of the "baby boomer generation" began 1945, 1946, then the baby boomers would be about 30 in 1975,1976. I would think that they would be prepared enough to marry and have children by then. Also, many of the troops of the Vietnam war came home by 1975 and it was the beginning of the discos craze (from what I learned in history). I would like to say that 1975/1976 (at the latest) is the beginning of generation y and 1990 (before the Gulf War) is the cutoff of generation y. 1991 with the beginning of the Gulf War sets the pase for generation z (or what you would refer to as the "new silent generation.)." The Clinton administration, the War in Iraq, the even more changes in technology, the internet and other changes in the 90's are definite markers of generation z. If we are figuring out a fifteen year generational gap then this generation will end in 2006. If we are figuring out a twenty year generational gap, then this generation would end in 2010. Then comes what society would say generation ? and what I would say "the generation the best is yet to come." Anyways I am in my late 20's now and I think that I am way too young to be labled as "ancient." I cannot really relate to generation xers per se as they think that "I'm too young, I was born very late 1976). P.S. I was also a sociology major (graduated in 2000 with honors and extra classes). I have lots to discuss about this!!!! Please e-mail me at tlh102000@yahoo.comSunshine10 23:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Early Y" Partition 

message: Anyone remember the Simpsons, first Gulf War, their childhood through the 80's and the musical burst of eurodance, grunge rock and gangsta rap from the late 80's and early 90's. There was I think a smaller generation between that of Gen X and Gen Y which were also the offspring of Baby Boomers - which my parents were. I know many people born from 1982 - 1984 who agree that they do not belong to Gen Y, and most of them refer to themselves as Gen X'ers - however I recently remembered in an episode of The Simpsons where someone asked Lisa and Bart what generation they were - and they said they were the MTV Generation, when asked how that felt like they replied "eh..." referring to the nihilistic feeling of that period with most kids and teens living through that generation. I do not agree in classifying the children of the 80s as Gen Y because they are the new Millennial children - they are in fact Thatcher's Children but not the Newmills in my opinion. I believe there should be a re-evalutation of the late Gen X - making those born from 1976 to 1984 part of the MTV Generation seeing as MTV was only launched by August 1st of 1981. Piecraft 20:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Generations are more than 9 years long. Call it a sub-cohort, if you will, but this idea of having "generations" that are 5-10 years long just doesn't make sense. Those of us at different ends of a generation may not be exactly the same in every detail, but we have broader similarities, and that's where generational theory comes in. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm happiest with a 1979 end date for Gen-X.  Add 18 years and you'll end up with 1997, when the pop songs of the Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears began to become popular, something that didn't jive with the rest of 1990s pop culture.
Still, it feels rather arbitrary.  Anything from 1976-1982 seems debatable to me.  Those years have traits of X and Y.
Juppiter 02:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus the purpose for Generation XY which falls within the boundaries between 1976 up until 1985, another seemingly "lost" and displaced generation gap similar to Generation Jones and the other lost Generations. Piecraft 13:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I'm bemused to find that Gen-X supposed goes all the way back to 1961. That's baby boomer territory. My take is that when the term was first coined, it was intended to describe people born in the 70's and perhaps early 80's and wasn't intended to describe a genuine whole generation. Maybe a span of 10 or even 15 years. Who is officially defining Gen-X to stretch from 1961 to the early 80's? Where is this coming from? -- KarlHallowell 06:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Writers Strauss and Howe defined their "13th Generation" (equivalent to Generation X) as from about 1961-1981 in the books Generations, 13th Gen, and The Fourth Turning. Their definitions have been pretty widely, though not at all universally, adopted. They have some good reasons for drawing the line at 1961, though of course it's a very fuzzy line. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that there's strong demographical reasons to group people born between 1946 and 1964 into the "baby boomer generation". There was after all a huge surge in births during this time. The subdivision of baby boomers into "early" and "late" probably addresses your concerns about cultural differences since the life experiences of those born at either end were completely different if for no other reason than the stronger competition for resources (eg, more expensive housing) and shakier economy when the later boomers were entering the working world. OTOH, Gen-X appears to be more a fairly narrow cultural division and there's no obvious reason why it should share overlap with the boomers. -- KarlHallowell 20:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  Maybe the boomer generation is really two generations.  Then we need to lobby for people to say early boomer, in which case those born in 1944 or 1943 could be put in.  Say 1943 to 1953 and then 1954 to 1964, because someone born in 1954 would turn draft age in 1972 just in time for the draft to end.  The first people not subject to the draft should be the either non-boomer boomer (a.k.a. late boomer) and those born in the ten years before would be the boommer-boomer or Early-Boomer. John wesley 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is veering into "original research". I imagine that there's some sort of documented demographic category subdivision here, but I don't have a reference. Perhaps the US Census Bureau has a working definition of these categories. -- KarlHallowell 22:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Date for Gen-X 

message: Hi, just thought I'd let you guys know this article has been hacked, by who I'm not sure - I have tried to revert it back to it's original form by checking through the history - but it appears the images are present in all the older versions as well, meaning this is a job for an admin to sort out and not a lowly editor like myself. Piecraft 17:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see this "hacking" in the history, and the article looks normal to me (well, someone blanked it just now, but it's already been fixed). What was it you saw? I don't see any images in the article at all. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to know the article was displaying several large pictures of the same thing, which was a photo of someone's penis throughout the entire article. I think it was more or less 5 huge photos of the same thing throughout the entire article with a signature which I can't clearly remember other than something like niggerz l0lerzzz or something like that... I'm sure I can't have been the only person to have seen this, because when I returned after it was gone, so either an admin cleared it up or the hacker reverted it. Piecraft 02:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, strange. Those edits don't show in the History at all. (Are admins allowed to remove vandalism edits from the page History? I didn't think so, but I could be wrong.) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 02:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gen X article hacked 

