Talk:Generation X/Archive 1

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between  22 October 2001 (page creation) and 17 November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are
replying to if necessary.  (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Please add new archivals to Talk:Generation_X. Thank you. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: : None of the above is really productive towards the work on this article, so I don't see why it was added. It's all POV and not actual info on the generation; there's plenty of Gen Xers who don't share this person's opinions. In fact, most of it sounds like conservative opinions, which are not shared by those of us Gen Xers who are liberals. -- LGagnon
 
::Unfortunately this page has been edited so much since you posted this that it is completely unclear which comment you are replying to.  While cleaning up this page, I left it in place. ManekiNeko | Talk 23:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment about Talk discussions 

message: How about the movie Fight Club? It seems to speak to the GenX description, if the description has any value that is. Chuck Palahniuk 1961, Jim Uhls 1961, David Fincher 1962, Brad Pitt 1963, Helena Bonham Carter 1966, Edward Norton 1969, The dust brothers 1970/1971.
:Fussell, Strauss and Howe base the dates on math rather than culture. Anyone alive during the JFK assassination should not be listed as a gen-xer. The baby boom ended in 1964, so gen-x started in 1964. Kingturtle 21:57 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Could someone please de-Strauss and Howe this entry and also set Generation X in the global context where it belongs to -- it surely isn't an USA-only phenomenon. -- till we *) 20:52 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:Can we move Alanis and Shania into celebrities list? What's all this with keeping Canadians out of the main list? Wiwaxia 22:01, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least it would work for Luke Helder, Dylan Klebold, Amy Lee or some other 1981 celebrities. Of course, Reese Witherspoon doesn't seem to fit the Gen-X mold either, and she was born in 1975. On the other hand, Avril Lavigne is more plausible a fit than Britney and she was born in 1984. The whole 1961-1981 range is stupid -- the reason they built the list on these dates and left out everyone born 1982 and later is that the person who started this article based it on Strauss and Howe, who use 1961-1981 as the boundaries for their "Thirteenth Generation", roughly equivalent to Generation X. A "Generation Y" that includes people born in the eighties and in the late seventies would work better for these people. Wiwaxia 19:09, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  General suggestions for the article 

message: If the earliest date ascribed to the beginning of Generation X is 1961, and we assume a generation length of 22 years, that places the end of Generation X in 1983, not 1981.  If Gen X began in 1965, that puts the end of Gen X in at 1987.  So assuming a 22-year generation means that anyone born between '83 and '87 could still be considered Generation X.  Assuming a 20-year generation places this between '81 and '85.  'Generation Y' is said to begin (rather ambiguously) in "the 80's".
Now I take extreme exception to this.  I was born in 1983 and am a very proud member of Generation X, and you'll notice there is far less of a cultural generation gap between those born in the early 80's and those born in the late 70's than there is between those born in the early 80's and those born in the late 80's.
I truly doubt there's many who were born in the 1980's who wouldn't be insulted by the label 'Generation Y' or 'Millennial'.  '65 through '85 is a good date-range for Generation X, '61 through '83 slightly less so considering few would characterize people born in the early sixties as 'Generation X', but still acceptable as a compromise.  Classifying those born prior to 1985 as 'Generation Y' is a denegrading insult to millions of Generation Xers born between '81 and '84.  --Corvun 06:53, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Date Problem 

message: This is my definition of Generation X: Those who are born in the period of 1963-1978 in North America and Europe, 1965-1985 in Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand and 1970-1987 in China.
In America and Europe, enough said. But in Asia-Pacific, this generation is living amongst prosperity and progress, suddenly when they step out in the working world they had the Asian Financial Crisis and the 9/11. In some cases, the rate of growth slowed. In other cases, this generation slugged it out and became successful eventually.
We are talking sociology here, it's quite impossible to get an exact date for an end of a generation and the start of another, for anything more than statistical purpose. I would say the Xers were the last to grow up and live before the digital age, the first to grow up and live in the "post-world" - the post-oil-crisis, post-suburban, post-industrial world. X witnessed transition and turmoil in everything, from economy and international politics to music and lifestyle. That would make 1965-1978 ok as pure statistical reference. This is valid for the West. In Eastern Europe, X could be 1965-1980, the generation to grow up under what one may call "bureaucratic communism", and ending up toppling the communist regimes. In the PRC, those born during Mao's cultural revolution could be called Xers. --Xanthar 19:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My definition 

message: You won't find anyone born in 1981 or 1982 who thinks they're in Gen X.  We're becoming young adults in the Internet age, not 80's and 90's.
These generation descriptions are social constructs.  They need not follow set formulae as to how many years are in each.  It's about people who had a shared experience growing up.  For the Baby Boomers, it was the anti-war movement as young adults and the Greedy Eighties as adults.  For Generation X, it was the 80's as teens and the 90's as adults.  For my generation, it was the Internet era as teenagers, and who knows what as adults.
:Coupland made the character of Tyler a Gen Xer, and he was only a teenager at the beginning of the 90s. Not every member of Gen X shares the same experiences, but then again not everyone born in the same year does either. There are definitely people born in 81 that can count as Gen X if they shared some of the same experiences in the 90s as the other Gen Xers. -- LGagnon 19:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ask people born in 1981. 

