Talk:MTV Generation

message: It doesn't need the "(disambiguation)" bit, it was fine as just "MTV Generation". Read WP:DABNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- œ™ 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.Peregrine981 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I am trying to find some reliable sources for this article, or have it deleted. As it stands it has no reliable sources. I have made a good faith effort to find reliable sources but cannot find any secondary sources that talk about this term, rather than mentioning it in passing. Throughout the last four years, several discussions have taken place and they have decided that the article should remain, but that it should be "cleaned up" and OR should be removed. However, this has yet to take place, and I am beginning to have serious doubts that it will ever occur, as I fear that this term is a neologism (WP:NEO), and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. 
I don't believe that it is responsible to leave the article in its current state, and think that those advocating for this article's inclusion should make a good faith effort to produce at least minimal sources to justify this article's inclusion. WP:BURDEN seems relevant. I know that MTV Generation is a term that is used a lot, but there are absolutely no reliable sources that address what it is that I have been able to locate. This is the main problem as I see it. I have no problem in keeping this article, its advocates simply have to produce some real proof that it is an encyclopedic topic. I have been making good faith attempts to establish the validity of the article for well over a month now, but I feel that my objections are not being taken seriously. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you removed several reliable sources with this edit. --Law Lord (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Strauss and Howe do not discuss MTV Generation, and the ABNF source mentions MTV Generation in passing, and as synonymous with Gen Y. I think the removal was justifiable, unless you want to put the ABNF back in as a source for the synonym argument. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the last edit Gregorik, I thought you had just reverted my edit as usual. I am glad you have finally decided to make a constructive edit. However, I am not exactly won over by the sources you have provided.
# ^ http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20243603,00.html
Talks about people born from 1966 to 1971. Not 1975 to 1986 as reported in our lead.
# ^ http://www.shawnolson.net/a/441/the-mtv-generation.html
This is some guy's blog.
# ^ http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/www/index.php?cmd=Download+Document&key=unpublished_manuscript&file_index=2&pop_up=true&no_click_key=true&attachment_style=attachment&PHPSESSID=00725dca0538db77fcfb4fa9117526af
Talks about a partnership between MTV and the Kaiser Family Research Foundation, specifically discussing PSAs regarding sexual health. Doesn't discuss any kind of broader definition of the generation, beyond the fact that they watch MTV.
# ^ http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/31/mtv.20/index.html
Here is the only serious discussion of the MTV Generation: "It's the only television entity of any kind that ever had a generation named after it," says Robert Thompson, professor of media and popular culture and the founding director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse (New York) University. "We don't even have the CNN generation, but we have the MTV generation.
"This came out as the center of the universe for the demographic of young people and it managed to bring together people who would have been very disparate in what radio stations they listened to," Thompson says. "But they all came together in this one television hangout." 
But it doesn't discuss it any further. No real definition or discussion. The article goes on to discuss MTV as a business and the music industry in general.
# ^ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MJT/is_6_14/ai_112905386?tag=untagged
"Today, a majority of students in the classrooms of colleges and universities across the country were born after 1975. These young people, born between 1975 and 1981, are categorized as generation Xers and those born after 1981 as generation Yers or MTV generation."
Treats Y and MTV as the same thing.
# ^ http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/obama-unplugged.html
does not support the idea that MTV gen is "technology savvy, independent and resourceful". In fact does not discuss the MTV Generation at all, except in the title.
# ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/20/us/frank-talk-by-clinton-to-mtv-generation.html
Discussing "teenagers" of 1994, so let us say 1974-1981. Also does not support statement that MTV Gen is "technology savvy, independent and resourceful". 
These sources that you have provided support my contention that there is no unified idea of what the MTV Generation is, other than people who watch MTV. I thank you very much for your constructive contribution though. I look forward to seeing further sources. I would further like to highlight that I have been attempting to engage in constructive debate here for a long time, without touching the article, but that has proven completely fruitless. I would really appreciate if you would not accuse me of vandalism, as I have taken pains to do things "by the book." Peregrine981 (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the comments. I have no axe to grind against MTV Generation. But I do think that wikipedia should maintain certain basic standards of verifiability for its articles. I can appreciate that the current article is not very useful, and I would even suggest it might be a suitable candidate for deletion, but doubt there would be popular agreement. Centrepull says, "The WKP MTVG article represents a well-known term with no exact definition, and no reliable sources." I agree that there are terms in human culture that do not have an agreed definition, and no reliable sources. However, those terms are not suitable for an encyclopedia article. This does not mean they are not legitimate terms, and that people can't use them. Simply that you can't write a definitive encyclopedia article about them. People can have slightly different ideas about what a term means, and it can still be a legitimate topic for an article, but if people have such drastically different definitions of a term, that it loses any coherence, how can you possibly write an article about it? For MTV generation, there is no agreement as to whether it is a "sub cohort" of another generation, a separate thing entirely, what the date range is, where it is located, if it applies to people who didn't watch TV, how it is different from Gen Y or X, and if it exists entirely. Even if these issues are resolved, there is almost no research about the implications of the term, or what it would mean to be a part of this generation. What would the article actually talk about? Neither has anyone, to my knowledge, really written even one credible article/book/anything discussing the term for what it is, and isn't. It is the classic example of a neologism (see WP:NEO), and therefore is not suitable for an article on wikipedia. Anyway, I'm open to a discussion of this, and am willing to be flexible, but I will not concede that we should have an article, just because it's a term people use a lot. If it were such a legimimate topic, surely SOME sort of source would have made its way onto the internet. We have articles on obscure topics from far longer ago than the 1980s. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: As it stands, the article has been savagely butchered and is now basically a meaningless stub. Obviously it had serious problems before this, but some thoughtful reversion would definitely improve on the current situation. If I had no idea of the term MTV Generation, the current stub would not help in the slightest.