message: ManekiNeko please continue here, this thread is becoming far too dense and complicated to follow. Bottom line I have become weary with Wikipedia in general and will be leaving for some time - so do what you wish. I just find it a shame to get rid of an article that has purpose and is justified, especially when defining a generation that has little recognition in terms of its impact. We could argue and debate to our heart's content but this will neevr resolve any issues. I am of the MTV Gen sometimes known as the NO Gen (thus the peculiar and quirky problem we face currently in establishing ourselves) there is nothing that will change that. I along with 32,000,000 others and perhaps more who were born late 70s until mid 80s consider ourselves and understand to be defined as a generation as a whole, especially relevant to pop culture and the changing world of the time. Prove to me I am Gen Y then I will acknowledge everything you have said and surrender, but without proof that my peers and myself are Gen Y I do not believe it is right to shun or disregard our article. Because quite frankly there is no verification that our geenration is false, as the terms defining it and the fact that it is real is a recurrent theme not only around the Net by also in the media during the 90s. That is all I will say for now. Anyone else can feel free to carry this on... Piecraft 03:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, truthfully, I was going to say that I was going to get out of the discussion because it seems to be getting kind of circular and pointless. I will say that many of the references to "MTV Generation" you have mentioned (such as the Simpsons, etc.) were referring to Gen X, not the kids born immediately after. (Any late 80s reference is definitely to Gen X as Gen Xers were still relatively young at the time.) But nothing I say is going to change your mind, so there's not much point in continuing. Best of luck in whatever you call your generation; though, sadly, I don't think most of us get to define our own generation names; such names are almost always slapped on us by demographers, the media, etc. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 08:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continue debate here 

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

message: Hello folks, I really enjoyed reading the Gen X articles here. I took the liberty of adding some things, all very accurate, to the text. I am new to the wikipedia concept, so I'm not sure if I did it correctly, but I am sure if there are errors or etiquette problems we can fix them.
Thank you....Heath
:Hi, Heath!
:I tweaked that section slightly (just to tighten it up a bit, fix a couple of wikilinks, remove a couple of words that sounded like POV, etc.  (See WP:NPOV)). It's a pretty good overall look at the topic, I think! Thanks for posting it. By the way, to sign your posts here, you can just type ~~~~ at the end of your post and it will automatically fill in your info. Works better if you sign in with an account, though. ;) Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia! -- ManekiNeko | Talk 22:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long live the 80s 

message: This article is a complete mess, I can't even read anything from it coherent enough to define Generation X - I think editors who are devoted in keeping this article should attempt to sort this one out. 87.80.126.226 14:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but haven't had time to work on it -- it's going to be a big job, I think! Do you have any specific ideas that would help? It has been difficult to edit this one as there are a lot of folks devoted to keeping some of the current content, but the article could use some paring down. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently working on the MTV Generation article trying to clean it up and pull it back up to the standards of Wikipedia. As for this article I think it needs to be somewhat condensed - there's too much waffle at the moment, it should be broken down as to what the academic or media definition of the term is along with a few references in society and popular culture. 87.80.126.226 16:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there are continuous rightwing distortions, like using the word 'peaceniks' and relying on out-of-date ideas about how conservative younger people supposedly are. Mention of Seattle/WTO and recent younger-voter numbers in elections would help. 12.75.136.88 10:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is a mess 

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

message: Now that the article has been unprotected, I see the date shenanigans are beginning again. Here's my perspective on it:
*the dates here should be purposefully inclusive not exclusive, to include the varying definitions
*however, the primary definition of the generation should not include specific dates at all, but should be something more broad like "generally born in the 60s and 70s" or "came to adulthood in the 1980s and 1990s", as that is really the only definition that I think we can say is a widely accepted one
*any specific dates listed should be sourced, and the sources need to be cited properly or linked to within the article 
The dates there now have been sourced. If editors come in and start deleting sourced dates -- especially when replacing them with non-sourced ones -- that seems to me to be a problem. I'm generally going to revert such edits, but I hope people making those changes will come in here to the Talk page and discuss them instead so that, if they have useful sources, we can cite those.
Generally, though, I think it is both unproductive and misleading to keep altering the dates as has been happening. The fighting over that has prevented a lot of good editing from getting done. Comments? -- ManekiNeko | Talk 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as useful sources include reputable authors. For example, the author of a best-selling book, or a government population statistics branch would qualify. "Stephen's Gen-X page" I'm a little hesitant to acknowledge as citable. 4.239.237.29 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. But most people have not been providing sources at all. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 06:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: From the current article:
:The 1991 end of the Cold War was also very important and coincided with Gulf War I, a.k.a. Desert Shield/Storm.  These events may have solidified national and/or economic allegiances and attitudes in Xers worldwide.  U.S. Xers could again express pride in their military, flag wave, rejest the Vietnam-losers image, and perhaps even participate in a pro-war (pro-Just War?) campus rally.
So if we're going into these aspects of the generation's attitudes, can flag-waving be quantified? Is there a source to point to here? What constitutes "the Vietnam-losers image" exactly, and what is the real state of pro-war rallies for the generation of punks and latch-key kids?
I mean, this generation also witnessed the protection of flag-burning (see Texas v. Johnson), the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, the Soviet coup attempt of 1991, and the televised missile attacks of the Gulf War... arguably lending to this generation's culture themes of disallegiance and revolution, distrust of the government, and further abandonment by parents consumed with commerce. Most have never been subject to the draft, and maintain their "so what" and "whatever" attitudes, particularly with regard to large organizations and institutions.
I don't want to just delete this kind of comment if there's something to it, but there's nothing to back it up and a whole article of conflicting themes that precedes it, and it's unclear how neutral it is. 
Thornrag 09:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it needs to be sourced and is potentially not NPOV. There may be something addressing this in 13th Gen or Generations, but I'm not sure -- that would be a good quick place to look for info in this, though.  My personal recollection is that people my age were against the Gulf War, but then again, I live in a very liberal area and so that would have a lot to do with it. Which is why I'm not going to insert that personal recollection in the article; it's just anecdotal. :) -- ManekiNeko | Talk 11:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, "rejest"?? Why not "reject" the whole paragraph? I see what the author was attempting to do, but I don't think you can limit national pride to one generation. It should at least be written better if there is any validity to it. Also, the second paragraph is a really nice touch! 4.239.225.203 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this about Allegiance? 