message: What dates should be used in the introduction? Should specific dates be used, or should it be left more open. Should all dates be acknowldeged or only the most common? What sources are considered reliable? Should the graduation date be mentioned? Can an old consensus be overriden?  Peregrine981 (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is far too vague and wideranging questions to get any usable consensus. Please re-phrase.Active Banana  (bananaphone 18:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK sorry, I will reform the question: Should we use the specific birth years 1961-1981. Or should we say early 1960s to early 1980s. And should we drop the reference to the 1999 graduation year.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: What should the wording of the introduction be? 

message: It seems to me that even defining Gen X as those born in the early 60s to early 80s is flawed. I mean, people's experiences are going to be totally different.
Even if you have a sibling who is more than say, 10+ years older/younger then you, their life experiences will greatly differ from your own. 
People born in the 60s will have pretty much NOTHING in common with those born 20 years after. It could be argued that those born with 20 years between them could be parent and offspring too!
The term generation should be nearer the 9 year mark. I think anything over 10 is excessive, let alone 15-20 years!
Who agrees? 
:DUDE. please start signing you posts. It's really annoying having these random thoughts floating around. Anyway, you are correct in some ways. A lot of the research on these topics is pretty flimsy, and essentially just a rehashing of myths, conventional wisdom, and a few people who actually have tried to study it. But it's an inherently difficult topic to quantify considering the generalisations involved, and the broadness of the human experience from country to country, region to region, class to class etc... That is part of the problem these articles encounter. Everyone seems to have a different idea of what constitutes a "generation." I have noticed that the "research" on X, Y, and Z often seems to blend together, making it hard to sort out whether these are truly separate entities, as much as just modern trends that can be extrapolated onto everyone who's alive today. But, this is wikipedia, and our random speculation isn't really the point. Peregrine981 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a chat forum. It does not matter what we think, only that it is a topic that has been (in this case widely) discussed in reliable sources. Active Banana  (bananaphone 18:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: TLDRActive Banana  (bananaphone 23:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: sorry, was not intended as anything of the sort. I'm just getting tired of you not following the most basic of simple courtesies to sign your posts in order to keep the discussion clear. If you want to engage in a discussion where no one can tell who said what, I guess no one's going to stop you, but it just seems unnecessarily complicating. You don't even need to register in order to do it.... peace. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone else agree that the whole concept of Generations is flawed? 

message: We have to come to some resolution to this issue, because I think we all agree this protracted dispute is fairly ridiculous and I don't think it should be so hard to come to a consensus. Let's forget about whatever disputes we may have had in the past and work on moving forward. I'll lay out my basic position on the relevant issues under discussion, and hopefully we can discuss on that basis.
I think that the graduation date is irrelevant to the introduction. 
*If we already state years, then the graduation date is self evident and redundant.
*No source that I have seen says that the fact of graduating in 1999 is particuarly important to the definition of Gen X (or Gen Y).
*Graduation dates will vary from educational system to system, and person to person. Why get so specific about it? Is it really a vital piece of information for the summary?
*The sources used for this are discussing primarily Millennials. Of course that is not necessarily a huge problem, but surely we should be using sources that mainly discuss Gen X, and doubly so when the information is contested. "Negative" definitions are much more dubious than positive.
Date Range. 1961-81 may be the most common cited date range, but it is not the only one. If we say 1961-81 it gives the impression that these are the only years that encompass the generation. According to WP:NPOV policy we should fairly represent credible POVs, which we don't if we limit it strictly to those years.
*Numerous sources do discuss birth dates that differ significantly from this, and some mention later birth dates. I don't think it is really worth getting into a tit for tat listing of sources here, but we could do so if you wish. A quick internet search will turn up numerous sources listing other dates.
*Giving such specific dates is artificial when not correlated to a specific definition for the generation. As numerous sources say, these cultural generations are not rigid. This is a "soft" science that does not lend itself to such specific definitions.
*Specifics like this will almost inevitably lead to "vandalism" and edit warring by people who have slightly different definitions. Let's save ourselves the headache.
Background of the term. 
*I think it is entirely appropriate to mention briefly former uses of the term in the intro, per WP:LEAD.
Miscellaneous
* "The term Generation X has been used in demography, the social sciences, and marketing, though it is most often used in popular culture." Also kind of self evident... Seems to me to be a fairly useless inclusion. 
Best regards, Peregrine981 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you two should wait until this issue gets resolved before you overhaul the article. I am currently in discussion with a couple of administrators and other editors, so please wait. I will address the issues on this talk page. I should note that I do not have a problem with indicating "no exact time frames". CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Forward with Introduction 