There is no explanation of even the more common meanings of the term, aside from 'youth of the late 20th century'. For one thing, even this term is unforgivably Western-centric and too broad. 'Western and westernised youth of the 1980s and 1990s' is much more reasonable.
Generations X and Y: Even if some people use these terms synonymously with 'MTV generation', it should be noted that Generation X (born in the 60s and 70s) at least is not synonymous, and the first MTVG is a subset of Generation Y. I say overlapping, as  Gen Z then come in who are also MTVG as in they grew up with MTV. Marketers and social scientists are very clear of these differences.
History: Even if the term was used in a 1992 Simpsons episode, that is little to do with the history of the term, which began much earlier (I would say in the 80s) in broadcast media circles and the music press. Certainly, it is no neologism, even if the exact definition is disputed.
The main problem is that the concept 'MTV generation' is a flawed one, just as the term'Baby Boomer' Generation is, as it actually refers to several generations of human beings. Not only that, but MTV itself has changed notably during that time.
A normal person could easily be a regular viewer of MTV for a period of 10 - 20 yrs of their childhood/adulthood (anyone at any age can be an occasional viewer). If you accept this idea, then evidently several sets of viewers decades apart in age have been 'through' MTV and out the other side.
The point I'm making is not that the MTV Gen doesn't exist, but that watching MTV is a phase for many people. This leads us to discuss whether there are any distinguishing characteristics of those who have 'graduated'.
Reading all the way down this talk page, while a lot of work went into the page before it was chopped right back to a stub, most of the discussion is about the distinguishing marks between Gen X and Gen Y. A common error I notice is people mistaking the date of the availability of something (e.g. MTV, home computers) for the date of general adoption of it (5-10 years later than initial date). I would like to see some of the previous work done on the page reinstated, but not the irrelevant lists of 'iconic' celebrities, movies etc.
I would posit that there is some truth to the idea that music videos (which existed before MTV) changed narrative, with jump-cuts, 'blips', static noise, and other obtrusive narrative techniques that required a new comprehension. The ability to easily decode media (e.g. feature films) that employ these late 20th century techniques, as well as postmodern references and cultural shorthand and conversely to find older techniques and story-telling systems (e.g. voice-overs, pure text books) boring and tedious is one mark of the MTV Generation.
Other popularly supposed MTVG tendencies are a heightened liking for pop culture, familiarity with the control conventions of complex electronic gadgets and most notoriously, a short attention span.
I can't back up these assumed characteristics with citations and references at present, because most of the early definitions of the term MTVG arose in the late 80s, and is therefore mainly documented in hard copy which I can't link to, and don't even have available. The source issue is unlikely to be solved without the intervention of sociology professionals, or the dreaded original research. So. The WKP MTVG article represents a well-known term with no exact definition, and no reliable sources. I would argue that this situation occurs from time to time in human culture, and we should try to craft a decent article nevertheless. I think Peregrine981 could helpfully show a little flexibility here. Have a look at even more material phenomena with no exact definition and pointless sources  here and  here. These articles will not be deleted.Centrepull (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments. I have no axe to grind against MTV Generation. But I do think that wikipedia should maintain certain basic standards of verifiability for its articles. I can appreciate that the current article is not very useful, and I would even suggest it might be a suitable candidate for deletion, but doubt there would be popular agreement. Centrepull says, "The WKP MTVG article represents a well-known term with no exact definition, and no reliable sources." I agree that there are terms in human culture that do not have an agreed definition, and no reliable sources. However, those terms are not suitable for an encyclopedia article. This does not mean they are not legitimate terms, and that people can't use them. Simply that you can't write a definitive encyclopedia article about them. People can have slightly different ideas about what a term means, and it can still be a legitimate topic for an article, but if people have such drastically different definitions of a term, that it loses any coherence, how can you possibly write an article about it? For MTV generation, there is no agreement as to whether it is a "sub cohort" of another generation, a separate thing entirely, what the date range is, where it is located, if it applies to people who didn't watch TV, how it is different from Gen Y or X, and if it exists entirely. Even if these issues are resolved, there is almost no research about the implications of the term, or what it would mean to be a part of this generation. What would the article actually talk about? Neither has anyone, to my knowledge, really written even one credible article/book/anything discussing the term for what it is, and isn't. It is the classic example of a neologism (see WP:NEO), and therefore is not suitable for an article on wikipedia. Anyway, I'm open to a discussion of this, and am willing to be flexible, but I will not concede that we should have an article, just because it's a term people use a lot. If it were such a legimimate topic, surely SOME sort of source would have made its way onto the internet. We have articles on obscure topics from far longer ago than the 1980s. Peregrine981 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MTV Generation: Wikipedia has no fixed definition - <!-- sh -->it happens!