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

message: Agreed with the following:
* Statement of facts should have a reference outside of wiki.
* There is definitely a generational conflict with the babybooms
Take issue with:
* With regards to 'so what' attitude of technology.  We are the generation that has witness the terrible consequences of technology (e.g., cold war, challenger, dismantling of families around entertainment devices, 9/11, etc.)  The 'so what' really is about 'should we do it'?  There were many debates in my college about the morality of developing technology because of the genie problem.  So our attitude isnt 'so what' *shrug*; it is a 'so what, you might end up killing thousands of people with that technology, do you want that on your head?'
With regards to baby boomers:
* I'd like to see the baby boomer generation make a concerted effort to live up to the words of their idealized role model, JFK: "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country."
* Generation X and Y are going to be stuck with paying the tab of baby boomer's idealism: war in iraq, rebirth of supply side economics, litigious society, etc.
* Baby boom politics are going to rape paychecks of GenX and Y: expansion of medicare when, guess, they are getting ready for retirement, increase in tuition rates at their alma mater, increase in student loans, more mcjobs, overseas job sourcing for a larger profit margin, etc.
With regards to Gen Y:
* As some comedian put it, "Twenty year olds are good for one thing, looking good.  They should just shut the f**k up and strike a pose."  j/k.
Born 1970
Removed "Also, those born in 1976 and 1978 prefer not to be classified as part of Generation X.", which was inserted as the last sentence in the opening paragraphs. I'm surprised an intellect like that could even edit. 4.239.147.207 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple of issues 

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

message: It looks like there's been lots of improvements, but still pending:
*The last 3 paragraphs are very weak in content. I would like to see them removed altogether.
*More references from experts such as Tulgan, Foot, Yankelovich.
*Maybe more international references.
Just a thought; how about a poll to ask readers what years they believe Gen-X to bracket. 4.239.159.213 22:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting idea, but I don't think polls are appropriate for encyclopedia articles... -- ManekiNeko | Talk 23:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup thus far 