message: If Jane Deverson's Generation X were teenagers in 1965 then that means they were born between 1946 and 1952.
Derbyadhag (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to this, I meant, that Jane Deverson's information belongs in the Origins section, not in the introduction. The source is an old one (published in 1964) and does not reflect how the term is generally used today. There will probably additions to the introduction over the next couple of years, but facts from sources such as Deverson's should be expanded upon in the proper section, not the introduction. I think I found a source or two discussing Deverson's work, but one of them only mentioned her work in passing - so I do no think that would be useful to this article. One website was about trash fiction - hardly appropriate. Her book is not even widely available, so I think it would be difficult in lifting more passages from it. Good secondary sources are all right, but primary sources are always better whenever available. Perhaps I can ask my English cousin to pick up a copy. Now that I I think about it, I might still have a British newspaper article on this book. I remember the article (2005?) mentioning the original term for Generation X meaning something different from how the term is used today. Something about the "swinging sixities." CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In traditional British usage, aren't Generation X a radical subset of the baby boomers. 

message: Again one can say over and over again the start/end years of Generation X and Y. However Creative the majority of your sources are contradicted by another article and sometimes from the same source and so are mine for that matter: 
Here you quoted USA Today: 
From a USA Today article entitled Civic Generation' Rolls Up Sleeves in Record Numbers, written by Andrea Stone and published April 19, 2009:
Surveys show people born between 1982 and 2000 are the most civic-minded since the generation of the 1930s and 1940s, say Morley Winograd and Michael Hais, co-authors of Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics.
HOWEVER in 2008 USA Today claimed years 1978-1982 are years part of Generation X AND Millennials 
Is this the next baby boom?'''
----
Psychology
HERE YOU CITED A PSYCHOLOGICAL SOURCE from Psychiatric Times titled Twitter and YouTube: Unexpected Consequences of the Self-Esteem Movement?, written by Lauren D. LaPorta, MD, which was published on October 29, 2009:
HOWEVER HERE IS MY PSYCHOLOGICAL SOURCE: which you completely ignored because again it did not serve your validation: Generational Cycles in Mass Psychology: Implications for the George W. Bush Administration by Ted Goertzel, Rutgers University Generation X is referenced as 1965-1982 and additional sources are cited in this text. 
----
The New Millennium
You keep trying to dispute the year for the actual beginning of the third millennium. While I am not disputing that the year 2000 is what is referred to commonly in our society as the start of the millennium but again our society is uneducated and this info is WRONG. And its misinformation like this that is polluting our society with complete ignorance. Yes the Honorable Richard Danzig, Secretary of the Navy U.S. Naval Observatory said the quote you posted. I am NOT disputing this, but again he is wrong. Its sad that this honorable man does not even know what is posted in the Observatory that he indeed represents. Again you are disputing and ignoring what is posted on the OFFICIAL site for the U.S. Naval Observatory. US NAVY 
In addition The Royal Observatory in Greenwich, England which is the official timekeeper for England, and where international time is based concludes: "A millennium is an interval of 1000 years and a century is an interval of 100 years. In the Gregorian Calendar, which we use, there is no year zero and the sequence of years near the start runs as follows;..., 3BC, 2BC, 1BC, 1AD, 2AD, ... Because there is no year zero, the first year of the calendar ends at the end of the year named 1AD. By a similar argument 100 years will only have elapsed at the end of the year 100AD. Since 2000AD is the 2,000th year of the Christian calendar, it will be the last year of the Second Millennium. So the 3rd Millennium and the 21st Century will begin at the same moment, namely zero hours UTC (commonly known as GMT) on January 1st 2001." 
The Gregorian calendar is used internationally as I stated previously. Anyone can look this up. 
----
Employement
Creative you quoted this article in terms of Millennials and the workforce:
From the article, Today's CEOs: Then and Now: Here's a Look at How Some Corporate Leaders Got Their Start in Business, Plus Lessons They Learned Along the Way, written by John DeBruicker and published June 9, 2006:
However I posted the following sources weeks before in terms of generation X and employement and you simply ignored it:
“Generations at Work”; Andrew Schwartz; April 22, 2009. Generation X: Born 1965-1982.
----
Education 
Again you referenced this source in terms of education: 
Emory University sources cite 1982 (2006 and 2010 articles) as the start of the Millennials (see here, here, and here). Harvard University also promotes researchers from the Millennial Makeover Project authors Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais (who were guest speakers). Here is one article about them from the university's newspaper, The Harvard Crimson. Now, a Columbia University assembly discusses health among Millennials, published on November 6, 2009:
HOWEVER I referenced these educational sources which you ignored:
“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).
“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.
----
Again this is mere opinion but the only reason I believe Strauss and Howe are the forefront of generational research is the number of publications and no one has directly challenged them. No one has written as much about cultural generations in most recent years. However their research is faulty, and that is why I am concluding we cannot deny other sources and you cannot deny them because you don't like them or do not agree with them. Again I will keep asking show me where Elwood Carlsons source is a minority view. Even if it is it does not mean his information is wrong. Show me a number of sources that show his info is wrong please. 
And as always here are all the sources you have ignored. These are not blogs, youtube videos or short written articles. These sources pertain to Generation X in many different aspects including economically, employment etc. You choose to ignore these articles because they do not fit yyour agenda. First of all I have NEVER stated that the years 1961-1981 are not the most commonly used years when identifying Generation X, especially in more recent years. However, there are a vast number of sources that state otherwise, and I will not allow these sources to be ignored. You can conduct undercover consensus if you like, however I am conducting in depth research and speaking with administrators as well.
"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.
“Generation X” Generational Advisor Newsletter (2009), Generation X 1965-1985 and Generation Y 1983-2002. http://generationaladvisor.com/2009/03/generational-primer-gen-x/
----
Again I am proposing that the intro does not include years, and the date ranges be references later in the article. If the class of 1999 is the last class of generation X based on persons born in 1981, then one would have to include several persons born in 1981 that graduated in 2000, and this is not a small group of people. I have named actual celebrity figures born in 1981 that graduated in 2000, and persons born in 1982 who graduated in 1999. But you chose to ignore this because you want to eliminate factual cited information (not original research) because you want to I suppose brag about being in the last class of the millennium/20th century and generation X. Well I am sorry but contrary to popular belief this information is wrong. And I think that its disappointing that you are living your life based on one big lie. Even if it wasn't a lie, how is being the last of Generation X helping your life. Unless you are a rich author like William Strauss then I don't see how. I hate invoking opinions and personal issues into this, but its hard not to because you are going to be biased because you graduated in 1999 and were born in 1981. Educatedlady (talk) 06:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction of Articles 