message: I would like to help expand this article, although the sources that do describe the MTV Generation are not in depth, therefore we would be borderlined contributing Original Research in the article, which is prohibited according to Wikipedia guidelines. The talk page has been quiet for a while, any suggestions? Educatedlady (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, a good general definition of "MTV Generation" is identifying it as the cusp, or transition zone, from Generation X to Generation Y (I have no idea how this Generation Z talk became so prevalent, at the expense of Gen X).  I think that much of the confusion is from a too literal (and all-inclusive) idea of what it is supposed to mean, and that the term was originally coined, more or less arbitrarily, to describe the people born mostly during the 1980s, or perhaps from the mid-to-late 1970s through the early-to-mid 1980s, as they were the "first" to largely grow up with MTV and were mostly teenagers when it was at its height, ca. 1990-1995. 
 
I'm not sure where we can go to to document it so that it's not "Original Research", but perhaps try some works by Strauss and Howe, who I believe started this idea of "cusps" and might have even coined the term "MTV Generation" to refer to the cusp between Gen X (Thirteeners) and Gen Y (Millennials). (In a similar vein, the terms "Generation Jones" has been used to describe the cusp between Gen X and the Baby Boom; "Beat Generation" for between the Boom and the Silent Generation; "Greatest Generation" for that between the Silent and the GI Generation; and "Interbellum Generation" for that between the GI and the Lost Generation).  I hope that helps a little.  Good luck.  Shanoman (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Here's the basic scheme I'm working with:
01. LOST GENERATION: born ca. 1885-1905
02. Interbellum Cusp: born ca. 1900-1910 (especially 1902-1907)
03. GI GENERATION: born ca. 1905-1925
04. Greatest Cusp: born ca. 1920-1930 (esp. 1922-1927)
05. SILENT GENERATION: born ca. 1925-1945
06. Beat Cusp: born ca. 1940-1950 (esp. 1942-1947)
07. BOOM GENERATION: born ca. 1945-1965
08. Jones Cusp: born ca. 1960-1970 (esp. 1962-1967)
09. GENERATION X (THIRTEENER): born ca. 1965-1985
10. MTV Cusp: born ca. 1980-1990 (esp. 1982-1987)
11. GENERATION Y (MILLENNIAL): born ca. 1985-2005
12. iPod Cusp: born ca. 2000-2010 (esp. 2002-2007)
13. GENERATION Z (HOMELAND): born ca. 2005-2025?
An alternate plan could be:
01. LOST: 1880-1900
02. Interbellum: 1895-1910
03. GI; 1900-1920
04. Greatest: 1915-1930
05. SILENT: 1920-1940
06. Beat: 1935-1950
07. BOOM: 1940-1960
08. Jones: 1955-1970
09. GEN X: 1960-1980
10. MTV: 1975-1990
11. GEN Y: 1980-2000
12. iPod: 1995-2010
13. GEN Z: 2000-(2020?
)
As the lists suggest, each "cusp" overlaps entirely with regular "main" generations---and largely just within 1 of the 2 which it "cusps"---making the "cusps" mostly subsets of the larger main generations.  Thus, the Interbellum are mostly the early phase of the GI Generation; the Greatest = early phase/1st half of the Silent Generation; Beat = late Silent/early Boom (Beatniks); Jones = first phase of Generation X; MTV = first phase of Millennial Generation; iPod = first phase of Generation Z (Homeland Generation). Shanoman (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I removed this recently added text from the lead "The term has also been used to refer to the cusp generation between Generation X and the Millenial generation, also known as the XY Cusp and the Boomerang Generation." It seems undue to stick this into the lead. The rest of the sources do not define MTV generation this way. I was going to add it to the body of article instead but it appears to be sourced to a blog  from non-notable researchers. --DynaGirl (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes to lead  

message: The Met Life ref. used in support of "is" is a dead link in the lede paragraph.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6111:8e00:1543:2ca:fa2f:e4ad (talk) 
:References without active links are not invalid; however, a quick google search located an active link for Met Life report . Also, the Met Life ref is just one of 3 references for this content.   There seems to be a lot of vandalism and/or edits with dishonest edit summaries from IPs regarding this content lately. First the blatant IP vandalism of changing "The term is often used synonymously with Generation X" to "The term is never to be used synonymously with Generation X"  (despite the 3 references for it's synonymous use with Gen X). This was followed by change with dishonest edit summary claiming no refs within past 10 years for this content (despite the fact that all 3 references cited are within the past 10 years) . Please do not again change this longstanding content absent consensus for change and please do not continue to ignore references. DynaGirl (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "was" vs. "is"