message: The question is what is a generation?  A cohort whose experiences share many commonalities -- or -- as long a number of years to satisfy journalist who cannot do arithmetuc and like transposing digits like 46 and 64 as in boomers are 1946 to 64... wrong!  This would imply a boomer could be a parent of another boomer!  Someone born in 1962 could be born to a parent born in 1946.  This means the writers were mashing and blending two generations into one.  The years of birth for the early Gen-Xers are the same years for the socalled late boomers.  I say eligibility for the dreaded military draft for vietnam should mark the start and end of the boomer generation.  The draft ended in 1973.  Therefore the last year of birth for an 18 year old is 1955.  Bingo!  We now have ten year age intervals for generations.  Boomers: 1946-55, Gen X: 1956-65, Gen Y: 1966-75, Gen Z: 1976-85.  This means that on january 1, 2006 Boomers were in their 50s, Gen X in their 40s, Gen Y in their 30s.  The youngsters twentysomethings are Gen Z.  About twenty years ago, when Thirtysomething TV show was hot, it was aimed at boomers, who were in their 30s, and the term Gen X was popular as a twentysomething. John wesley 13:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the transposition of 46 and 64 is a little suspect. Eighteen years is too long for a generation, as "accelerated culture" implies that rapid change ensures that a cohorts leading edge will have no common ground with trailing edge. I'm not sure I like the neat/clean 10-year cohort thing, it's too simplistic. Btw, historically, about 15% of (American) mothers are in the 15-18 are bracket. Statistically, maybe 15% (fertility rate) is not a significant factor...or maybe generations should span no more than 15 years. 4.239.147.20 04:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of a generation may just be a problem with who is doing the talking.  Journalists and pop writers have implicitly used a period as short as 10 years when they use terms like fifty-somthings or twenty-somethings.  I imagine that demographers, i.e. researchers at the Census Bureau who are scientists may have the parent to child distance implying 25 to 35 years for an interval.  I think the problem is the term generation is really ambiguous. John wesley 14:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That information is actually readily available @census.gov. I think the average age for motherhood today is about 27 and for fatherhood about 29. My opinion is that when people make comparrisons, such as "real median wage comparrison between father and son at age 25", the average (29 years) should be used. So often you see such comparrisons only go back 20 years, with the opinion going back 20 years is "one generation". US Census document "Measuring 50 years of economic change (1998)" takes cohorts 25-34 etc, and compares with cohorts in 1978 25-34 etc calling it the fathers/mothers generation. It should be taken from 1969/1971 (father/mother) 25-34 etc, respectively. 4.239.234.214 16:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 56-65?!  When I read that, I thought you were giving an example of how ridiculous a ten-year generation would sound.  I mean, NO ONE, NO... ONE... born before 1960 is a GenX'er.  GenX is Kurt Kobain, not Fonzie!  A generation, by definition, has to be equal to the average age of a new mother.  That number varies, but it's close as punch to 20.  Most people and this article have thus defined GenX as people born around 1966-1981, and even that's too open for me, but we gotta' draw the line somewhere.  The post-boomers are really not GenX, although they're technically part of it.  I believe most people, when you say GenX, picture the suicidal hedonism of the 90s, people who were raised with some idealism (in the 80s) and graduated from high school in the Late 80s or 90s, and as such were born in the late 60s or 70s. But it is not the purview of this article to redefine or make an authoritative definition of "GenX," rather to describe the issues surrounding defining such.  --Mrcolj 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The choices of letters X, Y, Z etc. are used to mark variable names in algebra.  Y = a + bX is the equation of a straight line.  Variables names start at X, then go to Y, then Z, then W, then U, then V, then they go to Greek letters, alpha, beta etc.  The journalists have implied ten year intervals when speaking of twentysomethings.  Twenty years ago Newsweek did the Year of the Yuppie cover story in 1984.  It had two Doonesbury type cartoon characters (male and female) on the cover both dressed in business suits.  When someone says thirtysomething, it implies a ten year interval.  So simultaneously journalists (probably different ones, or the same ones writing in different articles) have implied a ten year interval and the infamous 1946-64 transposition years.  The problem is what you mean my generation?  Generations of undergraduates are four years as anyone outside of the 4 year difference would not go to school with each other.  Demographic generations should about 30 years long as the difference in ages from the parent and child.  I think, however, these are Cultural Generations so that the baby boomers so be pinned done by cultural markers like summer of love vietnam war and that old stuff.  Anyone born after 1955 did not experience the 1960s as a young adult. John wesley 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That Newsweek story was December 31, 1984 issue pp. 14. It defined "Yuppies" as 25 - 39 year-olds, those born 1945 - 1959. 4.239.183.2 23:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the research!  This answers it, the boomers were the yuppies of the early 1980s mainly born in the decade 1945-55.  Newsweek apparently wanted to "Young Adult folk" demographic or marketing reasons... hence 25 to 39 year olds!  So anyone older was pre-boomer and those in the early twenties got lumped into the boomer group though sharing no boomer culture!  It took Douglas Coupland less than three years to express this incongruity of say someone born in 1959 or 1960, then in his/her twenties who had not yet made professional headway being either lumped in or ignore.  The letter X is chosen in algebra to stand for any unknown so no group should claim ownership. John wesley 14:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the truth is that there is a huge gap of years BETWEEN each of these "cultural generations."  In the purest sense, the Boomers were people who were born either as a direct result of soldiers coming home from WWII, or indirectly because of the pro-family culture which resulted therefrom.  That statistical trend did not end until 1964.  But there are also post-Korea babies, too; and things associated with the Boomers growing up (VietNam, Yuppie-ism, etc.); enough that there ends up being a huge gap between those who were Booming VietNam-ist Hippies in the 60s who would eventually become Sociopathic Sell-out Limousene Liberal Yuppies in the 80s and 90s... and their children, the GenXers, who by biological definition could not have been born until the mid-60s.  So you have people who went to high school in the 80s who really aren't libertine boomers and neither are they apathetic Xers.  There is no name for them.  No one would call Tom Cruise or Tim Robbins GenXers any more than they would call them Boomers.  They were really of the post-hippie generation, and that's right in between.  The problem is post-hippie/pre-Yuppie doesn't have a name, and that no-name generation was over 10 years long.  So you're right that people born after 1955 are not really an outgrowth of WWII, but if you've gotta' codify it somewhere they're still much more an outgrowth of idealistic post-WWII culture than they are of post-Nixon culture.  Let's discuss (either here or there) the definitions and reasons on List of Generation Xers, which says 1964-76. --Mrcolj 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point; there's now no name for them.  Initially in 1984 Newsweek's to 1987 Douglas Coupland's use would have applied the term X to the person born say 1960.  In the intervening years, the X has migrated to later years.  This leaves a cultural gap.  Either there are two boomer generations or two X generations.  That's okay, the journalist's job is to write first, because it's always on deadline.  If you really investigate you will be able to get closer to the truth. John wesley 20:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "56-65?! When I read that, I thought you were giving an example of how ridiculous a ten-year generation would sound. I mean, NO ONE, NO... ONE... born before 1960 is a GenX'er" "Sociopathic Sell-out Limousene Liberal Yuppies"..... Fonzie, aka Henry Winkler, was born in 1945 not 56! Fonzie - what are you trying to say? I think you meant Andrew Dice Clay born in 1957 or Jim Carrey born in 1962. 1964 is part of Gen Jones, not Gen X! Gen Jones should stand on its own, it looks better that way. Look at all this disrespect from Gen X. If I was from Gen Jones, I wouldn't try to be part of Gen X. Gen Jones deserves way better than to stoop down here and get all this cr%p. r430nb
I'd like to again point out that consesus means nothing when sources can and should be used instead. We've already got sources in the article that say exact years (their contradiction not being a real problem, as this represents the varying views on it, thus moaking the article closer to being NPOV), and we aren't going to force definite years into this article based on any consesus when such actions will only ruin the accuracy of the article. Ultimately, this poll will be pointless. -- LGagnon 22:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary on Poll 