message: Where is this alledged 'Consensus' taking place? Why is the discussion NOT on this talk page. If there is discussion I want to be included. You cannot ban certain editors from this, and you cannot start a discussion or consensus without other editors who want to contribute. This is your way again Creative Soul of trying to get this page to show in your favor in attempt to validate you life with Generation X. It doesn't matter what is used commonly it is what is used period. Again many resources (valid I should say) use 82 as a end year for X and a start year for Y. I will not be shut out of any discussion on this matter. Again you are not the appointed administrator for this page, nor or you a spokesperson for any generation. Educatedlady (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2010 (UT
First of all, I am in discussion with Peregrine981 and have to respond to his previous comments. I have been slow in doing so only because I was extremely ill and had family things going on. I am also working on responding to you. Second of all, after your "consensus" was reached, the previous wording read, "usually no later than 1981", which is a true statement. Most sources use 1981 not 1982 (very few valid sources with supporting references) as the end of Generation X. The wording was a good compromise, because of the fact that there are no exact time frames. You decided on your own to change it to 1982. I have provided the most sources, and a variety of them, including the Australian Census Bureau, and at least two Millennial Conferences (specifically on the generational subject) using 1982 as the start of the Millennials. Even Peregrine981 has acknowledged that most sources use 1981 compared to 1982. By not specifying exact time frames, the phrase "usually no later than 1981" is a TRUE statement. Why anyone would think someone coming of age in 2000 is a Generation X member, is beyond logic. Despite few sources citing 1982 as part of Generation X (many with no references, just arbitrary dates), the only source to use 1983 as the start of the Millennials, with a focus on the September 11 tragedy, is Elwood Carlson - virtually unknown compared to more prominent demographers and researchers such as Strauss and Howe and Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais. These author are frequently consulted on the subject of generations. I can't say the same for Mr. Carlson. Also, I previously provided sources showing Australian demographers (one of the most well-known ones) also citing 1982 as the start of Generation Y, as well as source from the U.K. 
I have always said that most sources either use the mid to late 1970s or 1981 as the end date for Generation X. It is NOT AS COMMON to see 1982 as the end date. By saying "usually 1982," you are perpetuating a false statement by making it seem as if 1982 is more commonly used than it is. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus and Discussion 

message: Due to the long-running content dispute that has resulted in ongoing disruption for several months, I've fully protected the article.  When consensus is reached, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Remove redundancy in titles:
* Generation X in the United States → In the United States
* Generation X in Canada → In Canada
--Cybercobra (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it wouldn't hurt to say please though and make it sound like a requst and not an order! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titular redundancy