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

message: Shouldn't they be turning into 40 somethings at some stage? The main article mentions that Generation X and Twenty Somethings can be used interchangeably and, for a time, they correctly could have been. But is this the first generation to have stopped aging? Are they frozen in amber forever at 20 something? If Generation X simply means Twenty Something then we might as well use Twenty Something to mean anyone born in the 1960's or 1970's regardless of their age in the future!
: I noticed the same error made by journalists who started using the GenX term interchangeably with twentysomething in the 1980s and continuing to do so for more than a decade.  I guess the best argument is that the term X is a variable in algebra to stand for any value so the variable label X is constantly being re-used to stand for different things, and that X doesn't stand for any fixed thing.  However, this argument loses steam once we realize the whole term is Gen X and not just X.  John wesley 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Generation X" and "Twentysomethings" almost evolved simultaneously back in the late 80's, early 90's. It's really just a snapshot in time. Today, Generation X strictly (in the broad sense) refers to people born in to 60's and 70's, and "twentysomething" likewise refers to people in their 20's. This is a concept many marketers through the 90's were confused about, and some were defining Generation X as people 18-39, or something as preposterous, failing to realize that those original twentysomethings are one year older each year. 4.239.147.147 16:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can Generation X be 20 somethings 20 years ago and still be 20 somethings 20 years later? 

message: Added a few credible sources to the article page. 4.239.159.229 21:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

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

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

message: Yeah, I would just like to say that as a Gen-X'er, I do think that people of my generation are either being ignored or overshadowed by both the Baby Boomers as well as the Millenials. The Millenial Generation has had it's way long enough. I also think that half of the Boomer generation is hogging the cultural spotlight at our expense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemp99 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: really? there's been a huge backlash against boomers for, basically, destroying the world with their greed and sloth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflections 

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

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

message: Perhaps we could remove the protection now? I think that people have calmed down and it seems that there is some spirit of compromise and consensus in the air.... It has been some months that we can't edit this article... Peregrine981 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright let's go to semi-protection to keep out sock puppets, and anon contributors. But there's no point in stalling the discussion further at this point. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

message: This is the proposed consenus for changing the wording of the introduction to the Generation X article. Once consensus is reached this section can be added to the heading of this talk page to inform other editors that a consensus has been met. 
"Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the World War II baby boom ended. The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s. While there is no universally agreed upon time frame, the term generally includes people born in the 1960s and 70s, ending in the late 1970s to early 80s, usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982." 
I agree to change the wording of the introduction to reflect a variety of sources that use various dates to define Generation X. Educatedlady (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of suggestions. I would say usually not later than 1982, as that seems to be the last date that you see with any regularity. Also, the "western" part is a bit difficult. Are we really sure that it is only western? The post-ww2 gens seem to be generally applied more or less globally, with occasional regional or national variations. I would also suggest to keep this phrase in the intro: "The term had also been used in different times and places for various different subcultures or countercultures since the 1950s." as it gives some context to the term. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

message: The Simpsons, Season Four, Episode Eleven; Homer's Triple Bypass. Where Homer is about to tell Bart and Lisa about the surgery,
Bart: Nothing you say can upset us, we're the MTV generation.
Lisa: We feel neither highs nor lows.
Homer: Really, what's it like?
Lisa (shrugs): Meh...
Just had to put this here. I found it too ironic that there was a citation needed for this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.247.141 (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  *CITATION for "Along with early members of Generation Y, Generation Xers are sometimes referred to as the MTV Generation.[citation needed]" 

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

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

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

message: First off, wikipedia clearly states in the 3rd millennium section that the new millennium began on January 1, 2001, not January 1, 2000 like it is widely accepted as. Technically that is correct, as 1 BC rolled over into 1 AD and there was no year 0. To be politically correct the class of 2000 was the last graduating class of the 20th century and the 2nd millennium. That also means that those born in 1982 turned 18 in the last year of the 2nd millennium and 20th century. Those born in 1983 are technically the first ones to turn 18 in the new millennium and the 21st century. But I am just playing with specifics here. I have found more than an equal number of sources that use 1980 or 1978 as the start year of Generation Y as Creative Soul has found articles that use 1982 as the start year. Plus 21 is when you technically become a full blown adult anyway, not 18. Wikipedia also lists 20-40 as young adult. I would post these news articles here, but I am afraid they would just be erased by Creative Soul as he seems obsessed with keeping his birth year of 1981 as the last year of Generation X. Plus this page would just grow longer with more to read and that just bores a lot of people and turns them off. I have all of these articles ranging from CBS to USA Today posted on my personal "My Talk" page. I have also found saved and stored these in my favorites box on my computer, and most are from the last 5 years(most from the last 3). Bjoh249 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point? The article just says gen x ends "usually" not later than 1982. That gives a wide degree of lattitude for dates before that, and also some after. I believe that CS has agreed to the current wording, so what is the problem? Or do you seriously want to get into a debate of counting whether it is in fact "usually" 1982 or 83? Would that really add much to the article? Peregrine981 (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Read through the commentary on this topic, and you will find many reliable sources discussing this very issue. If you have a dispute with the validity of the sources, please let us know. Peregrine981 (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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

text: Well, I don't know that it would have any real effect other than to incite more debate. Plus, I'm not sure what the "rules" are, regarding that kind of POV posting on a talk page. SO, for the moment I'm inclined to avoid the potential headache and focus on the articles. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  1982 start of the millennial generation?? 

message: I've heard the following spans for Generation X.
1961-1981
1965-1976
1965-1981
1960-1985
1968-1986
1965-1985
1965-1982
1965-1974
1958-1985
1966-1984
1963-1985
1961-1983
1964-1986
1964-1985
1967-1981
1968-1980
In general, the start date is no earlier than 1960 and the end date no later than 1985. Are 1958-1967 and 1975-1985 kind of grey areas? I ask because some self-identify in different generations in those grey areas. I have a brother born in 1967 that calls himself a baby boomer, while I know someone that was born in 1962 that calls herself Generation X. I think that's why 1954-1967 as well as 1975-1985 have been partitioned off as subgenerations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVillani1985 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome. First, please make sure to sign your comments when posting on talk pages. I have left instructions for how to do so on your talk page. Just read the section WP:Tilde. Anyway, to answer your question: There are no exact time frames for generations, but in general, for Generation X, the earliest date used is 1961 and the latest is usually 1981 - though some sources end the generation with 1982 (the year for the sharpest increase in birth rates - Echo Boom), it is more common for 1982 to be the starting point for Generation Y/Millennials (who graduated in 2000). The association with 1982 as the "new generation" has been around since the 1980s and 1990s. It is more common to see 1965-1981 for Generation X and 1982-2000 for Generation Y, but 1982-1995 has also been used. See my previous posts on the generation talk pages with a variety of sources used for reference. Of course, not everyone agrees with the ame date range, which is why the introductions on generation pages are worded the way they are. The last I checked, the U.S. Census considers birth years up to 1964 as part of the Boomer Generation, and uses 1965-1981 for Generation X (looking for the official Census chart I have somewhere - used in a report), as does Canada, and the Australian Census Bureau (official) - along with New Zealand. Dates range from early 1960s to 1980s, usually ending with 1981, sometimes, though rarely, with 1982. 1982-1986 are usually considered "Older Millennials", but 1983-1985 are definitely part of the Generation Y/Millennial group. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

message: This line caught my eye: "Compared with previous generations, Generation X represents a more heterogeneous generation, exhibiting great variety. They are diverse in such aspects as race, class, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation."  This strikes me as statistically improbable, verging on impossible, particularly for ethnicity & race.  Unless there was a substantial influx of immigration or massive difference in birth rates, the racial & ethnic composition should be within a few percentage points of the values for prior generations.  Sexual orientation is also unlike to have changed in actual numbers, but rather in openness.  Class is difficult to nail down, especially with all the economic ups & downs of that period.  While the lines above are pretty much verbatim from the citation (to the point of verging on plagarism), they also seem illogical.  Surely it would be more accurate to say that Gen X is *perceived* as more diverse in (insert stuff above), or "portrayed" as such in the media, or more open & proud of diversity, or something like that?  I do think that GenX brings to mind a more diverse group than prior "generations", but I doubt this is a product of actual population composition changes but rather of certain groups no longer being marginalized to the same extent as in previous generations (and media portrayals reflecting this).
Long story short, while I agree that GenX seems / is portrayed as more heterogeneous, I doubt that there are genuine demographic shifts underlying this, making the above-quoted line inaccruate, even if sourced.  While taking care to avoid WP:Synth and WP:OR, perhaps some more digging for references might allow the paragraph to be expanded and give a more complete picture?  Mokele (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you say. This also seems to assume a US POV. Please feel free to do some digging along these lines. Peregrine981 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity? 

message: I recommend that "cold war" be shown as "Cold War" since it refers to an historic event.
166.216.128.74 (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Bility (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 166.216.128.74, 23 March 2011 

message: I agree with the last edit that this list was too long. Also, I recall a previous discussion a few years ago when it was decided not to add a list in the first place. There is debate about time frames anyway, and I think that we should stick to not including people to the generation pages. Plus, I believe that adding such notable names would be against Wikipedia policy. The "notables" themselves might disagree about what generation they belong to, and we can't add a generation category to every biography page. I don't think such lists are necessary. Readers can figure out for themselves which generation a celebrity belongs to - by the person's birth year or read any books listed as a source.
I noticed the generation pages that have long lists don't have much information included in the article. What do you all think? I don't feel like these lists are necessary. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm just tired today, but I don't see any mention of specific Presidents in this article. I agree that those born in the 1970s grew up with all the Presidents you mentioned. And those born in the early 1980s grew with Reagan, Bush , and Clinton. I rather like the way the article is now - with links to important events in history, such as the Challenger disaster, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think there should be a discussion about the other generation pages as well. I don't mind adding some relevant information to those pages, but having a generation page that is mostly a list of celebrities is not very informative. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving out lists of famous people (regarding all generation pages) 

message: I noticed that an anonymous user changed the date from 1966 to 1976. Author David Foot actually ends Generation X in 1979, he never uses the date 1976. However, he divides Generation X into two groups. I have included both the original source another editor previously added (that links to the author's website), as well as a link to an article on the Canadian Journal of Sociology website. The author of that article, Thomas Norman Trenton, cited pages 18-22 of Foot's 1996 book Boom, Bust & Echo. I found the following quote from that article: "In Boom, Bust & Echo, Foot (1996: 18-22) divides youth into two groups: "Generation X" born between 1960 and 1966 and the "Bust Generation" born between 1967 and 1979."
I will double check David Foot's book to make sure I have the correct pages, and perhaps his 2000 book as well (Boom, Bust & Echo 2000). If anyone has any questions regarding David Foot's books, please let me know. I could not find previews of his books online, so I will have to track down a copy of his book or purchase one before I can verify the page numbers. I might not be able to do so for several weeks.
Please do not change dates from sourced material or remove these sources. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada: David Foot's book 

message: There are enough sources to support the various start and end dates in the introduction, which has been decided by a consensus. Also, the about.com website is not the problem. The recent source added only shows a list of generations and various time frames. It is only a guide and not an article about generations or Generation X, nor is it a research article written by a reputable demographer. Also, the article by the UK's The Observer is mostly about Generation Y. The Generation Y article already has some UK sources, but thanks for contributing all the same.
I would ask that Peregrine981 weigh in on the discussion since he helped organize the sources, and the other editors involved in the consensus. We already have plenty of sources, especially in the introduction. Please do not add any more without discussion with others involved in the consensus. I have a list of recent sources that can be used for both pages, but will not add them until I can expand the articles a bit. Some of these sources (newspaper articles, research, etc.) are from 2010 and 2010, a couple from May and June 2011. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You either ignored or completely side-stepped what I brought up on your talk page: Where (page #, paragraph) does it state in the current sources that 1982 is the latest year cited? That's not mentioned anywhere in those sources; therefore, it makes the 1982 statement susceptible to reversion, whether consensus supports the information or not. I don't deny that 1982 would be an appropriate date. However, there is nothing in the existing sources that support it. As I already told you, the About.com citation is reliable in that it also cites a reputable think tank. If you actually read The Observer article, you will see that there was a section describing the Generation X years and mentioning 1982 as the last year. Your rationale for reverting these sources thus seems to be misguided and unfounded. Please put the sources I included back into the article; I don't want to request Wikipedia administrator intervention for what is clearly a non-issue: 3 sources that don't support a statement is NOT "enough sources". --Danteferno (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We had a consensus regarding this issue. Several pages worth, including several pages of various sources. I think that 1981 is a more common end year for Generation X, but some sources use 1982, including Elwood Carlson's book that is listed as a source. You can weight for Peregrine981 and EducatedLady to join the discussion as they are the two who wanted to include 1982. I do not agree with Educatedlady, but the Elwood Carlson source (as well as a few other sources) is the main source to 1982 as the last birth year and those born in 1983 who started attending college in 2001 as the first members of Generation Y. I know that The Observer article mentions Generation X, however it mostly concentrates on Generation Y. I believe I adequately explained why the about.com source was removed. It is only a list of generations, and there is no real article. There are plenty of sources already supporting the introduction. My reasoning, therefore, is not unfounded. The sources were not necessary and did not add vital information to the article. I am sure Peregrine981, Educatedlady, and other editors will agree. They can help me better explain the conclusion reached, and Peregrine981 was the one who helped cut down the sources and reorganize them. Also, the Generation Y article already has enough sources, including UK sources, to support the current information on that page. Please do not add the sources back without discussion with the other editors. Thank you. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem we run into here is that we have not been able to find one or two concise sources that discuss the issue of overlapping years in an authoritative and comprehensive way. So we run the risk of overwhelming the introduction with sources which makes it harder to edit. If you want to add sources I would suggest that you follow the style of Generation Y, where articles are "bundled" into a single citation, and a quote is provided from the article to make it more transparent. I won't object to adding the articles if you follow that style, as no changes of substance are being made. Thanks. Peregrine981 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

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

text: Actually, I made the same suggestion after the most recent consensus. I wanted to alert the administrators, and suggest we mention 1982, but write "usually no later than 1981, but sometimes as late as 1982 (or what you wrote: although some sources go as late as 1982)." I argued that it is more common to see 1981 as the end date for Generation X, as 1982 is commonly used as the start of Generation Y/Millennials, but this discussion has gone on for months (and several discussion pages). I have been busy with work and family, but am working with a more experienced editor/administrator on how to tackle this issue. I propose an amendment to the sentence, but please do not change the wording without discussion, as Peregrine981 has pointed out that this discussion has been beaten to death. It would also be beneficial if you created a username and joined Wikipedia, as you will have more privileges than an anonymous user. If you know others that are interested in this discussion, please direct them to this page. However, because a consensus was reached regarding the wording of this article's introduction, it is best to mention such changes on this discussion page. Thanks for your input. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is more than once source that cites 1982 as being the last Gen-X birthyear. The problem is the POV-pushing of a small minority here who says "there are already enough sources for the 1982 date". --Danteferno (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I cannot believe how much time we waste on these date issues. Look through the reems, and reems of dicussion on this topic, and you will see why I continue to advocate for a very loose wording in these articles. There are plenty of sources that use dates other than 1981, see below. It isn't a complete outlier. However, I am personally not convinced of the utility of naming particular years. If you go through the lengthy discussions, you will see that the current wording is a compromise. I would rather say early 1960s to early 1980s to avoid having to rehash the debate every few months, and to give a frankly more accurate view of what a generation "is". There are no hard and fast cut off dates, these are amorphous cultural concepts (and increasingly so with every generation since WWII).
fx:
http://www.prb.org/pdf09/64.1generations.pdf
http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/
Commerce Concepts”: Market Updates, Asset Allocation and Investment Education for Plan Participants and Individuals. Volume 12, issue 2, 2nd quarter; 2008. Generation X: Born Years 1965-1982. “Generations at Work”; Andrew Schwartz; April 22, 2009. Generation X: Born 1965-1982. “Tools for Effective Teaching”; Judy Campbell ARNP: Ed.D. Christine Brooks MSN, FNP-BC; Palm Beach Atlantic University School of Nursing; November 10, 2008. Generation X Born 1965-1980 (1982), Generational Classroom Implications Chart: Gen X (1965-1982).
“Recruiting Ideas for a New Generation” Sharon Cureton, IPMA-CP Human Resources Director City of Daphne; (Year Published Unknown): Generation X (1965-1982).
“The Organizational Generation Gap”; Pharmafocus July 2008; Wiley-Blackwell Publications; Generation X 1965-1982.
“NJPS 2000: Jewish Baby Boomers”; NORTH AMERICAN JEWISH DATA BANK; Laurence Kotler-Berkowitz; Director, Research and Analysis United Jewish Communities; June 5, 2006. Generation X 1965-1982.
“Opinion: American Generations and the Happiness Index”; Samantha A. Torrence; July 1, 2008; Digital Journal; Generation X 1965-1982. “Facilitating the Career Development of Today’s and Tomorrow’s Academic Rheumatologists”; Janet Bickel: Career and Leadership Development Coach and Instructor; March 14, 2009. Generation X 1965-1982.
“Steadfastly Forward”; Timothy R. B. Johnson, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI Received for publication February 24, 2005; revised May 5, 2005; accepted August 1, 2005. Generation X 1965-1982.
“Maximizing Return on Your Training Investment: A Reference Guide for Managers”; Michael Polowy, Andrew Reitz, and Floyd Alwon: (Year of publication unknown). Generation X 1965-1982.
“Generations X and Y in Law School: Practical Strategies for Teaching the 'MTV/Google' Generation” Joan Catherine Bohl Stetson University - College of Law Loyola Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 1, Winter 2009 Stetson University College of Law Research Paper No. 2009-21 . Generation X 1965-1982.
“Sizing Up Tomorrow’s Customer”; Floral Trend Tracker; Glen Hiemstra; Winter, 2005; Generation X 1965-1982.
The Nielsen Company; Client Communication: Final 2009-2010 National Universe Estimates. “Compared to last year, the 2009-2010 UEs for persons 18-49 showed a small decrease, which was driven largely by declines for persons age 35-49, an age group that is comprised largely of the smaller Generation X cohort (born 1965 - 1982).”
“Generation X and the Millennials Will Have Major Effects In the Future”; Kim Ehlers, Holly Sisson, Paula Theilen, Marcy Kratochvil, Nathan Jantzi and Jason Love. Generation X 1965-1982.
“Factoring for X: An Empirical Study of Generation X’s Materialistic Attributes” Nora M. Martin: University of South Carolina and Diane Prince: Clayton State University; Year of Publication Unknown; Journal of Management and Marketing Research. Generation X 1960-1982.
Caroline Perkins; “Don't lose all the best Gen-X talent.” (Generation X, born between 1964 and 1982) (Editorial) ID: The Voice of Foodservice Distribution, May 1, 1998, Vol. 34, Issue 5, p15.
Peregrine981 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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

text: "Enough users have also brought up the fact that many people see 1982 as a common start date for Generation Y/Millennials"...Uh, Quite the contrary. In fact, it was just you and one other user - an autoconfirm anon - who seem to think so. And guess what? Most of the references claiming the 1981 X start/1982 Y begin dates are references which source the same reference, and that's the writings of Strauss & Howe. When someone emphasizes duplicated source material to try to justify a point, that's called undue weight. Strauss and Howe are not the "say all and end all" on the topic, and the same goes for any other biographer, researcher, etc. The 1981 thing seems to be POV-pushing for sure at this point. --Danteferno (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

text: I will update the 1981 sources later (including U.S., Canada, and other sources from the list). I will also add a quote from the Elwood Carlson book to the reference listed. I found the quote using Google Books. Educatedlady: Since you have the book, you can make any corrections or add an additional quotes. If you don't get this message, I will check them again when I get a copy. 
**I mentioned this earlier: Does anyone else agree with me and Educatedlady regarding the pop culture section of the generation articles? I always thought these sections referred to musicians, fads, movies, etc. that reached their peak during a generation's time frame. Many rock bands, musicians, and popular franchises are still around or "active" (e.g. Bon Jovi, Madonna, the new Star Wars trilogy) during the time frame that represents the next generation. I hope I am making sense. Any ideas? There must be a better way to word these sections. I don't like how Star Wars is only included on the Generation Y page. And there must be a way to mention the Harry Potter franchise on the Generation Y page without making it seem as if the books and movies are only popular with that Generation. I know plenty of Generation X, Baby Boomers, and even older people who love Harry Potter. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

text: "the information about the new millennium has not been connected to studies in regards to generations." Actually, it has. This is the reason "Generation Y" are referred to as "millennials". The deviations we read from many researchers is when said generation officially started and there isn't just one, final answer ... that's why I edited the "date range" section since the 1981 date was too heavily emphasized. As far as the article I read about Generation X and presidential admins, the only thing I remember about it was reading it in either in the NYT or Village Voice...back in the summer of 2000, during the 2000 elections. That will require some digging. --Danteferno (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

message: I believe the following study is relevant to this Generation X Wikipedia article:
According to the Longitudinal Study of American Youth (LSAY), a long-term University of Michigan Institute for Social Research survey, despite being stereotyped as a bunch of insecure underachievers, most members of Generation X are leading active, balanced, and happy lives. The study, funded by the National Science Foundation since 1986, includes responses from approximately 4,000 Gen Xers – those born between 1961 and 1981. A report of the study was released today, 10/25/2011.
Sources: 
1- http://www.sampler.isr.umich.edu/2011/research/xplaining-generation-x-u-m-survey-paints-a-surprisingly-positive-portrait/
2- http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122088&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&WT.mc_ev=click
3- http://www.lsay.org/ 
4- http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/10/study-of-the-day-as-it-happens-the-gen-xers-turned-out-all-right/247152/
5- http://yourlife.usatoday.com/health/story/2011-10-24/Generation-X-a-bunch-of-slackers-Not-so-says-new-study/50896198/1
--Emenezes (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term University of Michigan study on Gen X 

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

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